Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Insolvency - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 56 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.


 
 Ex parte Smith; 1800 - (1800) 5 Ves Jun 296
 
Smith -v- Stokes (1801) 1 East 363
1801

Lord Kenyon CJ
Insolvency
After a bankruptcy goods belonging to his partnership were received by the defendant Stokes. The commission in bankruptcy then issued. His partner died and his will was proved by Stokes and another. The assignees under the commission then brought an action in trover against Stokes. The action could not be maintained if Stokes as Strickland's executor was a tenant in common of the goods. Counsel for the plaintiffs contended: "The property was originally vested in the two partners as joint tenants, and nothing happened during the life of Strickland to convert their title into a tenancy in common; for he died before the commissioners' assignment was made, and consequently before the bankrupt laws had attached upon the legal title of the bankrupt so as to destroy the joint tenancy. The act of bankruptcy, which happened before Strickland's death, could not of itself operate to dissolve the joint-tenancy, or sever the title of the parties, and convert it into a tenancy in common ...... The relation back of the assignment to the act of bankruptcy, in order to avoid mesne acts of the bankrupt, is by force of the bankrupt laws, and is quite distinct in its operation from the change of title effected in the property by such assignment, from a joint tenancy in common, which results from the rules of the common law in consequence of the conveyance, and which has no relation back." Held: Rejecting the submission, "In this case it was not the act of bankruptcy alone that dissolved the joint tenancy, but the act of bankruptcy followed by the commission and assignment. Nothing passes to the assignees till the assignment; but when that is executed, they are in by legal relation to the time of the act of bankruptcy . . This is the essential object of the bankrupt laws, and the uniform operation of them". The court then referred to the exceptional case under the royal prerogative and continued "In all other instances the relation takes place. The effect of it then in this case is, that the assignees became tenants in common by relation from the time of the act of bankruptcy with the other partner in his lifetime, and since his decease with his representatives, one of whom is the present defendant; and then the rule of law attaches, that one tenant in common cannot maintain trover against another"
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Smith -v- Oriell (1801) 1 East 368
1801


Insolvency

1 Citers


 
Wylie -v- Duncan 1803 M 10269; 3 Ross's LC 134
1803

Lord President Campbell
Scotland, Insolvency
Wylie sold certain tenements to Archibald who took infeftment on the disposition. On the same day as he received the disposition Archibald granted a letter to Wylie binding himself to resell the tenements to Wylie on six months' notice. The following year Archibald was sequestrated and the trustee, who was infeft, sold the tenements. Wylie then produced the letter and insisted that the original transaction had been intended as a security for a loan. He therefore claimed to be entitled to redeem the tenements on payment of the sum borrowed. He brought proceedings against the trustee before the Glasgow magistrates who assoilzied the trustee. Archibald appealed to the Court of Session, arguing that the trustee must take the debtor's property tantum et tale, subject to the right of redemption. Held: Personal qualifications which do not appear in the record are unavailing as real burdens on the property and are of no effect against third parties: "The question, however, must always return to this, What was truly the extent of real right in the debtor? And although he may be under a relative personal obligation, the real right legally constituted is that only which his sasine bears, and of which it gives assurance to the public; and accordingly, it has at last been held that such personal exceptions have no effect against creditors" The bankrupt was under an obligation to reconvey the property to the seller on demand, on the ground that that was not a case of a trust qualifying the title of the trustee but was a case where the bankrupt had purchased the estate "out-and-out" and that the obligation to reconvey was purely personal. "Tantum et tale has often been pleaded against adjudgers; and if good against them, would be so against trustees. But the law for some time has held otherwise…. Tantum et tale is good as to objections, which go to the extinction of the subject adjudged; eg if heritable bond adjudged, extinction is a good answer. If right qualified gremio, that is also a good answer. But if not, as here, and not going to extinction, it is a mere personal matter, which touches not the adjudger more than a lender on heritable bond…. As to an adjudger, if there is any doubt, let us solemnly hear the case. But I hold that there is none. He takes on the faith of the record, not tantum et tale."
1 Citers



