Re John Farrell; ex parte George D. Fottrell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 24 April 1860
• Date: 24 April 1860
• Court: Court of Bankruptcy and Insolvency (Ireland)

Banktcy., & c.

In re JOHN FARRELL; Ex parte GEORGE D. FOTTRELL.

Jones v. FarrellENR 1 De G. & J. 208.

Row v. DawsonENR 1 Ves. sen. 331.

Burn v. Carvalho 4 Myl. & Cr. 690.

Lestrange v. LestrangeENR 13 Beav. 281.

Letts v. MorrisENR 4 Sim. 607.

Yeates v. Groves 1 Ves. jun. 280.

Diplock v. HammondENRENR 2 Sm. & G. 141; S. C., 5 De G., M. & G, 320.

M'Gawen v. Smith 26 Law Jour., Ch., 8.

Ex parte South 3 Swanst. 392.

Ryall v. RowlesUNK 2 W. & T., L. C., 615.

Firbank v. BellENR 1 B. & Ald. 36.

Lord Braybrooke v. MeredithENR 13 Sim. 271.

Parsons v. MiddletonENR 6 Hare, 261.

Jones v. Farrel 1 De G. & Jon. 208.

Schank v. Moreland 1 Mad. Ch. Pr. 686.

304 CHANCERY REPORTS. 1860. Banktey., (Court of 38anitruptry anb EttOolbturg. In re JOHN FARRELL; Ex parte GEORGE D. FOTTRELL.* April 20, 24. A, being inÂÂdebted to B in 100, gave him an unÂÂstamped order for payment, upon C, who owed A a sum of 300. The order was in the following form :-" You will please hand B the sum of 102 sterling, and charge the same to the debit of my account with you." On the day that the above order was given, B wrote to C, inclosing copy thereof. _Held, that the above instruÂÂment did not amount to an equitable asÂÂsignment pro tanto of the sum in the hands of C. Held also, that it was a mere money order, and could not have any secondary operation as an equitable agreement to charge ; that, as a money order, it required a draft stamp, and that, being unstamped, it could not be received in evidence. To constitute an equitable assignment of money in the hands of a third party, there must be a particular existing fund dealt with at the time, and there must also be a specific appropriation intended, of the whole or part of such particular fund. * Coram LYNCH, J. (a) I De G. & J. 208. CHANCERY REPORTS. • 305 reference to- the fund was in the words "that sum, or any less 1860. Banhteg., amount, which may, from time to time, be owing by you to us." In re The assent of the debtor is not necessary. The words " and FARRELL. charge the same to the debit of my account with you" are a sufficient Argument. reference to the fund : Row v. Dawson (a); Burn v. Carvalho (b) ; Lestrange v. Lestrange (e); Letts v. Morris (d). Secondly ; this order does not require to be stamped as a bill : Yeates v. Groves (e); Diplock v. Hammond (f) ; M'Gawen v. Smith (g); Ex parte South (h).-[LYNCH, J. Do you say that a draft order is an equiÂÂtable assignment ?]--Yes ; if there be a reference to a...