HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0239 and id is 1 raw text is: was insufficient if pleaded by virtue of that statute. Also for that the said plea was
uncertain, informal, insufficient, &c.
Joinder in demurrer.
Ludlow S6rjt. in support of the demurrer.
The plea is ill. It is not a special plea of bankruptcy, because it does not state the
trading, petitioning creditor's debt, and other particulars necessary to complete a
bankruptcy ; nor is it a general plea under the statute 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 126, because
it neither pursues the words of the statute, which are, that such bankrupt may plead
in general that the cause of action accrued before he became bankrupt ; nor concludes
to the country, as it [688] ought to do. Miles v. Williams (1 P. Wins. 249), Geary v.
Baily (Fortese. 344), Poole v. Broadfield (Barnes, 330), Com. Dig. Pleader, (E) 32.
E. Lawes Serjt. contrs. The statute does not prescribe any particular form of
words, or prohibit a conclusion with a verification. And the language of this plea is
sufficient to shew it to be in substance a plea under the statute.
In Miles v. Williams the statute under which the defendant pleaded his bankruptcy
was imperative that he should plead in the form there prescribed; the 6 G. 4, c. 16,
enacts that he may so plead ; and where a plea contains new allegations of fact, it
ought to conclude with a verification. Hedges v. Sandon (2 T. R. 439).
PARK J.(e). I think this plea is ill. It has been urged that it is sufficient if in
substance according to the statute, and that the Defendant is not bound to adopt the
exact words of the clause. But he has not pursued the language, or given the effect,
of the statute; for I cannot agree that the cause of action, and the aforesaid
several debts and demands, are the same thing. Nor has he pleaded specially; for
had he done so, he must have stated many more particulars than are stated in this
plea. If the statute does not require a conclusion to the country, the practice of
pleading does, as appears by all the decided cases.
GASELEE J. It is true the statute does not require a conclusion to the country;
nor did the 5 G. 2, c. 30, which was in force when Miles v. Williams was decided ; but
it has been the uniform practice to conclude these [689J pleas of bankruptcy to the
country. But this is not a general plea under the statute, for it does not pursue the
language of the general plea given by the statute; nor is it a special plea of bank-
ruptcy, for want of the requisite particularity.
BOSANQUET J. I think the plea is ill. If it had been a plea under the statute it
ought to have concluded to the country; for though Hedges v. Sandon shews that in
certain cases a plea may conclude either with a verification or to the country, yet
there are many other cases which establish that a general plea of bankruptcy must
conclude to the country ; and this cannot be considered a special plea, for want of the
requisite particulars.
Judgment for Plaintiff.
MICHELL AND MARGARET his Wife, AND TARLETON AND ISABELLA his Wife, v.
LADY BETHIAH HUGHES. June 23, 1830.
[S. C. 4 Moo. & P. 577; 8 L. J. C. P. (0. S.) 248.]
A right of entry vested in husband and wife in right of the wife, passes to the
assignees of the husband if he become bankrupt.
Writ of entry sur abatement in the per, of premises, which the demandants, in
right oftheir wives, claimed to be the right and inheritance of the said Margaret and
Isabella, and into which the said Lady Bethiah had not entry but by one Mary Hey-
wood, who unjustly abated into the same after the death of one Thomas Collingwood,
the uncle of the said Margaret and Isabella, and whose heiresses they are, within fifty
years last past.
The Defendant pleaded, fifthly, that Tarleton was a trader, incurred a petitioning
creditor's debt, and be-[690]-came a bankrupt in 1815, when a commission of bank-
ruptcy issued against him; and by an indenture between the commissioners of bank-
rupts of the one part, and the assignees of Tarleton of the other part, the commissioners
bargained and sold to the assignees, their heirs and assigns, all the freehold and copy-
(e) Tindal C. J. was absent.
1446
MICHELL V. HUGHES
6 BING. 688.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0239&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)