Page Ex parte . . . . . . . . Page 1 26 0. Chadderton . 10 v. Woburn, Inhabitants v. Rotherfield Grays 27, of, 202 28, 29 v. Wyllyams 368, 541 Sadler 693 v. Wymondham 478 v. St. Alban's, Inhabit- Rhodes v. Ainsworth 670, 671 , ants of, 140 586 v. St. Botolph 441 | Richardson v. Brown 156 v. St. John . . 545, 558 v. Goss 59 v. St. Margaret's, Leices- Rippiner v. Wright 446 ter 475 Risborough (Corporation of) 0. St. Michael's, Bath 437 v. Batter 633 v. St. Michael's at Thorn Roach v. Ostler 128 451 Robinson v. Vale 332 v. St. Nicholas, Abingdon v. Vickers 322 451 Robson v. Hall 129 v. St. Pancras 449 | Rock v. Leighton 268 v. St. Paul's, Bedford 448 Rodgers v. Jows 216 v. Sandhurst 430 Roe v. Briggs 269 v. Scammonden 471 Rogers v. Pitcher. 291, 706, 707 v. Somersetshire, Jus v. Rathburn. 157 tices of, . . Rose v. Bowler 181, 183, 184 v. Sparrow : 278 156 v. Stainforth and Keadby Rowe v. Roach 506 Canal Company 596 | Rudd's case 202 v. Stockbridge 15 | Rushforth v. Hadfield 58, 60 Stone . 19 Rushton v. Aspinall 400 v. Tamworth 475 536 St. Nicholas v. St. Peter in 465 v. Trent and Mersey Ca- St. Paul's, Walden, z. Kimpton nal Company 23 470 v. Trowbridge 16 Salomons v. Stavely 401, 403 o. Twyning 687 Sandiman v. Bridge 457 v. Varlo. 388 Saunders v. Wakefield 711 v. Vernon 269 Savile v. Jackson 492 v. Warley 665 Scandover v. Warne 268 v. Warlow 381, 387 Scott v. Scholey 138 v. Warminster 427, 667, V. Stevens 187 690 Scrace v. Whittington 239 Westerham 440 Sears v. Brink . 711, 712 v. Whitehaven 442 Selby v. Robinson 655 v. Wigston 460 Serra v. Fyffe 495, 496 υ. Williamson 528 v. Wright 495 v. Witten cum Twam- Shaddick v. Bennett 567 brookes 30, 32 Shadgett v. Clipson 207 . . Page . . . . . . . . . . . Page Shepherd v. Johnson 491 Thompson v. Trail 341 Shipley v. Cooper 142 v. Whitmore 52 Sbirly v. Right 319 v. Woodbridge. 156 Shore v. Bentall 680 | Thornely v. Hebson · 677, 679, Shove v. Pincke 38 681, 682 Shum v. Farrington 507 Throckmorton v. Tracy 286 Skinner v. Gunton 285 Todd v. Maxfield 589, 590 Skip v. Huey 239 Tomkins v. Ashby 525, 706 Skipwith v. Gibson and ano- Touchin's case 318 ther 156 | Traub v. Schmidt 306 Simson v. Ingham 311 Trueman v. Hurst 522 Simpson v. Hill 215 Tubb v. Woodward 323 v. Titterell 701 Tupper v. Powell 157 Smith v. Hodson 7 Turner v. Meymott 221 v. Milles 221 v. Patten 266 V. 454 269 v. Stafford 532 647 Solarte v. Melville 137, 155 Vernon's case 566 Solly v. Forbes 40 Vice v. Lady Anson 264, 265 Somerset, Duke of, v. France, 269 Violett v. Patton 712 Spears v. Hartly. 59 576 Spenceley v. Robinson 484, 487 Spieres v. Parkin 286 U. Stadt v. Lill 710 Stapleton v. Conway 150 Underhill v. Ellicombe 110 Stapp v. Lill. 710 Stennel v. Hogg 285, 287 W. Stevens v. Lynch 566 Wadsworth et al. v. Champion, 156 v. Whistler 64 Wain v. Warlters 711, 712 Stephenson v. Hill 269 Walker v. Maitland, 51, 52, 53, Still v. Walls. 214 675 Stoveld v. Eade 129 187 Stovy v. Birmingham 111 239 Sutton v. Toomer 211, 706 Ward v. Harris 286 Levi 568 Warner v. Barber 585, 589 Tait v. Levi 679 Warter v. Hutchinson 46 Tardeveau v. Inns and Smith 156 | Warrington v. Furber 711 Tatham v. Hodgson 679 Watkins's case 425 Taunton v. Costar 221 v. Hewlett 526, 706 , Taylor v. Blair 566, 567 v. Taylor . 156 Templer v. M‘Lachlan 244 Watson Atkins 196 Thatcher v. Gamman 156 Waugh v. Bassell 597, 599 Thomas v. Heathorn 514 Webb v. Fox. 587, 596 Thompson v. Berry et al. 156 Webster v. Spooner 183 v. Thompson 156 Weldon v. Matthews 706 VOL. I. b v. Nash 156 . . . 0. . . . . Page Page Welch v. Ireland . 229 Williams v. Germaine 403 90, 92 Williamson v. Allison 227 Welsh v. Troyte 323 Wilson v. Knabley . 