The Express.
London, England, 1851-08-21 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT.—LivearooL, Aro. 19.

Shit Puce.

BIRD AND ANOTHER (ASSIGNEES) V. MARSRALL AND
ANOTHLR.—ACTION ON A SHIP INsrUANCE, DT A
BANILIWPT'S ASSIGNEES.
Messrs. William Bird, William Cross, and Henry Hunter
Goulding, are the assignees of the estate of John Ridgway,
who formerly carried on business in Liverpool and New
Zealand, under the firm of John Ridgway and Co. ; and
the defendants arc Messrs. Marshall and Edridge, in-
surance brokers, in London. The action was brought to
recover a sum of about 1,6001., which it was alleged was
received by the dekndtnts under such circumstances as
justified the plaintiffs claiming it as having been received
on behalf of the bankrupt, fur whose estate they acted as
official and creditors' assignees.
Mr. Edward James, with whom was Mr. Kew, conducted
the plaintiffs' case.
The opening statement occupied TOOTS than an hour, the
details being very much complicated, and the correspond-
ence voluminous. The principal points relied upon ap-
peared to be, that, in September, 1819, the assignees, being
entitled to recover the amount of two policies on the brig
Nelson, belonging to the bankrupt Ridgway, employed the
defendants, who held the policies, for that purpose ; that
the defendants did so recover the sum of 1;180/. ; and that
now the plaintiffs were clearly entitled to the amount, after
deducting 116/. admitted to be due to the defendants, on
account of premiums on the policies, advanced by them.
Mr Edward Moon, merchant, of Liverpool, was ex-
•
=sized at some length. In his cross-examination by Mr.
Jesse Wylde (with whom was Mr. George Pollock)
SW the defendants, it appeared that in June, 184 S,
Mr. Moon was appointed one of three trustees
under a deed of assignment signed by Ridgway on be-
half of his creditors, and that he (Moon) was the acting
trustee. The bankrupt Ridgway, however, continued to
carry on his business on behalf of the trustees, ant Mr.
Moon could nut state positively that the defendants ever
received notice of the signing of the d.,cd, although he be-
lieved that notice was given to all the creditors, by the
solicitors to the trustees. Ile (Mr. Moon) could nut state
any circumstanres from which an ordinary dealer with Mr.
Ridgway would have been made aware that lie was not car-
rying on business on his own account ; but he believed that
all the creditors knew that the business was carried on for
the trustees.
Mr. Wright, one of the solicitors for the trustees, said in
his cross-examination, that a draft of the deed of assign-
ment was sent to London to the defendants' solicitors about
ten days before it was signed by the bankrupt ; the de-
, fendatita, he believed, di dined to execute the deed. Ile
had uo recollection of subsequently giving notice to the de-
fendants of the execution of the deed. While the deed
was iu the course of execution the defendants brought
an action against the bankrupt for the balance of
their account. They were creditors to the amount of
1,671 r. The reason why he did not inform the defendants
of the execution of the deed by the bankrupt was, that on
the day after the execution the bankrupt was served with
a summuns in bankruptcy. In the action brought, and
which stood for trial at the August Assizes, judgment was
given for Messrs. Marshall and Edridge, upon a judge's
order. It appeared that the fiat in bankruptcy was i-sued
en the 20th of November, and that on the 22ud Mr. Bird

. --
was appointed one of the assignees.
Mr. Wylde *estimated that there was no case to go to the
jury. The only. person who could recover upon a policy
was the person in whose name it was effected; in the pre-
sent Crlit the defendant had proved that the policies wer
effected by the trustees, runt there was nothing whatever
to show that the assignees (the present plaintiff.) had ever
been in possession or had anything to du with the policies.
The policies had been kept in the hands of the defendants,
in consonance with the ordinary customs of insurance
brokers, in order to cover themselves, not only for pre•
'Mums and other expenses in connexion with the particular
policies, but also from losses by any other policies, to effect
which they might have been esupleyed by the same parties.
Until the loss of the Nelson became known, the assignees
never asked fur the policies, simply beesuse they were of no
value ; but circumstances having conferred a value upon
them, the assignees at once stepped in. and tried whether
they could not recover something for themselves. All that
the defendants had done was to receive the amount of the
policies, and to deduct from that the amount of their own
claims; but now the assignees stepped in and said that the
money had been received wholly un their account. The only
question, lie submitted, which the jury had to try was whe-
ther the assignees had anything to do with obtaining the
policies.
The jury decided that the defendants acted as the agents
of the plaintiff; when they received the money due on the
policies; and that the policies were elLeted by the de feu-
dents as the brokers of the trustees under the deed of as-
signment.
A verdict was accordingly entered for the plaintiffs for the
aramut claimed, 1,4111. lfis. &I.