Samuel Vanderplank

  Notes:

From notes on back of Priors Marston picture; ; "of Long Buckby" . This backed up by Elizabeth Jane being married there. On her wedding details he is described as 'Gentleman'. On her baptism records at Long Buckby (from Sandy) he is described as 'Farmer and Grazier'.

Long Buckby backed up by Elizabeth-Jane's death announcement.

There is a 'Vanderplank's Covert' in Long Buckby to this day; <http://www.daventrydc.gov.uk/common/includes/filedownload.asp?type=pdf&id=3707>

In the 1841 Census there is a John Vanderplant, b~1786 in Long Buckby. He is cloth worker. This is his brother (see legal cases below).

There is something in a heraldry book about a Samuel Vanderplank, dont know if same person though.

Law Journal Reports 1949, Pg 753 "... before her marriage, was Elizabeth Vanderplank, spinster, against her father Mr. Samuel Vanderplank, and it prayed a declaration that the life estate ..."

There is something in a biog of Samuel Richardson which says "The other, or south house, was occupied jointly by the Countess of Ranelagh (widow of the First Earl) and a Mr Samuel Vanderplank, often mentioned in Richardson's letter" - again don't know when/where or whether it's same person. It also seems to say "His old landlord, Samuel Vanderplank, had died in 1749; and the property was now in the hands of a Mr. Pratt. Mr. Vanderplank, who had two daughters with ..." so presumably IS someone different !

***
Millican v Vanderplank, from "The Equity Reports, 1853-1855".
See also under John P Wright who appears to have continued the case.
The plaintiffs wanted George Samuel Jenkinson approved as the purchaser of the Whilton estate for 15,000. The facts were; Aholiah BRADSHAW by his will gave legacies amounting to 12,500 payable six months after the death of his sister, Elizabeth Langton BRADSHAW, and appointed her his residuary legatee. She died, leaving the defendant, Richard Marriot FREEMAN (how can he be defendant in v Vanderplank?), her residuary legatee. A claim was then filed by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and all the other legatees under the will of Aholiah BRADSHAW, upon which an order was made for the sale of the Whilton estate, part of the testator's property, with the Master's approbation. Richard Marriot FREEMAN being entitled to the benefical interest in the estate, subject to the payment of the legacies, had resided upon it; and, prior to filing of the claim, had caused it to be put up for auction; but no adequate bidding was then made. An offer was then made by Captain Jenkinson to purchase the estate for 15,000. A surveyor appointed by the court reported 15,000 was the full value of it. A Beriah Botfield, owner of an adjoining estate, had previously said he would give more than the market value, but nothing came of this. The Botfield offer was made known to the court but FREEMAN said nothing would come of it and urged the acceptance of Jenkinson's offer. The court approved and contract signed and Jenkinson took possession, planted crops, gained tenants etc. Botfield commenced negotiation with Jenkinson trying to persuade him to give up the property and depreciating it in every way. Failing in this he then told the plaintiffs solicitor that he would better the offer by 500, later 1000.
The court decided that FREEMAN had acted properly, especially as he had undertaken to guarantee the 12,500 payable to the others. Jenkinson, knowing the matter was still not complete, should not have commenced spending money on the estate etc. It was suggested that Botfield should pay costs, but the Vice-Chancellor ruled that all costs should be paid out of the purchase price.
So it's Millican v Vanderplank - but neither person is named in the outline/decision !!?! Lawyers huh.

****
Evill v Vanderplank and Turquand and others (assignees of Batholomew and Samuel Vanderplank (nephew), bankrupts) v Samuel Vanderplank.; This concerns the bankruptcy of his nephews, but he gets dragged in, he is the defendant.
Samuel the nephew I refer to as 'Sn' and Bartholomew as 'B'

