Reports of Cases in Bankruptcy Volume 1; Argued and Determined in the Court of Review, and on Appeal Before the Lord Chancellor (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1834 Excerpt: ...their Honours did not make any order. The questions are, "1. Whether the said Robert Williams and his said copartners are bound to elect against which estate they will prove, as between the joint estate of the said Thomas Barrow and George Geddes, and the separate 1832. estate of the said George Geddes; or whether they are Exparte entitled to the benefit of the said proof against the dl0ihT Jon't estate of tMe sard Thomas Barrow and George Geddes, and also of the said proof against the separate estate of the said George Geddes, without being put to any election. 2. Whether the said proof of Williams and Company against Barrow and Geddes should be reduced to 555/. 18. 2d., or their proof against Geddes increased to 64R 9s., in respect of the amount of Johnstons dividend." Sir Edward Sngden and Mr. Wigram for the appellants. The question which the Court has to determine on this appeal is, whether these bankers have a right to prove against both the joint and separate estates. Now the rule in bankruptcy is, that the joint estate shall be applied to pay the joint debts, and the separate estate to pay the separate debts. There is no instance of double proof being allowed at variance with this rule. It is contended on the other side, that all learned judges, as well as Sir Samuel Romilly, have disapproved of this rule; but their expressions of disapprobation only serve to prove the existence of the rule. Like the canon of descents which excludes the half blood from the inheritance (a), the rule is disapproved of; but it must prevail, until it is altered by the legislature. The rule, it is true, deprives the creditor of part of his common law right, if his debtor becomes a bankrupt; for the common law confers a priority upon the diligence of the creditor...

R596

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles5960
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1834 Excerpt: ...their Honours did not make any order. The questions are, "1. Whether the said Robert Williams and his said copartners are bound to elect against which estate they will prove, as between the joint estate of the said Thomas Barrow and George Geddes, and the separate 1832. estate of the said George Geddes; or whether they are Exparte entitled to the benefit of the said proof against the dl0ihT Jon't estate of tMe sard Thomas Barrow and George Geddes, and also of the said proof against the separate estate of the said George Geddes, without being put to any election. 2. Whether the said proof of Williams and Company against Barrow and Geddes should be reduced to 555/. 18. 2d., or their proof against Geddes increased to 64R 9s., in respect of the amount of Johnstons dividend." Sir Edward Sngden and Mr. Wigram for the appellants. The question which the Court has to determine on this appeal is, whether these bankers have a right to prove against both the joint and separate estates. Now the rule in bankruptcy is, that the joint estate shall be applied to pay the joint debts, and the separate estate to pay the separate debts. There is no instance of double proof being allowed at variance with this rule. It is contended on the other side, that all learned judges, as well as Sir Samuel Romilly, have disapproved of this rule; but their expressions of disapprobation only serve to prove the existence of the rule. Like the canon of descents which excludes the half blood from the inheritance (a), the rule is disapproved of; but it must prevail, until it is altered by the legislature. The rule, it is true, deprives the creditor of part of his common law right, if his debtor becomes a bankrupt; for the common law confers a priority upon the diligence of the creditor...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

May 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

December 2009

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 13mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

236

ISBN-13

978-1-150-70195-5

Barcode

9781150701955

Categories

LSN

1-150-70195-1



Trending On Loot