« PreviousContinue »
to comply with a debtor's summons, the service of the summons cannot be proved by an aflidavit of the debtor filed on an application to dismiss the summons, unless notice of intention to read the afiidavit has been given.—Ea: pa/rte Rogers, Re Rogers, 43 L.T. 168.
C. .A..-—ACt of Bunk-ruptcy—Deb(or’s Su-m1n0ns—Tu~0 Petiti01ts.—A creditor presented a bankruptcy petition founded on the failure to comply with a debtor's summons. Another petition had been presented and was pending at the time when the summons was taken out. The first petition having been withdrawn, the County Court Judge dismissed the second : Held that he was right in doing so if the debtor could and would have paid the debt but for the first petition.—E.v parts Greener, Re Greener, 43 L T. 184; E1 pa/rteK1'rk, Re Greener, 28 W.R. 899.
C. A.— AJ_iudinu.ti0n in Ireland and Engluml-— Bankruptcy Act, 1869, ss. 8. 74.—Although a debtor. who has carried on business in Ireland and England, has been adjudicated a bankrupt in Ireland, the Court will, in the absence of special circumstances, adjudicate him a bankrupt in England.-—E:u parts McC'ulloch, Re 1lIcCulloch, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 714; 43 L.T. 161; 28 W.R. 935.
C, A,—Appeal~-Refusal lo Annul Adjudication——N0tics.—Notice of an appeal from a refusal to annul an adjudication of bankruptcy must be served on the trustee, us well as the petitioning creditor, within twentyone days.—E:n parte Ward, Re Wu/rd, 43 L.T.‘ 183.
C. P. Div.—Comp0sitim1——Bills given for Debt—Dish0n.0ured—Debtor’a Slutement.—Defendants gave bills to plaintifi in respect of goods sold to them to the amount of £143 12s. 9d. less discount, but adding interest, so that the bills amounted to £142 7s. 3d. The bills were dishonoured and defendants compounded with their creditors, and entered plaintiff in his statement of debts, as creditor for £142 7s. 8d. : Held that plaintiff should have been entered as creditor for £148 12s. 9d., and he was not therefore barred from bringing an action for that am0unt.—Burliner v. Royle, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 354-.
C. A.— C0mp0sili0n—Invalid Resolution—Bill of Sa.le.—P. having. filed a liquidation petition, his creditors, except G., resolved to accept a composition, payable by instalments, for which W. became surety; and P. assigned to W. his property by a duly registered bill of sale : Held that so long as the resolutions were not set aside the bill of sale could
_ not be impeached, and that G., who had obtained judgment against P.,
could not enforce execution against the property comprised in the bill of sale.—Seym0ur v. Coulson, 49 L.J. Q.ll. 604.
ruptcy Act, 1861, s. 197.—By a composition deed, duly registered under the Bankruptcy Act, 1861, a debtor, in consideration of a covenant by himself and a surety, to pay a composition of 10s. in the pound, obtained his release from his scheduled debts; and the deed contained a proviso that every secured creditor should have the full benefit of his security and should be entitled to the composition after allowing for the value of his security. One creditor held as security a policy on the debtor's life, which he valued at £16, and he received the composition on the balance of his debt, The policy having fallen in: Held that the proceeds of the policy belonged to the debtor's estate after payment tbereout of the £16, and premiums paid by the creditor with interest.— Bolton v. Fcrro, 49 L.J. Ch. 569.
C, A.-—Era1m'nation of iVitnesses—Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 96.— A creditor who applies for leave to summon witnesses for examination under sec. 96 of the Bankruptcy Act, must show a primd facie pro. bability that some benefit will result to the bankrupt's estate or the
C. A..—Fmudulent Prefm-ence—Bill of Sale—-Possession.-Creditors
holding an unregistered bill of sale took possession of goods comp1 ised therein under an arrangement with the debtor amounting to a fraudulent preference: Held that the trustee in bankruptcy could not claim the
goods, as they were neither in the debtor's order and disposition ‘or apparent possession at the time of the baukruptcy.—Ea: parts Symmons, to Jordan, L.B. 14 Ch. D. 693 ; 42 L.T. 106.
