« PreviousContinue »
1817. der the transaction invalid. evidence that it was not done
Crosby v. Crouch, 11 E. R. under such pressure, but voARBOUIN 256. Urgency on the part of luntarily, and with a view to
the creditor for a security, pro- prefer the particular creditor, HANBURY vided there be no suspicion of in conteinplation of bankruptand Another collusion, has been held suffi
cy; and is therefore void, as cient. In Smith v. Paine, 6 against the assignees of the T. R. 154, Lord Kenyon says, bankrupt. Thornton v. Har. “ There is no occasion for a greaves, 7 E. R. 544. Sed creditor under such circum
which destances to threaten an actual pends upon the particular cir. arrest;" and in Crosby v. cumstances. Crouch, Lord Ellenborough But, in a case where A. on the says, “ that bonâ fide urgency 8th of October purchased goods for a security will exclude the of B. for the purpose of exsecurity from being considered portation; but finding that he as a voluntary one : and it is must stop payment, and that he immaterial whether the debtor could not apply the goods to had or had not an act of bank- the purpose for which they ruptcy in contemplation at the were bought, he returned them time, if the creditor pressed to B. on October 16th : on the for payment or security, and 17th, he stopt payment; but, thereby obtained such payment expecting remittances from or security.”
abroad more than sufficient to Where a trader, being pay his debts, conceived that pressed by a creditor for pay- his creditors would give him ment or security, one or other time : they refused; and he of which, he said, he would was made bankrupt on Nohave, gave a bill of sale of cer. vember 2nd. In an action by tain wools and cloths in a the assignees against B., for the mill, apparently the whole of value of the goods; it was hold . his stock, and immediately left en by the Court of C. P.that the his business and home, and be jury were warranted in find. came a bankrupt; this, inas. ing, that the delivery of the much as the act done did not goods to B. was not made in redeem the trader even from contemplation of bankruptcy. any present difficulty, which Fidgeon v. Sharp, 1 Marsh, is the ordinary motive for such 196. an act, when really done un- So, where a creditor obe der the pressure of a threat, is tains a preference in contem
plation of an intended deed of a commission of bankrupt
HANBURY and Another
SUMMER ASSIZES, 57 GEORGE III.
GLEADON 0. TINKLER and Others.
A. B. and C. are part owners in a ship.
not to order
that he will
consider them as manag.
THIS was an action for the repair of a ship.
Wilkinson, one of the defendants, had let Sects B. and C. judgment go by default ; Thorney, another of the
defendants, had pleaded his bankruptcy ; and a any repairs in their joint nolle prosequi was entered as to him. The quespames, and informs them tion was, whether Tinkler was liable to the reno longer pairs. It was in evidence that he was the owner
of a third part in the ship. The Captain, who ing owners. was employed by Wilkinson and Thorney, had orRepairs were done in their dered the repairs; and the ship was debited, geneupon the di rally, in the plaintiff's books : no mention whatrection of the Captain em- ever was made of the name of Tinkler, but the and c. Meld names of Wilkinson and Thorney, the other partjointly liable. ners, appeared specifically.
The plaintiff's counsel, after having proved the repairs done, and that T'inkler had on several occasions acted as a part owner, rested their case here. The defendant's counsel then proposed to shew, that 'Tinkler had never personally concerned himself in ordering the repairs, and that 1817. Wilkinson and Thorney were the managing
GLEADON owners. They proposed likewise to give in evidence personal directions by Tinkler to Wil- TINKLER kinson and Thorney, by which he discharged them and o from acting as managing owners for the future; directing them not to pledge his credit for any repairs; adding, that he would not be answerable for any which they might order in the joint name. .
Littledale and Williams, for the plaintiff, objected to the admission of this evidence.
Hullock, serjeant, and Parke, for the defendants. Unless this evidence be admitted, how can the defendant, who is not liable upon an express undertaking, but merely as legal owner, shew that he revoked the authority of Wilkinson and Thorney to pledge his credit ? This evidence is offered to shew a determination of the agency of the other two defendants, by the act of Tinkler, who was competent so to do.
Lord Chief Baron RICHARDS.—The plaintiff has no notice given to him that Tinkler had discharged the other defendants from pledging their joint credit. One partner, by the necessary relation of law, may bind the other in matters relating to their common interest. A court of equity will sometimes interfere to restrain one partner from using the name of the firm in certain transactions. But, in general, he