 
 Robertson And Another, Assignees of Milburn, Hallowell, And Walmlsey, Bankrupts, -v- Sir Thos Henry Liddell, Bart; 28-May-1808 - [1808] EngR 211; (1808) 9 East 487; (1808) 103 ER 659
 
Robertson And Another -v- Liddell, Bart [1809] EngR 39; (1809) 10 East 416; (1809) 103 ER 833 (B)
25 Jan 1809


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Sterling, Ex Parte [1809] EngR 447; (1809) 16 Ves Jun 258; (1809) 33 ER 982
7 Aug 1809


Legal Professions, Insolvency
The court considered the status of a solicitor's lien over papers in his possession. Held: The lien was limited to the occasion on which they were delivered without a special agreement otherwise. One can infer from the client placing into the attorney's hands papers in the course of business, that he has to have a general lien.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Higinbotham -v- Holme [1812] EngR 249; (1811-1812) 19 Ves Jun 88; (1812) 34 ER 451
6 May 1812

Lord Eldon LC
Insolvency
A settlement entered into disposing of property into a trust for himself and others when the donor was not endebted, but which provided that on his bankruptcy would pay an annuity to his wife, was void as against creditors on his later bankruptcy. Lord Eldon LC said: "It is not competent to a party, giving a consideration for a contract, that is a direct fraud upon the Bankrupt Laws, to have the benefit of it. I cannot assimilate this to the case of the wife's property limited until the bankruptcy of her husband; that is, where she reserves a power over her own property; or to the case of a lease made determinable by the bankruptcy of the lessee: that is a reservation by the owner of the property of a power over it . ."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Haigh And Others, Assignees, & of Lazarus And Cohen -v- De La Cour [1812] EngR 442; (1812) 3 Camp 319; (1812) 170 ER 1396
2 Nov 1812


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
De La Torre -v- Barclay And Salkeld [1815] EngR 106; (1815) 1 Stark 7; (1815) 171 ER 385 (A)
1815


Insolvency
A qualified admission by a party who relies on an objection, which would at any time have been a good defence to the action, does not take a case out of the Statute of Limitations. An agreement between the holder and the acceptor of a bill (dishonoured for non-payment), that the acceptor shall pay to the holder the amount of the bill. and no more, discharges the drawer, although his assignees (he being then a bankrupt) are parties to such agreement.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Taylor and Another -v- Sir Thomas Plumer [1815] EWHC KB J84; (1815) 3 M & S 562
10 Feb 1815
KBD
Lord Ellenborough CJ
Insolvency, Equity
Sir Thomas Plumer gave a bank draft to a stockbroker for the purpose of buying exchequer bills, and the stockbroker instead used the draft for buying American securities and doubloons for his own purposes. Held: Sir Thomas was able to trace his property into the securities and doubloons in the hands of the stockbroker, and so defeat a claim made to them by the stockbroker's assignees in bankruptcy.
1 Citers

[ Bailii ]
 
Bedford -v- Deakin And Two Others [1816] EngR 14; (1816-1819) 2 Stark 178; (1816) 171 ER 612 (B)
1816


Company, Insolvency
The plaintiff holding a bill of exchange as a security from three partners, after the dissolution of the copartnership, and after the bankruptcy of one of them, takes the notes of one of them as a collateral security, without the knowledge of the other partners and retains, the original security in his hands. This does not discharge the other partners.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Devaynes -v- Noble; Baring -v- Noble, Clayton's Case [1816] 1 Mer 572; [1814-23] All ER Rep 1; [1816] 35 ER 781
1816
CA
Grant MR
Banking, Company, Insolvency
A partner in a banking firm died. The surviving partners continued to trade without making any changes. They later fell into bankruptcy. Creditors of the bank at the date of the death still traded with the bank with varying changes in their banking accounts. Held: The fact that they continued to trade with the continuing partners did not discharge the estate of the deceased partner. Grant MR said: "I apprehend by the general mercantile law, a partnership contract is several as well as joint. That may probably be the reason why courts of equity have considered joint contracts of this sort, that is joint in form, as standing on a different footing from others."
1 Citers

[ Worldii ]
 
