LAW GUARANTEE
AND TRUST SOCIETY
Barnes J. in that case intended to say that the doctrine of Collins v. Lamport (1) was generally applicable where the charterparty sought to be invalidated was made previously to the mortgage. There would appear to have been very special circumstances in that case. The agreement there in question was entered into before the ship was built, at a time when neither the ship nor the mortgage upon it could have been registered. Possibly that may have been the reason why the learned judge thought himself justified in deciding that such Cozens-Hardy an agreement was under the circumstances invalid as against the mortgagees.
RUSSIAN BANK FOR FOREIGN
TRADE.
Solicitors for plaintiffs: Gribble, Oddie, Sinclair & Johnson. Solicitors for defendants: Thomas Cooper & Co.
The Mode of Citation of the Volume of the Law Reports, commencing January 2, 1905, will be as follows:--
See under PRINCIPAL AND AGENT..
APPEAL-From chambers-"Practice and pro- cedure "-Order for statement of case pending arbitration
Married woman-Costs-Separate property -Restraint on anticipation
See HUSBAND AND WIFE.
Poor-rate-Notice of objection-Time 89 See RATES. 2.
Reference of action to master-Consent of
Summary decision-Leave to appeal- Amount in dispute exceeding 501. 572 See INTERPLEADER.
APPORTIONMENT-Nuisance, Notice to abate -Notice to other owners-
ment of expenses See SEWERS.
APPROPRIATION
registered dentist
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS-Covenant to stack and consume hay and straw on the premises-Destruction by fire-Com- ARBITRATION-Appeal-Reference of action
Completion of Work- - BANKRUPTCY-continued. Property in Plans-Claim of Architect-Custom (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 8. 55, sub-ss. 1, 2, 6- -Reasonableness.
An architect was employed by a building owner to carry out alterations in certain houses. He prepared plans and superintended the execu- tion of the work, which was completed, and his agreed remuneration at an inclusive percentage on the outlay was paid. The building owner then demanded the plans, which the architect refused to hand over. In an action by the building owner against the architect to recover the plans:-
Held, that a custom set up by the defendant entitling him as architect to the property in the plans after the completion of the work was unreasonable, and afforded no auswer to the action. GIBBON . PEASE
See LANDS CLAUSES ACTS. ATTACHMENT-Practice-Writ of Attachment— Disobedience of Order-Personal Service, Absence of-Evasion of Service-Rules of Supreme Court, Order XLI., v. 5.
The rule that requires personal service of an order before a writ of attachment can be issued for disobedience of it is subject to an exception where the order has come to the knowledge of the person sought to be attached and he evades
Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 13.
On March 1, 1904, seven leases of seven houses, for the respective terms of ninety-nine years, were granted to lessees, who had erected the houses under a prior building agreement. Each lease reserved a small ground-rent. None of the leases contained any restriction on the lessees' right to assign. On the same day the lessees mortgaged all the houses by way of underlease for the respective residues of the several terms, except the last day of each term, to secure the sum of 18641., with interest.
On March 24, 1904, a bankruptcy petition was filed against the lessees, and on April 19, 1904, they were adjudicated bankrupts.
On November 10, 1904, the trustee in the bankruptcy disclaimed all his interest in the seven leases. There had been no breach of any of the lessees' covenants in the leases :—
Held, that under the circumstances the Court ought to exercise its discretion under s. 13 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, by making an order vesting the disclaimed property in the mort- gagees, "subject only to the same liabilities and obligations as if the leases had been assigned to them at the date when the bankruptcy petition was filed."
If in such a case the exercise of the discretion in favour of the mortgagee will place him in no better position, and will place the lessor in no worse position, than if there had been no dis- claimer, the discretion ought to be exercised in favour of the mortgagee. In re CARTER & Ellis. Ex parte SAVILL BROTHERS C. A. 735
2. Proof-Principal and Surety-Deben- Debenture Interest ture of limited Company. Bank- Dissolution of Company guaranteed - ruptcy of Guarantor-Proof for future Interest— Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89), 8. 143. A. guaranteed B. the regular payment of the interest payable under the debenture of a limited company until the principal sum secured by the debenture was repaid by the company. Some time afterwards the company went into liquida- Specific chattel, Judgment for delivery of- tion and was dissolved by virtue of s. 143 of the
Hyde v. Hyde, (1888) 13 P. D. 166, followed.
Wilful refusal to deliver
Companies Act, 1862. Subsequently A. became bankrupt :-
Held, that, notwithstanding the dissolution of the company, B. was entitled to prove in A.'s bankruptcy for the estimated value of the future interest payable under the guarantee. In re FITZGEORGE. Ex parte ROBSON Bigham J. 462 Proof-Secured Creditor-Increase in Value of Security-Amending Proof - Time— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), Sched. II., r. 13.