48 West v. Belcher v. Mackreth 221 Wheeler v. Collier 187 V. Royal Exchange 32S Assurance Company 165 White v. Wilson 448 420 v. Wright 201 Wiltshire v. Sidford : 221 Whitehead v. Tuckett 80 Winslow v. Dawson 156 v. Vaughan. 293 Winter v. White 225 Whitfield v. Broadwood 196 Wood o. Strickland 115 Whelpdale's case. 136 Worrall v. Hand 187 Wigford v. Gill 407, 408 Wright o. Clements 285 Wicker v. Norris 286 312 Wigley v. Ashton 182 88 Wilks v. Lorck 268 303 Willcocks v. Nichols 506 Wycalf v. 156 Williams v. Barber 245 Wythers v. Iseham 123 v. Bartholomew 566 V. The East India Y. Company 685 | Yaw v. Leman 196 . . . . CASES ARGUED AND DETERMINED IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH, IN MICHAELMAS TERM, IN THE EIGHTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF GEORGE IV. DURING the vacation, Sir Anthony Hart, Knight, ViceChancellor, was promoted to the office of Chancellor of Ireland, vacant by the resignation of the Right Honorable Lord Manners; and was succeeded by Launcelot Shadwell, of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn, Esq. On the first day of this term, Charles Frederick Williams, Esq., William Selwyn, Esq., and the Honorable Thomas Erskine, all of Lincoln's Inn, having been, in the course of the vacation, appointed his Majesty's Counsel Learned in the Law, were called within the Bar, and took their rank accordingly. Brewer and Gregory, Assignees of Pitter, a Bank rupt, v. Sparrow. 3.BH3 Assignees TROVER, by the plaintiffs, as assignees of one Pitter, cannot at first affirm the act a bankrupt, for certain goods of the bankrupt, alleged to of a creditor interfering have been wrongfully seized by the defendant. At the with the bank- trial, before Abbott, C. J., at the London adjourned sittings rupt's effects, after last Hilary term, the cause was referred to a barrisas a contract, and afterwards ter, with power to him, if he should find that the defendant disaffirm it as a tort; although acted in all things bonâ fide, and solely for the benefit of the such act, if creditors, to find that upon his award, in order to submit disaffirmed by them in the the question of law to the consideration of the Court. The first instance, arbitrator afterwards made his award, in which he stated would have amounted to a the following facts :conversion of the bankrupt's The commission of bankrupt issued against Pitter, on goods, and the 21st October, 1825, upon the petition of the plaintiff have rendered the creditor Brewer. The act of bankruptcy upon which the commisliable to the sion was founded, was committed on the 2d October, 1825. assignees in an action of tro- The assignment to the plaintiffs, under the commission, was executed on the 3d December, 1825. The goods for which the action was brought, consisted of the stock in trade, household furniture, and effects, found upon the premises of the bankrupt at Cheltenham, in Gloucestershire, where he had carried on business, until the 2d October, 1825, on which day he absconded, and left his dwellinghouse and shop. In consequence of the bankrupt having so absconded, a meeting was held on the evening of the 4th October, 1825, at the defendant's house in London, between the plaintiff Brewer (the petitioning creditor), the bankrupt's father, and the defendant, who was a creditor of the bankrupt; when, after some discussion as to what was best to be done for the benefit of the creditors, it was agreed that the defendant should go down immediately to Cheltenham. Accordingly, the defendant left London the same evening, and arrived at Cheltenham on the following morning, when he found the house and shop of the ver. |
Get this book in print
0 Reviews Reviews aren't verified, but Google checks for and removes fake content when it's identified Write review |