The King, In Aid of Bunk And Another, -v- Cripps And Others, Assignees of Montgomery And Another, Bankrupts [1817] EngR 310; (1817) 3 Price 606; (1817) 146 ER 367 (A)
12 Feb 1817


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
William Akhurst And Edward Barr Dudding, Assignees of John Philips, A Bankrupt, Plaintiffs, -v- Thomas Jackson And James Heuster, Defendants [1818] EngR 249; (1818) 1 Swans 85; (1818) 36 ER 308
16 Feb 1818


Insolvency
A sole trader having agreed, in consideration of a sum payable by instalments, to take two persons into partnership with him for a period of 18 years, and having become bankrupt five months after the commencernent of the partnership, when only one instalment was due, his assignees are entitled, at the respective periods, to receive the remaining instalments.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Wilson -v- Greenwood [1818] EngR 607; (1818) 1 Swans 471; (1818) 36 ER 469
17 Jul 1818

Lord Eldon LC
Insolvency
Articles of partnership having provided, that on dissolution by death, notice, or misconduct, of a partner, the remaining partners should have the option of taking his share at a valuation, payable by yearly instalments in the course of seven years: and that on the bankruptcy or insolvency of a partner, the partnership should be immiediately void as to him ; by a deed, four years subsequent, the partners declared (after a recital that such was their intention in the articles), that in the event of bankruptcy or insolvency, the same arrangement should be practised as on dissolution by death, notice, or misconduct : one of the partners having become bankrupt within a few months after the execution of the latter deed, his assignees are not bound by it. Whether a provision in articles of partnership, that on the bankruptcy of a partner his share shall be taken by the solvent partners, at a sum to be fixed by valuation, and payable by installments in a course of years, is not void by the statutes concerning bankrupts.
An owner of property may, on alienation, qualify the interest of his alienee, by a condition to take effect on bankruptcy; but cannot, by contract or otherwise, qualify his own interest by a like condition, determining or controlling it in the event of his own bankruptcy, to the disappointment or delay of his creditors.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wilson -v- Greenwood [1818] EngR 608; (1818) 1 Wils Ch 223; (1818) 37 ER 97 (B)
17 Jul 1818


Insolvency

1 Cites

[ Commonlii ]
 
Wilson -v- Greenwood [1819] EngR 172; (1819) 10 Sim 102; (1819) 59 ER 551 (B)
1819


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Haywood, Gent -v- Chambers [1822] EngR 333; (1822) 5 B & A 753; (1822) 106 ER 1366 (B)
18 May 1822


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe d Lloyd -v- Powell (1826) 5 B & C 11
1826

Holt J
Insolvency
A lessee executed a deed by which he conveyed all his real and personal property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors. This was an act of bankruptcy. A commission was issued against him and he was declared bankrupt. He then sought to forfeit the lease for breach of a covenant against assigning the lease without the consent of the lessor. Held: the assignment, being an act of bankruptcy, was void and did not operate as a valid assignment of the lessee's interest, with the result that there was no forfeiture. "Consequently the bankrupt's assignment to the trustees not only became void and a nullity ab initio, but was actually avoided by the bankruptcy and the proceedings under the same before any advantage was attempted to be taken of the supposed forfeiture. Under these circumstances, for want of the deed's operating in law as an assignment, it was not in consideration of law an assignment by the bankrupt; but in that respect the same as if no such deed had ever been executed by him; and we think that the answers given to this by the lessor, viz. that it would then depend on a subsequent contingency (viz. the issuing of a commission &c, whether the bankrupt's deed would operate a forfeiture or not, and that it would be good in the interim) is no sufficient answer to this objection against the forfeiture, the bankrupt's deed being void and avoided ab initio, and the title of the assignees of the bankrupt's estate and effects commencing by relation from the time of execution of that deed...In consequence of that contingency (viz. the proceedings under the bankruptcy having taken place), no assignment (the event on which the forfeiture was to arise) has in effect happened..."
1 Citers



 
 Slack -v- Tolson; 4-Aug-1826 - [1826] EngR 1119; (1826) 1 Russ 553; (1826) 38 ER 213
 