C. A, — Fraudulent Trustee— Person Aggrieved — Right of AppealBa.'nIm'uptcy Act, 1869, s. 71.-—The comptroller in Bankruptcy reported to the Court acts of misfeasance by a trustee, and asked for an Order that the trustee should credit the estate with certain sums. The Order was refused: Held that the bankrupt had no locus stan/ti to appeal.——Er parte Sidebolham, Re Sidebothann, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 458; 49 L.J. Boy. 41; 4-2 L.T. 783.
C. .A.—Lease—-Disclaime'r——Eq'u.itable M0rtgagee.—A trustee in bankruptcy will nct be allowed to disclaim a lease of the bankrupt, which is subject to an equitable mortgage, to the prejudice of the mortgagee; but if the trustee assigns the lease to the mortgagee, the latter must covenant to indemnify the trustee against liability under the lease.— E11 parts Bwcton, Re Milller, 43 L.T. 183.
a liquidation by arrangement when, composition has been agreed upon and paid, and the trustee has certified that the debtor has complied with the creditors’ resolutions, the committee of inspection has no power to audit the trustee’s accounts.—Ea: parte Ranby, Re Ranby, L.1t. 14 Ch. D. 467; 43 L.T. 11.
(xiii.) B, Div.—Liquidution—Discha.rge—Fraudulent Om-ission of Debi.
——Iu a liquidation by arrangement the fraudulent omission by n. debtor of a creditor's name from the list of his debts does not deprive him of his
C. A.—Liquida.ti0n—Seuu'red Creditor-—-Notice—~Uhose in Action.Where a judgment creditor issues a writ of sequestration against his debtor, the mere service of the writ upon the trustee of a fund for the debtor does not make the creditor a secured creditor within the Bank. ruptcy Act, 1869.—E:c parts Nelson, Re Hours, 49 L.J. Boy. 116.
creditor sent to the trustee in a liquidation a proof of his debt and a statement of his securities. The trustee required him to value the securities which he refused to do, and the trustee rejected the proof and afterwards paid a dividend to the other creditors. '1‘he next day the secured creditor realised his securities and sent in a proof for the balance of his debt : Held that he was not entitled to be paid the dividend on such balance.—Em parte Good, Re Lee, 4-9 L.J. Boy. 49.
Where a mortgage deed reserves a rent which is so excessive as to induce the Court to believe that it was not intended to createareal tenancy, the attornment clause and any distress levied under it, though levied before the commencement of bankruptcy, will be invalid as
against the trustee in bankruptcy of the mortgagor.—-Ea: pa/rte Jackson, Re Bowes, L.R. 14 Ch. D. 725.
——'1‘he Court will not restrain the exercise of a mortgagee's legal rights, upon a mere suggestion that, when the trustee in liquidation of the mortgagor is appointed, he may be able to find evidence enabling him to impeach the mortgage.—~E:u parts Bayly, Re Ha/rt, 43 L.T. 181.
bankruptcy applied to a County Court to have a mortgage deed by the bankrupt set aside as fraudulent, and the question was tried by a jury and decided in the trustee's favour : Held that it was too late to object to the jurisdiction on appeal to the chief judge.— Er parts Butters, Re Harrison, 43 L.T. 2; 28 W.B.. 876.
tion deed a husband covenanted to pay to trustees for his wife an annuity during the joint lives of husband and wife, determinable on her unchastity or their cohabiting, and reducible on her becoming entitled to any other income : Held that the trustees could prove, in the husband's liquidation, for the estimated value of the annuity, and were entitled to have the value fixed by a jury.—-Em parts Neale, Re Batuy, LB. 14,- Ch. D. 579; 28 W.R. 875.
Pro0f—-Interest.—H. drew bills on W., who accepted them on an agreement that they should be discounted and the proceeds divided between them. H. endorsed the bills to, and discounted them with, S. & Co. ; and S. & Co. discounted them with a bank which held a continuing letter of guarantee from them. The bills were not endorsed to the bank. H. and S. and Co., having both gone into liquidation, the bank received a dividend from S. and Co.’s estate in respect of the bills, and also money in respect of the balance from H.’s estate and from W. W. having gone into liquidation: Held that S. & Co.’s trustee was entitled to prove against W.’s estate for the amount paid by S. & Co.’s estate to the bank and also for interest thereon.———E;c parts Bishop, Re For, l-Valker and Co., 43 L.T. 165.
