Page images

held, that the holder of the note and the trustees should thencefor-
might prove against R. M.'s separate ward stand possessed of the shares
estate. Er parte Christie, 3 M. D. & or share so forfeited, in trust to pay,
D. 736.

apply, and dispose of the annual
See BILL OF Exchange, 3-Set- produce thereof, during the lives of
OFF-TRUST, 2, 3.

B. and C., for the support and main-

tenance of A. and of his wife and

family, or otherwise for his and their
See Bill of ExcHANGE, 4. benefit, in such manner as the trus-

tees should think proper, and after

the death of B. and C. should settle

and assure, or pay and apply, and

dispose of the share so forfeited, in
(Last Examination of.)

trust for, or for the benefit of A. and

his family, in such manner as they

should in their discretion think pro-
(Service of Petition upon.) per. A. assigned all his property to

trustees for his creditors, and thereby

committed an act of bankruptcy, and
(Wife's Property.)

a fiat being issued against him, he
See HUSBAND AND Wife, was declared a bankrupt. Held, that

upon the execution by or of the as-

signment, his share and interest in the
1. Bequest of a share in certain trust trust monies became subject to the
funds in trust for A., his executors, trust declared by the will for the be-
administrators and assigns, provided, nefit of A. and his wife and family;
that if A, should, during the life of that A. was not of necessity entitled
B. or C. assign, charge, or otherwise

to any part of the income of the
dispose of his share in the principal trust monies separately from his wife
or interest thereof, or attempt or and children, but that any interest of
agree so to do, or do any act A, in the trust monies not applicable
whereby his share in the said mo- for the support and maintenance of
nies, if payable to himself, or his his wife and children, passed to his
executors or administrators, would assignees on his bankruptcy. Kears-
become vested in some other

person, ley v. Woodcock, 3 Hare, 185.
then and in such case all his estate, 2. After a demurrer had been put
right, title, and interest in such trust in to a bill, the sole plaintiff became
monies should absolutely cease and bankrupt. Upon the motion of the
determine, and thereby and there- defendant, who had demurred, the
upon become absolutely forfeited; Court ordered that the assignee

should remedy the defect in the continues the business in the same suit within a month, or that the bill firm of “ A. and B.;" at the time should be dismissed without costs. of B.'s death a large balance was

A party ordered to take a step owing by them to their bankers, within a fixed time, or that the bill to whom A., some time after Bi's should be dismissed, if desirous of death, indorses several bills in the an extension of the time, must give partnership firm of A. and B.: Held, notice of motion so as to enable him that it could not be inferred from to bring it on before expiration of this circumstance alone that the bills the time fixed. Lord Huntingtower were so indorsed upon a partnership v. Sherborn, 5 Beav. 380.

transaction of A. and B., and that See RelaTION.

the bankers might prove the amount

of the bills against the separate estate (Bankruptcy, Eridence of.) of A. Ibid. See AdveRTISEMENT.

2. B. S. and Co., of Calcutta, having

consigned certain goods to G. B. in BARON AND FEME. England, on which they had a lien See HUSBAND AND WIFE, for the price, write him word that

they intend to draw in favour of BILLS AND NOTES. G. K. and Co. for the balance of such 1. A. and B., who are partners, and shipments, and that they inclose bills C., as their surety, give a joint and of lading and policies of insurance several promissory note to D., by for the goods in question; and they which they “jointly and severally also draw a bill for the amount on promise to pay” to D. the amount of G. B. in favour of G. K. and Co., a partnership debt due from A. and which they direct G. B. " to place to B. The note is signed by A. and B., account of shipments per Gardner." not as individuals, but in their part- Before the goods reach England, G. B. nership firm, and by C. the surety. becomes bankrupt, and the goods Held, that this note could not be come to the possession of his assig. treated as the several note of each nees. Held, that the above expresone of the three, but as the several sions in the bill and the letter note only of the surety, and the joint amounted to a specific appropriation note of A. and B.; and that on the of the goods for the payment of the bankruptcy of A., who had survived bill, and that the assignees were his partner B., the holder of the note bound to account to G, K. and Co. could only rank as a creditor against for the proceeds. Er parte Gledthe joint estate. Er parte Wilson, 3 stanes, 3 M, D. & D. 109. M. D. & D. 57.

3. A person deposits a bill of exA. survives B., his partner, and change for 12,0001., payable to his

Bills and Noies.


Bills and Notes.


order, and also a warrant of attorney,

That the circumstance of the war-
executed by the acceptor of the bill, rant of attorney being expressed
and expressed to be made to secure or executed for the purpose of se-
(among other things) the payment of curing the payment of a sum pri-
the bill. The purpose of the deposit marily secured by a negotiable in-
is, and is by the accompanying me- strument, did not supersede the ne-
morandum expressed to be, to secure cessity of notice as to the warrant of
the payment of another bill for 30001., attorney.
accepted by the depositor. The de- That the deposit of the bill of
posited bill is not indorsed. On the exchange, though not indorsed, was
bill for 30001. becoming due, it is good, without notice ; and that the
renewed, the deposited documents depositee was entitled to have it in-
remaining in the possession of the dorsed and to the common equitable
holder of this bill, and a new memo- mortgagee's Order. Ex parte Price
randum of deposit being signed, re Gibbs, 3 M. D. & D. 586.
which states the deposit to have been 4. A bill of exchange remitted by a
made on the day of the date of the customer to his bankers, and not due,
new bill. This bill is renewed in the but remaining in specie at the time
same way, and the transaction is re- of their bankruptcy, continues the
peated on several successive occa- property of the customer, and the
sions, each transaction taking place same is the law as to a bank post
through the agency of a person who bill which the customer sends to the
is the solicitor of the acceptor of the bankers, with a letter desiring them
deposited bill for 12,0001., and who, to place it to his credit, and to send
as such solicitor, attested the execu- him a receipt. Ex parte Atkins, 3
tion of the warrant of attorney ; but M. D. & D. 103.
no further notice of any of the trans- 5. Assumpsit on a note alleged to
actions is given. Held, on the depo- have been made by defendant, pay-
sitor becoming bankrupt,

able to W. or bearer, and indorsed
That the deposit must be consi- by W. to plaintiff. Plea, that before
dered to have been made at the time indorsing, W. became bankrupt,
of the first transaction, and not to whereupon a fiat issued and assig-
have been made afresh at every suc- nees were appointed, &c., by reason
ceeding one.

