Alderson v Temple
Open-knowledge reference entry
Alderson v Temple (1746-1779) 1 Black W 660, 96 ER 384 is a UK insolvency law case, concerning voidable transactions under what was the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571, and what is now the Insolvency Act 1986 section 423.
Facts
On Saturday morning Alderson (recorded as A.B. in the report) committed acts of bankruptcy. On Friday morning, Alderson had posted a £600 note from London to Temple, one of his creditors in Trowbridge, in return for two £300 notes. Temple's two notes arrived on Monday. The assignees of Alderson brought an action for the value of the note. They argued, first, that the transfer of the note did not take effect merely by putting it in the post, and second, that it was an unlawful preference under the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571.
Judgment
Lord Mansfield CJ held the Fraudulent Conveyances Act 1571 applied, not just to fraudulent conveyances, but also the granting of fraudulent preferences, and Alderson's actions were void.
Commercial transactions should be determined on solid principles, not upon nice subtilties of law. I shall therefore avoid going into the question, whether a contract is complete with or without delivery of possession. The true rule in that case is, to regard the solid justice of the transaction from its own circumstances.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Alderson v Temple” as open-knowledge reference entry. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as open-knowledge reference entry. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Mar 26, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q19630418. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1746, 1779, 1571 and 1986.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Alderson v Temple”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Alderson v Temple primary sources, Alderson v Temple archive and Alderson research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Alderson v Temple”?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Alderson v Temple” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.