Whitecomb
contra Jacob.
COURTS OF
KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER.
Original Citation: (1795) 1
Salk 160
English Reports Citation: 91 E.R. 149
Trin. 9 Ann. In Canc.
Applied, Scott v. Surman,
1742, 43, Willes 402. Referred to, Taylor v. Plumer, 1815, 3 M. & S. 575.
Applied, In re West of England, &c. Bank, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 775. Explained,
In re Hallett's Estate, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 713. Referred to, Patten v. Bond, 1889,
60 L. T. 585; 37 W. R. 375.
13. whitegomb
contra jacob. [Trin. 9 Ann.
In Cane.]
[Applied, Scott
v. Surman, 1742, 43, Willes 402. Referred to, Taylor v. Plumer, 1815, 3 M.
& S. 575. Applied, In re West of England, &c. Bank, 1879, 11 Ch. D. 775. Explained, In re
Hallett's Estate, 1879, 13 Ch. D. 713. Referred to, Patten v. Bond, 1889, 60 L.
T. 585 ; 37 W. R. 375.]
Merchant's goods
in the hands of the factor not liable to debts of a superior nature ; otherwise
of money. 2 Vern. 638.
If one employs a
factor, and entrusts him with the disposal of merchandize, and the factor
receives the money, and dies indebted (in) to debts of a higher nature, and it
appears by evidence that this money was vested in other goods, and remains
unpaid, those goods shall be taken as part of the merchant's estate, and not
the factor's ; but if the factor have the money, it shall be looked upon as the
[161] factor's estate, and must first answer the debts of a superior creditor,
&c. for in regard that money has no ear-mark, equity cannot follow that in
behalf of him that employed the factor (a).
(a) The principles
of this case have been confirmed and extended by the following authorities ;
concerning which it is to be observed, that every decision arising upon the
bankruptcy of the party entrusted is applicable a fortiori to other
contingencies, on account of the provision in stat. 21 Jac. 1, c. 19, s. 10,
11, concerning bankrupts having goods, &c. in their possession by consent
of the true owner. Copeman v. Gallant, 1 P. Wms. 314. 2 Eq. Ca. Ab. 113. Goods
assigned by A. to C. in trust, to pay A.'s debts, are not affected by the
bankruptcy of C. Per Ld. Mansfield ; Howard v. Jemmett, 3 Bur. 1369. If an
executor becomes bankrupt, the commissioners cannot seize the specific effects
of his testator, not even money which can specifically be distinguished and
ascertained to belong to such testator. Per Buller J. Hex v.
150 CHAPLAIN 1
SALKELD, 162.
Eggington, 1 T.
E. 369. If a sum of money, collected by au overseer who became bankrupt, had
been kept by itself, the assignees could not have touched it. Per Ld. Ch. King,
Godfrey v. Furzo, 3 P. Wms. 185. A factor to whom goods are consigned has no
property in them, nor will they be affected by his bankruptcy. Zinck v.
fTalker, 2 Bl. Rep. 1154. Bills of exchange sent to an agent or banker to
indemnify him against acceptances, ruled to be the same as goods consigned to a
factor. Fide, as to that point, Ex parte Dumas, 1 Atk. 232. 2 Vez. 582. Ex
parte Omsell, Ambler 297. Ex parte Emery, 2 Vez. 674, did. that where a note
has been taken for the money [on goods sold by a factor who became bankrupt],
the Court followed the note, Farr v. Newman, 4 T. E. 621. Goods iu the hands of
an executor cannot be taken in execution for the executor's own debt. Miller v.
Race, 1 Bur. 457. On bankruptcies, bank notes cannot be followed as identical and
distinguishable from money, but ara always considered as money or cash.