H. L.— Pr00f——Partncrs7u'p—Double Pro0f—Two Fir-ms.— The same individuals were associated in two firms, one in London and the other at Oporto. The Oporto firm drew bills on the London firm, which the latter accepted, and which were discounted by a Portugese bank. Both firms having gone into liquidation, the bank received a dividend out of the assets in Portugal: Held that the bank could not prove in the English liquidation without bringing in what they had received from the Portuguese a.ssets.—-Banco de Portugal v. Weddell, 49 L.J. Boy. 38.
The re-sale by the purchaser of goods in transitu, the receipt of delivery orders by the sub-purchaser, and the actual receipt by him of part of the goods, do not put an end to the transitus, so as to prevent the vendor’s right of stoppage in transitu attaching to the unpaid purchasemoney due from the sub-purchaser.-—E.v parts Folk, Re Kiell, L.R. 14Ch. D. 41-6; 42 L.T. 780.
(xxiii.) C, A,——Two Petitions — Service — I’riority.—Where an adjudication
has been made on a second petition by arrangement between the debtor and second petitioner, the first petitioner cannot appeal against the adjudication, but should apply for the conduct of the proceedings under the adjudication-—Eo parte Mason, Re White, 49 L.J. Boy. 56 ; 42 L.T. 884.
Bill of Exchange :
Ex, Div,-Acceptance in Blank—Forged Indorsen|ent—E1'idence,—— When a bill is accepted in blank and afterwards filled in with the name and signature of a person as drawer and endorser, the acceptor cannot, assgainst a bondfide indorsee for value, adduce evidence to show that either the drawing or indorsement is a forgery.—London and South Western Bank v. Wentworth, 49 L.J. Ex. 657.
Bill of Sale = -
C. P. Div.--After-Acquired Property—-Stack-in.Tra.de.—-The grantor of a bill of sale assigned to the grantee all the stock-in-trade and efiects on certain premises, and all stock-in-trade and effects which might, at any time during the continuance of the security, be brought on the premises : Held that stock-in-trade brought upon the premises after the making of the bill of sale passed to the grautee.—~Lazaru.s v. Andruds, LB. 5 C.P.D. 318; 43 L.T. 30.
C. A..—Attesta.tiorv—Considev-ation—Registration——Description of Occu. potion-—~t1 42 Vict., c. 31, s. l0.—The grantcr of a bill of sale was described therein as a farmer and auctioneer. He had also been in the habit of discounting bills: Held that the description was sufiicient. The neglect by the attesting solicitor to explain a bill of sale does not avoid the bill either as against the grantor or any other person. The consideration required by the Act to be stated in a bill of sale is the real consideration between the grantor and grantee.—Ea: pa/rte National Mercantile Bank, Re Haynes, 49 L.J. Boy. 62; 4-3 L.T. 36; 28 W.R. 848.
C. J. B.—Attestation—Description of Witness—17 §' 18 Vict., c. 36.Where the attesting witness to a bill of sale is a person having no occupation, and in his aflidavit he has omitted so to state in describing himself, the Court will not declare the bill of sale to be void as being improperly registered.—Ea: parts Young, Re Sym-onds, 28 W.R. 924.
C. P. DiV.—C0nsicle1-ation-41 &‘ 4-2 Vict., c. 31, s. 8.~—-A bill of sale stated that the grantee had agreed to advance the grantor £182 to enable him to pay out two executions. A part of the money was paid direct by the grantee, without the grautor’s knowledge, to the grantor's solicitor for costs owing to him: Held that the consideration was
correctly set forth so as to satisfy the requirements of sec. 8 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878.—Ham.lyn v. Betteley, L11. 5 C.P.D. 327; 28 W.R. 966.
§‘ 4-2 Vict., c. 31, s. 8.—A bill of sale stated the consideration to be £560 that day paid by the grantee to the grantor. In fact only £500 was then so paid, the balance being expended in incidental costs: Held that the consideration was not set forth so as
. to satisfy the requirements of sec. 6 of the Bills of Sale Act, 1878.——Ew
parte Beetenson, Re Rogers, 42 L.T. 808.