Cook And Others, Assignees of Griffin, A Bankrupt, -v- Palmer [1827] EngR 41; (1827) 6 B & C 739; (1827) 108 ER 623
1827


Insolvency
Where a sheriff's officer had seized under a fi. fa. goods of a trader, more than sufficient to satisfy the levy, and the trader having become bankrupt, and assignees chosen before the goods were sold, the assignees authorised the officer to deliver the whole of the goods to AB and to receive from him a certain sum as the full value of the goods, which he did accordingly, and out of that money satisfied the execution creditor, but never paid over the residue to the assignees: Held, that they could not sue the sheriff for this money, the officer not having derived his authority to sell the whole of the goods from the sheriff, but from the plaintiffs, the assignees.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Bernascont And Others, Assignees Of Chambers And Others, Bankrupts, -v- The Duke Of Argyle [1827] EngR 697; (1827) 3 Car & P 29; (1827) 172 ER 308
29 Oct 1827


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Mott -v- Mills And Others [1827] EngR 888; (1827) 3 Car & P 197; (1827) 172 ER 385
22 Dec 1827


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
In The Matter Of Bruce [1827] EngR 887; (1827) 4 Russ 223; (1827) 38 ER 789 (B)
22 Dec 1827


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Yates And Another, Assignees of Marshall, A Bankrupt, -v- Carnsew [1828] EngR 318; (1828) 3 Car & P 99; (1828) 172 ER 341
14 Jan 1828


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Bernasconi And Others, Assignees of Chambers, -v- Anderson And Ux Administratrix Of Anderson [1828] EngR 635; (1828) M & M 183; (1828) 173 ER 1124 (C)
2 Jun 1828


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Coleman -v- Waller [1829] EngR 38; (1829) 3 Y & J 212; (1829) 148 ER 1156
1829


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Chambers -v- Bernasconi And Another [1830] EngR 548; (1830) 6 Bing 499; (1830) 130 ER 1373
3 May 1830


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Chambers -v- Bernasconi And Others [1831] EngR 29; (1831) 1 Cr & J 451; (1831) 148 ER 1499
1831


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lester -v- Garland [1832] EngR 498; (1832) 5 Sim 205; (1832) 58 ER 314
24 Mar 1832

Sir L Shadwell VC
Trusts, Insolvency
A trader on his marriage received a fortune of £5000 with his wife ; and settled a sum of stock in trust for himself for life, with limitations over for the benefit of his wife and children, in the event of his becoming bankrupt or insolvent. And it was provided that if he should survive his wife, and the issue of the marriage should fail, and he should then be or should have been a bankrupt, 15 sixty-sixths of the stock should belong to the wife’s next of kin in blood. No part of the £5000 was settled; but the whole of the settled fund was the husband's property, and it did not appear, from any of the expressions in the settlement, what was the consideration for the provisions as to 15 sixty-sixths of the stock. Held: that the limitation over in the event of the bankruptcy of the husband were good as to 15 sixty-sixths of the trust fund, that being the proportion of the trust fund which the wife’s fortune would have purchased, but were void as to the remainder.
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Corbould, Assignee Of Ward, An Insolvent Debtor -v- Broadhurst [1832] EngR 730; (1832) 1 M & Rob 189; (1832) 174 ER 64 (B)
9 Jul 1832


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Abraham Henry Chambers, The Elder -v- Bernasconi And Others [1834] EngR 1; (1834) 1 CrM & R 347; (1834) 149 ER 1114
1834


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
James and Others, Assignees of Arthur Emerson, A Bankrupt, -v- Griffin And Another [1836] EngR 118; (1836) 1 M & W 20; (1836) 150 ER 329
1836


Contract, Insolvency
Where goods, consigned to A in London, and deliverable in the river, were by his direction, he being then insolvent, landed on a wharf at which he had been in the habit of landing goods, A having no premises adjoining the river, but having a warehouse in the city ; and the goods were stopped in transitu in the hands of the wharfinger : Held, in action of trover for the goods by the assignees of A (who became bankrupt a few days afterwards) against the wharfingers, that the proper question to be left to the jury was, whether the wharfingers received the goods as A's agents to take possession of them for his own benefit as owner, or as agents only to forward them to him, or to keep them for the seller. Held, also, that directions given by A to an agent whom he sent to order the landing of the goods, in which he expressed his intention not to receive them as owner, were admissible in evidence, although they were not communicated to the wharfingers or to the seller.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Doe On The Several Demises Of Danson And Others -v- Parke [1836] EngR 602; (1836) 4 Ad & E 816; (1836) 111 ER 991
21 Apr 1836


