Adjourned Sittings at Guildhall, after Hilary BEFORE MR. JUSTICE J. PARKE, (Who sat for the Lord Chief Justice.) 1832. WARD V. BIRD. MONEY had and received. Plea-General issue. It was opened by Comyn, for the plaintiff, that, in the year 1826, the plaintiff had compounded with his creditors, and that the defendant had refused to sign the composition deed, unless he was paid in full; and that he was paid 187., being the full amount of his debt, instead of 6s. in the pound, the amount of composition specified in the deed: and he cited Turner v. Hoole (a). The composition deed, executed by the defendant, as a creditor for 187., and by other creditors for other sums, was could not redifference beamount and 6s. cover back the tween the full put in. By it, the plaintiff stipulated to pay a composition of 6s. in the pound, for which he was to give promissory in the pound, It was also proved, that 187. had been subsequent- that the compo ly paid to the defendant. without proving sition notes had been paid, or giving some evidence that would Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-You do not prove that the notes be equivalent to were given under the composition deed. such proof. (a) D. & R. N. P. C. 27. There the defendant, after he had signed a composition deed in favour of his debtor, the plaintiff, induced the latter to give him bills of exchange for the full amount of the debt, dated on the day before the composition deed bore date; and after receiving one instalment, sued the plaintiff on the bills, 1832. WARD บ. BIRD. Comyn. This defendant did not stand on his legal rights; but he signs the deed, and holds out to the other creditors that he is taking the same rate as they do. Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-You have not proved that you have performed your part of the agreement respecting the composition. Comyn. I submit, that, as it is proved that the defendant received 20s. in the pound, it is unnecessary to prove the composition notes. Mr. Justice J. PARKE.-I think, that you ought to prove that the composition notes were paid, or give some evidence that is equivalent. Comyn, for the plaintiff. Campbell, for the defendant. [Attornies-Lloyd, and Hodgson & H.] BEFORE LORD TENTERDEN, C. J. Nonsuit. Feb. 20th. JEFFERY and Another, Assignees of PENNINGTON, an Insolvent, v. ROBINSON. In an action by CASE. The declaration stated, that the insolvent had the assignee of an insolvent, it delivered a mare to the defendant to be sold for the best price that could be gotten; but that the defendant, not revisional assign- garding his duty, sold the mare for much less than the is necessary to prove the pro ment, although, by the Insolvent best price that could be gotten. There were also two Debtors' Act, 7 Geo. 4, c. 57, it must be executed at the time of signing the petition, on which the adjudication of the Insolvent Debtors' Court (which is a court of record) is founded. counts in trover. In one of them the conversion was alleged to have accrued before the insolvency, and in the other to have accrued after the insolvency. Plea-General issue. To prove the title of the plaintiffs as assignees, the adjudication in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, and the order for the insolvent's discharge, were proved, and also the assignment from the provisional assignee to the plaintiffs; but no evidence was given of the provisional assignment from the insolvent to the provisional assignee. Sir J. Scarlett and Nichols, for the defendant, contended, that the provisional assignment ought to be proved. Tancred and Cooke, for the plaintiffs.-The Insolvent Debtors' Court is a court of record, and the due execution of the provisional assignment is a necessary step before the adjudication, as, by the Insolvent Act, the provisional assignment is to be executed at the time of subscribing the petition (a); it is, therefore, no more necessary to prove (a) By the 11th sect. of the 7 Geo. 4, c. 57, it is enacted, "That such prisoner shall, at the time of subscribing the said petition, duly execute a conveyance and assignment to the provisional assignee of the said Court, in such form as is to this act annexed, of all the estate, right, title, interest, and trust of such prisoner, in and to all the real and personal estate and effects of such prisoner, both within this realm and abroad, except the wearing apparel, bedding, and other such necessaries of such person, and his or her family, and the working tools and implements of such prisoner, not exceeding in the whole the value of 20%., and of all future estate, right, title, in terest, and trust of such prisoner, 1832. JEFFERY V. ROBINSON. 1832. JEFFERY v. ROBINSON. that than it would be to prove the issuing of a writ to support the proof of a judgment. Your Lordship will, as this is a Court of record, presume that the preliminary proceedings have been duly had. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-That would be a receipt. her before such discharge as aforesaid; which conveyance and assignment, so executed as aforesaid, in form aforesaid, shall vest all the real and personal estate and effects of such prisoner, and all such future real and personal estate and effects as aforesaid, of every nature and kind whatsoever, and all such debts as aforesaid, in the said provisional assignee; and the same shall be made subject to a proviso, that, in case the petition of any such prisoner shall be dismissed by the said Court, such conveyance and assignment shall, from and after such dismission, be null and void to all intents and purposes; and the said Court is hereby empowered to dismiss any such petition in the matter whereof a final adjudication shall not have been made in pursuance of this act, at any time when it shall seem fit to the said Court to dismiss the same: provided always, that where in any case, by leave of the said Court, any amendment shall be made in any such petition, or an amended petition shall be filed as of the date of the original petition, which the said Court is hereby empowered to do and authorize without dismissing such original petition, the assignment and conveyance executed in such case shall not thereby be affected, but shall stand good to all intents and purposes, notwithstanding such amendment or amended petition so filed as aforesaid." With respect to the execution of assignments by assignees, it is enacted, by the 2nd section of the statute 2 Will. 4, c. 44, "That from and after the passing of this act, the said assignees shall not be required to execute such counterpart as aforesaid, but that in lieu thereof the said provisional assignee shall execute every such conveyance and assignment as aforesaid in duplicate, and that one part of such conveyance and assignment so executed by such provisional assignee shall be filed of record in the said Court; and that a copy of any such record so made and so purporting to be certified and sealed as by the said first-recited act is directed for evidence of the records therein mentioned in that behalf, shall be recognised and received as sufficient evidence of such conveyance and assignment so to be executed as aforesaid, and of title under the same, as fully and effectually in every respect as the said records are required to be recognised and received by the provisions of the said first-recited act, to all intents and purposes." for curing every thing. I think the plaintiff must be called. Tancred and Cooke, for the plaintiff. Nonsuit. Sir J. Scarlett and Nichols, for the defendant. [Attornies-O. Price, and L. Norton.] 1832. JEFFERY v. ROBINSON. TIDMAS V. LEES. WORK and labour. Plea-General issue. Feb. 20th. On a trial at cause was originally com menced in the On the part of the plaintiff, it was proposed to shew by dence that the the proceedings in the Palace Court, which were produced by the Prothonotary of that Court, that the action had been originally brought there, and that the defendant had in that Court suffered judgment to go by default. Palace Court, and that the de fendant let judgment go by default in that Court, and af Sir J. Scarlett objected that this evidence was not re- terwards receivable. Lord TENTERDEN, C. J.-I must receive evidence that the defendant let judgment go by default in the inferior Court, and then removed the cause by habeas corpus into the Court above. The evidence was received. For the defence, several witnesses proved that the plaintiff, who was a milliner's workwoman, came into the service of the defendant to improve herself, agreeing not to receive any salary or wages. Nonsuit. moved the cause by hab. corp., is admissible. |