C. P. DiV.—ImpZied License to ca/rry on Business.—A bill of sale granted by an innkeeper and horse dealer provided that until default was made the grantor might hold and use the goods comprised in it, with a covenant not to dispose of any of the goods without the written consent of the grantee: Held that the grantor had implied authority to dispose of goods in the ordinary course of his trade, and that the purchaser of a horse comprised in the bill of sale, at a public auction without notice, acquired a good title to it.—Walker v. Clay, 4-9 L.-T. C.P. 560.
C. P. Div.—-Implied License to Sell-Stock-in-Trade.—B. gave plaintiff a bill of sale of stock-in-trade whereby it was provided that until default B. should make use of the goods. B. sold the goods to defen. dant, and in an action for wrongful conversion the jury found that the goods were sold fraudulently and not in the ordinary way of business, but that defendant did not know this: Held that plaintifi was entitled to recover.—Tayl0r v. Mc Keand, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 358; 49 LJ. C.P. 563; 42 L.’[‘. 838.
dead a stone quarry was granted together with mills, buildings, engines, plant, rails, and fixtures, then or thereafter on the hereditaments. At the date of the mortgage there was atramway on the quarry and a steam crane fastened to large stones : Held that the tramway and crane were fixtures, and that the deed did not require registering under the Bills of Sale Act, 1851: or 1878, to give the mortgagee a right to retain the tramway and crane as against a liquidation trustee.—Ee parle Moore Q‘ Robinson's Banking 00., Re Armytage, 49 L.J. Boy. 60; 23 W.R. 924-.
a bill of sale which contained a power to seize and sell the goods on failure of payment of any of the weekly instalments payable under the bill, was asked by the grantor to give time for the payment of an instalment and he said he "would not look for a week.” Within a week he seized and sold the goods: Held that an action for wrongful seizure would not lie.—'WiZliams v. Stern, LB. 5 Q.B.D. 409; 49 L.J. Q.B. 663; 28 W.R. 901.
(Y-‘estui-que.Trust.—Goods of an execution debtor were assigned by the sherifi by inventory and receipt to 0., who assigned them in trust for the separate use of the debtor's wife, with power to the trustee to sell on her direction. Both these assignments were unregistered. The wife granted a bill of sale in her own name to W., which was registered, the goods remaining in the debtor's possession: Held that the assign. ment to W. was void as against an execution creditor of the debtor.Chapman v. Knight, L.R. 5 C.P.D. 308; 28 W.R. 919.
A. in London sent hides to B. in Canada, which B. was to tan, procure freight for, and send back to A. ; being paid at a certain rate for doing so. After the hides were tanned and freight was procured for them, B. hypcthecated the hides to bankers as security for money advanced: Held that the bankers could not set up any title to the hides as against A.—City Bank v. Barrow, L.R. 5 App. 664-.
P. C.—Appeal—Donu'm'on LegisZn.ture—30 Vict., c. 3.—The Dominion
award under the Railway Act, 1868, giving as damages for expropriated land taken by a railway company, a monthly sum payable until the company should have set free a certain watercourse, was invalid: Held, also, that a deed confirmed by the Quebec Act, 39 Vict., c. 2, purporting to transfer a federal railway within the Canadian Act, 36 Vict., c. 82, to the Quebec Government, was ultrd. m'res.——Bourgoin v. La Conzpagnie du Chemin de Fer de Montreal, 49 L.J. P.C. 69.
P, C,—Dona!ion—Rev0cabilily of Gift on Birth of Children.—By a notarial deed dated previously to the coming into operation of the Civil Code, appellant gave a small annuity to respondent in trust for her five daughters. The gift was made soon after appellant came of age: Held, under the circumstances, that the gift was not revocable on the subsequent birth of children to the appellant.—-Symes v. Curillier, 4-9 L.J. P.C. 54-.
P. C,—Negligence—-Danu1ges—New Trial.—Where plaintiff had obtained damages against defendants on account of an injury sustained through