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Goldsmid, Assignee Of Hirschfield, A Bankrupt, -v- Lewis [1836] EngR 769; (1836) 3 Bing NC 46; (1836) 132 ER 326 (B)
2 Jun 1836


Insolvency
Under section 50 of the Insolvent Debtors’ Act, an insolvent is discharged from damages and costs on a judgment in an action of tort, signed after the filing of his petition, if the verdict be obtained before.
[ Commonlii ]
 
James And Others, Assignees Of Arthur Emerson, A Bankrupt -v- Griffin And Hillhouse [1837] EngR 140; (1837) 2 M & W 623; (1837) 150 ER 906
1837


Contract, Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Neale -v- Mackenzie [1837] EngR 533; (1837) 1 Keen 474; (1837) 48 ER 389
22 Feb 1837


Insolvency, Landlord and Tenant

[ Commonlii ]
 
Slack -v- Sharpe [1838] EngR 666; (1838) 8 Ad & E 366; (1838) 112 ER 876
29 May 1838


Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Holt -v- Hardcastle; 3-Nov-1838 - [1838] EngR 882; (1838) 3 Y & C Ex 236; (1838) 160 ER 688
 
Pemberton -v- Topham [1838] EngR 936; (1838) 1 Beav 316; (1838) 48 ER 962
15 Nov 1838


Insolvency
Commonlii In a creditor’s suit instituted by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other creditors, the Defendant is entitled on motion, at any time before decree, to have the bill dismissed, on payment of the demand of the Plaintiff and his costs as between party and party; but if there be other defendants their costs must also be paid.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Ashley -v- Killick [1839] EngR 8; (1839) 5 M & W 509; (1839) 151 ER 215
1839


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Cherry -v- Boultbee (1839) My Cr 442; [1839] EngR 1099; (1839) 4 My & Cr 442; (1839) 41 ER 171
22 Nov 1839
HL
Cottenham LC
Wills and Probate, Insolvency
B died having made a will leaving a fund to pay income to A who owed her money but had been made bankrupt before the death. The debt to B remained unpaid. Held: The liability to pay the debt and the right to receive the legacy had never tested in the same person, and therefore B's executors remained liable to pay the income as set out in the will.
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Green And Another, Assignees of Ashley, A Bankrupt -v- Kettleby [1840] EngR 99; (1840) 6 M & W 731; (1840) 151 ER 607
1840


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Moore And Another Assignees Of Tompkins, A Bankrupt -v- Phillipps, Esq [1841] EngR 319; (1841) 7 M & W 536; (1841) 151 ER 879
29 Jan 1841


Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]
 
Robert Chase and Joseph Hill -v- Thomas Goble [1841] EngR 614; (1841) 2 Man & G 930; (1841) 133 ER 1021
6 May 1841


Insolvency
A conveyance by a trader of his effects at a certain place is not an act of bankruptcy, unless it be shewn that he had no other effects.-Goods seized under a fi. fa., issued by A. against B. are claimed by C. In a feigned issue between C. and A., to try whether the goods were, at the time of the seisure, the goods of C., it is competent to A. to negative the title of C. by shewing that the goods, though seized by A. and claimed by C., passed to the assignees of B. by relation to an act of bankruptcy committed by B. before the seizure, and before the conveyance under which C. claims.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Leake -v- Loveday And Brooks [1842] EngR 1063; (1842) 4 Man & G 972; (1842) 134 ER 399
21 Nov 1842