whereof all Wi's interest in the note
That the interposition of the soli- vested in the assignees; and that the
citor of the party who executed the indorsement was not made, nor had
deposited warrant of attorney was the plaintiff any interest in the note
not notice to that party, so as to take before it was so vested.
the security out of the reputed owner- Replication (under stat. 2 & 3 Vict.
ship of the depositor.

c. 29. s. 1), that the note was in-


dorsed by W. to plaintiff, and, being

BOND. so indorsed, was bona fide received A. and B. enter into a joint and by plaintiff before the fiat ; that several bond to C., D. and E.; C. plaintiff had not, at the times of in- delivers the bond to A. (who was dorsement and receipt, notice of any her son) for safe custody, and after act of bankruptcy committed by W., for some time receiving the interest and that the note was not indorsed from A., she and D., another of the or received by way of fraudulent obligees, die. B., one of the obligors, preference. Rejoinder, that the note also dies, when his executors and A. was not bona fide received by plain- make an arrangement together, withtiff before the fiat, in manner, &c. out the privity of E., the surviving Issue thereon. W. had indorsed the obligee, and erase the name and seal note in blank, and delivered it, be- of B. from the bond. Held, that fore the fiat, to his son, who delivered this did not invalidate the bond as it to plaintiff, but this last delivery against A.; and that on his bankwas not before the fiat. No mala ruptcy, the surviving obligee might fides appeared.

prove for the amount of the principal Held, that the issue, by its terms,

and interest due upon the bond. Er raised the question whether plaintiff parte Smith, 3 M. D. & D. 378. had personally received the note before the fiat, and that, he not proving


See Ship. such receipt, defendant was entitled to the verdict.

CERTIFICATE. Also, that the issue was material,

1. Certificate ready for allowance, for that under the statute it is ne

but not allowed before 5 & 6 Vict. cessary to show an actual bona fide receipt of the note by some person

c. 122, came into operation : Held,

sufficient under the new act, and albefore fiat; and, if the pleading avers

lowed accordingly. Ex parte Vardy, such a receipt by A., it is not suffi

3 M. D. & D. 65. cient to show that A. received the

2. The Court declined allowing note bona fide after fiat, but that be

the certificate of a bankrupt who had fore fiat it was indorsed in blank to

passed his last examination before B., from whom A. received it, and therefore that it was constructively

the forty-second day, and ordered indorsed to A. before fiat.

another day to be advertized for his Steer, 1 Ad. & Ell. N. S. 707.

examination. Ex parle East, 3 M.

D. & D. 321. See BANKER AND CUSTOMER-LIEN, 3. In order to induce a creditor 4 - PARTNER, 1

PETITIONING to sign the certificate of a bankrupt, CREDITOR, 1, 2.

A. gave him an understanding that,

Green v.

Er parte

in consideration that the creditor

COMMISSIONERS. would sell goods to the bankrupt, 1. Semble, the Court of Review he, A., would guarantee payment to has jurisdiction to direct references a certain extent at any time during to the Commissioners. Ex parte the dealings between him and the Gore, 3 M. D. & D. 77. bankrupt.

2. Quære, whether a Commissioner Held, that the guarantee was void of the Court of Bankruptcy is bound by sect. 125 of the Bankrupt Act, to obey an Order of reference of the 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. Hankey v. Cobb, i Court of Review. Ex parte Curlewis, Ad. & Ell. N. S. 490.

3 M. D. & D. 362. 4. Where the fiat and proceedings 3. The Commissioners are bound were, before the passing of the act to execute Orders of reference made 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, left in the

pos- by the Court of Review; but neither session of the sole assignee, who was that Court nor the Lord Chancellor not to be found, the Court ordered can compel the Commissioners to that the Commissioner should be at execute such Orders. liberty to proceed without them in

Steward, 3 M. D. & D. 405. allowing the certificate. Ex parte 4. Where an Order was made by Baldwin, 3 M. D. & D. 326.

a District Commissioner on a solicitor 5. A bankrupt, after the issuing of to pay a certain sum to the official the fiat against him, but before the assignee, without stating the special granting of his certificate, promised facts on which the Order was made, in writing to pay a debt due by him or that the party was a solicitor of before his bankruptcy : Held, that the Court, or that he acquiesced in this promise did not revive the debt, the Order: Held, that the Commisso as to enable the creditor to sue sioner had no jurisdiction to make the bankrupt thereon in an action of such an Order. Ex parte Collins, 3 indebitatus assumpsit. Kirkpatrick v. M. D. & D. 604. Tattersall, 1 C. & K. 577.




A warrant of commitment of a See BANKER AND CUSTOMER.

bankrupt for not satisfactorily answerCHOSE IN ACTION.

ing questions put to him need not set

out an examination previous to that See HUSBAND AND WIFE-REPUTED OWNERSHIP.

upon which he has been committed,

unless such examination taken togeCOGNOVIT.

ther with the subsequent one is unSee EXECUTION, 8.


3 F 2

« PreviousContinue »