The bankrupts carried on in co-partnership, the business of woollen drapers in Saville Row. For some years the bankrupts have been connected in business with Thomas Ledgard Evill, by whom they had been assisted from time to time with advances to a considerable amount.
5th Jan 1839 B Vanderplank borrowed from the Victoria Assurance and Loan Company £500, and took out a life policy for £1000. The defendant and his brother, John Vanderplank, together with one Richard Grant, entered into a joint and several bond, as sureties. Richard Grant received a guarantee from John Vanderplank to indemnify him against any claims. Of the £500 raised, £400 was paid into the partnership, and £100 paid to the said Richard Grant (so he was guaranteeing a loan partly to himself!). Richard Grant was one of the Vanderplank brothers customers.
In April 1840 John Vanderplank, a cloth-worker in Bartholomew Close, a brother of the defendant, became and continued to be too ill to attend to business, and was on that account wholly absent from London, the defendant during the interval conducting the business. The ship mentioned below in Samuel's deposition was freighted by the brothers for Algoa Bay and the East Indies. The bankrupts debts amount to £13,000 and upwards, and their assets, which principally consisted of stock in trade, were worth about £3,000. On the 6th August Sn Vanderplank dissolved the partnership and the name of Sn Vanderplank only was painted on the Saville Row premises. "It appears that Barholomew Vanderplank had always been very inattentive to business" - no kidding !
Court order for a pattern of payments of Evill's debt, starting with £500 on Aug 1840, with Evill allowed to bankrupt them if this didn't happen. On the same day as the court order (8th Aug) Sn Vanderplank, one of the bankrupts, but in the name of the partnership, indorsed and delivered to the defendant, on account of his claim against B Vanderplank, as surety to the Victoria Loan and Assurance Co, and the execution in resepect thereof, two bills of exchange, both drawn by B and Sn Vanderplank, the bankrupts, the one for £50 and the other for 31l.3s. On the 10th August, the date Evill issued bankruptcy proceedings, Sn Vanderplank also paid on the same account to the defendant, out of the monies of the firm, the sum of £80 in cash, the sheriff was not told of these payments.
A deposition was taken;
"Samuel Vanderplank, of Long Buckby, Northants, grazier, the uncle of the bankrupts, being sworn and examined; I have since the month of April last (1839) conducted my brother John Vanderplank's business, as cloth worker, in Bartholomew Close, my brother being himself ill. Large quantities of woolen goods have been brought to and removed from my brother's premises, and no account was taken by me of such goods. My brother's carts were occasionally employed for the removal of such goods, but they were generally called for. .....There are at present two ends of cloth at my brother's premises, belonging to the bankrupts. There are besides 14 or 16 short lengths in the top shop at my brother's premises, which belong to the bankrupts I believe. Besides those 3 pieces of goods were brought in yesterday, which I believe belong to the bankrupts. Mr Smith my brother's servant or clerk, requested me to let them be there, as I thought he said they belonged to Mr Baldwin. I afterwards inquired of my brothers car(t?)man who brough them in, and he said he got them from a person of a different name, which I cannot at present recollect, and that he understood they had been sent out by the bankrupts on approbation. I hold the documents relating to a ship called the Columbine, which belongs to the bankrupts; I lent them £600 on the security of that ship, and for that sum I have a mortgage. That transaction was about the beginning of July, I then paid the money over to Sn Vanderplank. I have had no other dealings with the bankrupts, save that I have had occasionally a short length of cloth, to make a coat or the like from the bankrupts. I sent in an execution against the effects of B Vanderplank for £500 and interest, a few days since; that execution was sent in at the suit of my brother John and myself; the execution was sent in upon a warrant of attourney, which had been given to me by my brother John, by way of security against our liability as sureties of B Vanderplank, for the sum of £500, to the Victoria Life Assurance and Loan Co. I am not in partnership with my brother John, nor have we any joint property. B Vanderplank used to keep wine in John Vanderplank's cellar, but I do not know if he has any wine there at present. The bankrupts did not, as I know of, keep any books at Bartholomew Close. I know nothing of their affairs further than I have disclosed".
Later "I have before stated that I am not in partnership with my brother John, but I wish to add that I am jointly liable with my brother John, as the surety for B Vanderplank to the said Victoria Insurance Co., and that Mr.Grant of Piccadilly, is also liable with us in that matter".
On the 14th Aug the said B Vanderplank called on the defendant and paid him the sum of 308l.16s. in further liquidation of the execution. The defendant accepted the last-mentioned sum, and refused for some time to refund it, alleging that his execution was being levied before the bankruptcy, he was entitled to be paid; but subsequently, under the advice of his attornies, he paid it back to the assignees.
The execution at the suit of the defendant and John Vanderplank, was afterwards withdrawn. On the 4th Sept 1840 the defendant paid the sum of £500 principal plus 16l 10s interest in discharge of the bond which he had given.
When the bankrupts passed their last examination, it appear that B Vanderplank was indebted to the partnership in the sum of £2000 and upwards.
The present action is brought to recover the sum of 161l 3s being the aggregate amount of the sums paid to the defendant on the 8th and 11th(? 10th surely?) August 1840.
Plantiff; The payments made to the defendant on the 8th and 10th August, to which the present question is confined, cannot be supported. They were made in part discharge of the private debt of one of the bankrupts, who at that time was largely indebted to the firm. It is clear that this was a voluntary and wilful misapplication of the partnership funds by one partner to pay the debts of the other.
Defense; This was not a transaction as to come within the prohibition of the law relating to fraudulent preference, for the defendant was not a creditor of the firm. The defendant was a bona fide creditor of one of the two partners. There is nothing in bankrupt law to defeat such a transaction.
First judge; The plaintiffs are entitled to retain their verdict. The brothers foresaw that they would soon be declared bankrupt and therefore took means to satisfy the claims of the parties for whom they had most regard (their Uncle). This is a misapplication of funds of the assignees.
Second judge; I agree. The assignees are entitled to this money from the 5th August. ... I am by no means satisfied that the defendant was not a creditor within the meaning of the act, but if not, he is not protected.
Third judge; I agree.
Fourth judge; I am of the same opinion. There can be no doubt the object of this payment was to prejudice the general creditors of the firm. But it is not a fraudulent preference.
Judgement for the plaintiffs. Whoops !

There was a further case in 1841, Gabriel and another v Evill, which alleged that Evill was a secret partner in the Vanderplank business and thus liable for their debts!

***
Shadbolt v Vanderplank.
1st July 1825 John Vanderplank conveyed property in trust to raise 200l plus interest for his sister Maria Vanderplank. In 1840 John Vanderplank devised the estate to his brother Samuel in fee, in trust to raise and pay Maria Vanderplank 950l "owing by him to her and life annuity of 50l".
In 1845 John Vanderplank died, and his sister Maria survived, but she died in 1849.
Maria lived with and was maintained and clothed by her two brothers successively during the period, down to her death. Some accounts were kept by her, but there was no direct proof of payment of the annuity or interest.
This was a suit for the administration of the estate of Samuel Vanderplank. A claim had been brought by Henry Revell Reynolds to the arrears of an annuity of 50l charged upon the testators real estate by the will of John Vanderplank, payable to his sister Maria Vanderplank during her life and amounting on the 13th Jan 1849 (date of Maria's death) to the sum of 195l.10s. Then it gets a bit dense, but basically it was ruled that Vanderplank owed the Crown (not sure why them!) 950l.

Samuel married Elizabeth Freeman King, daughter of John King and Jane Hanwell, in 1821. (Elizabeth Freeman King was born in 1785 and died in 1824.)