Insolvency
A in 1837 bought goods of B, and allowed B to remain in possession of them up to 1839, when B became bankrupt. B’s assignees made no claim, and B. retained possession of the goods until 1841, when the sheriff under a fi fa against B seized and sold the goods. After the sale B’s assignees gave notice of their claim to the sheriff, who upon receiving an indemnity handed over the proceeds to them. In trover brought by A against the sheriff, held :-that, under the plea of not possessed, the sheriff might set up the title of the assignees.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Cook And Others, Assignees Of Williams Hitchcock, A Bankrupt, -v- Pritchard; 15-Jan-1843 - [1843] EngR 182; (1843) 5 Man & G 329; (1843) 134 ER 590
 
Collis, Assignee of French, An Insolvent Debtor, -v- Stone [1843] EngR 675; (1843) 4 QB 655; (1843) 114 ER 1045
12 May 1843


Agency, Insolvency

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Pritchard -v- Hitchcock; 6-Jun-1843 - (1843) 6 Man & G 151; [1843] EngR 760 (B)
 
Dalzell -v- Cullen [1843] EngR 1002; (1843) 12 M & W 1; (1843) 152 ER 1085
2 Nov 1843


Insolvency
Where a prisoner is brought up under a habeas corpus ad satisfaciendum, he is entitled to he discharged on payment of the debt and costs in the action, and cannot be detained until payment of the Court fees on the writ.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Jones -v- Mossop (1844) 3 Hare 568
1844

Sir James Wigram V-C
Insolvency, Equity
Mr Reed held a bond for £500 given by Mr Jones, who had also guaranteed some loans to Mr Reed by third parties. Mr Reed died insolvent and Mr Jones was called to pay £377 to the lenders under the guarantees. When Mr Reed's assignee Mr Mossop sued Mr Jones on the bond, he brought proceedings in equity claiming to be entitled to set off the £377 he had paid. Held: Because Mr Reed had never actually been made bankrupt, the insolvency rules did not apply and the court C gave relief under general equitable principles, saying "if Richard Reed had been bankrupt, I should have had no difficulty in deciding this case."
1 Citers


 
Hutchinson -v- Gillespie and Others [1844] UKPC 9
9 May 1844
PC

Commonwealth, Insolvency
(Canada)
[ Bailii ]
 
Petrie And Another -v- Cullen [1844] EngR 1025; (1844) 7 Man & G 1020; (1844) 135 ER 414
23 Nov 1844


Insolvency
A peremptory undertaking to try is an absolute engagement, the breach of which admits of no excuse; per Coltman and Maule JJ, dubitantibus, Tindal CJ and Erle J. A peremptory undertaking was given to try at the sittings after Trinity term, but the plaintiff did not enter the cause until the evening of the last day allowed for that purpose, in consequence of which it was made a remanet. On the first day of Michaelmas term, the defendant obtained a rule absolute for judgment as in case of a nonsuit. The court refused to discharge the rule or to set aside the judgment signed thereon, although the defendant had lain in prison ten months from inability to find bail for 25l., the amount of the debt sued for.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Clough -v- French [1845] EngR 1121 ©; (1845) 2 Coll 277
10 Jul 1845


Insolvency, Wills and Probate

[ Commonlii ]
 
Beckham -v- Drake [1849] EngR 843; (1849) 2 HLC 579; (1849) 2 HL Cas 579; (1849) 9 ER 1213
11 Jul 1849
HL
Lord Mansfield, Erle CJ
Contract, Insolvency
An action was brought on a contract for hiring and service, where the plaintiff was to serve for seven years, and the defendant to pay weekly wages during that time; and the breach was a dismissal during the seven years. The plaintiff, after this breach, and before the commencement of the action, became bankrupt; and the question was, whether this cause of action passed from the plaintiff to his assignees. Held: Lord Mansfield said: "The general principle is, that all rights of the bankrupt which can be exercised beneficially for the creditors do so pass, and the right to recover damages may pass though they are unliquidated . . This principle is subject to exception. The right of action does not pass where the damages are to be estimated by immediate reference to pain felt by the bankrupt in respect of his body, mind or character, and without immediate reference to his rights of property. Thus it has been laid down that the assignees cannot sue for breach of promise of marriage, for criminal conversation, seduction, defamation, battery, injury to the person by negligence, as by not carrying safely, not curing, not saving from imprisonment by process of law …"
1 Cites

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.