In 1895 a debtor, against whom a receiving order had been made, lodged a scheme providing for the payment of 108. in the pound to his unsecured creditors, exclusive of M., whom he
BAILMENT Liability of bailee-Theft by ser- alleged to be fully secured. The scheme was
vant-Scope of employment
See MASTER AND SERVANT.
BANKRUPTCY Leasehold Property of Bankrupt --Mortgage by Underlease-Disclaimer by Trustee --Vesting Order-Terms to be imposed on Under- lessee-Discretion of Court-Bankruptcy Act, 1883
duly accepted by the creditors. M. took no part in the proceedings, but lodged a proof in which he assessed the value of his security at one-half of the amount of his debt, and claimed to prove as an unsecured creditor for the other halt, and his proof was admitted. The scheme fell through
in consequence of M.'s proof, which he refused to withdraw, and the debtor's estate paid only 1s. in the pound. In January, 1903, M.'s security became greatly increased in value, and in May, 1901, he applied under rule 13 of Sched. II. to amend his proof by revaluing his security on the footing that he was fully secured :-
Held, that M. had done nothing to disentitle himself to the relief he claimed, and that his application must be granted. In re FANSHAWE. Ec parte LE MARCHANT Bigham J. 170 4. Sale of Goods-Fraud of Debtor- Vendor's Right to disaffirm Sale and retake Goods after Notice of Act of Bankruptcy—Title of Trustee in Bankruptcy.
Where a sale of goods is induced by the fraud of the purchaser, the vendor, on discovering the fraud, is entitled within a reasonable time to disaffirm the sale and retake possession of his goods, although he does so with notice of an act of bankruptcy on which the purchaser is subse- quently adjudicated bankrupt; for in such a case the trustee in bankruptcy has no higher or better title than the bankrupt. In re EASTGATE. Ex parte WARD- Bigham J. 465 5. Scheme of Arrangement—Approral by Court-Security for Composition-Sufficiency— Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 3,
Though the Court will generally be reluctant to refuse to approve of a proposed scheme of arrangement by a debtor with his creditors which has been approved by the creditors, yet it is the duty of the Court, under s. 3, sub-s. 9, of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, to consider whether the scheme is for the benefit of the creditors, and in particular whether it provides reasonable security for the payment of 78. 6d. in the pound on all the unsecured debts provable against the debtor's estate, and to refuse to give the approval of the Court if it is not satisfied on these points.
6. Secured Creditor-Estimate of Security · Undervalue — Petitioning Creditor's Debt Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 8. 6, sub-я. 2; 8. 7, sub-s. 3.
Where a secured creditor presents a petition in bankruptcy and gives an estimate of his security, if the estimate is a genuine estimate, the Court will not inquire into its correctness, although the result of the inquiry might be to shew that the unsecured balance of the debt was not sufficient to support the petition; and, when the petitioning creditor comes in to prove in the bankruptcy, in the abs nce of evidence of mistake as to value he will no be allowed to depart from his estimate.
Whether he may amend his estimate upon proof of mistake, quære.
Ex parte Taylor, In re Lacey, (1884) 13 Q. B. D. 128, and In re Vautin, Ex parte Saffery, [1899] 2 Q. B. 549, discussed. In re BUTTON. Ex parte Voss C. A. 602 Jurisdiction to make receiving order in lieu of committal order-Absence of evidence of means 374 See COUNTY COURT.
See under ECCLESIASTICAL Law.
BILL OF COSTS-Solicitor.
See under SOLICITOR.
BILL OF EXCHANGE- Cheque-Cheque stolen Abroad-Forged Indorsement-Transfer for Value in Foreign Country-Conflict of Laws-Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 61), 88. 24,72 -Austrian Law.
The rule of international law, that the validity of a transfer of movable chattels must be governed by the law of the country in which the transfer takes place, applies to the transfer of bills of exchange or cheques by indorsement.
Alcock v. Smith, [1892] 1 Ch. 238, followed, as being a decision to that effect.
A proposed scheme of arrangement with credi- tors (which had been approved by the creditors by the proper majority) provided (inter alia) that the property of the debtors, which would have been divisible among their creditors if they were bankrupt, should vest in a trustee and should be administered by him as in bankruptcy. The trustee was, on the approval of the scheme by the Court, to pay in full all fees, costs, and expenses, including the remuneration of the trustee, and all preferential debts, and was then to pay to all the unsecured creditors, in respect of all debts provable under the receiving order, and in satisfaction of the same, a composition of 208. in the pound, payable in instalments of not less than 28. 6d. in the pound, as and when the realization of the debtor's assets would allow. The payment of the preferential debts, fees, &c., and of the composition was to be secured by the vesting of the debtor's property in the trustee-tory Held, that the scheme did not within the meaning of s. 3, sub-s. 9, provide "reasonable security" for the payment of a composition of 78. 6d. in the pound, and that the scheme ought not to be approved by the Court.
Semble, that, notwithstanding the decision in In re Pilling, [1903] 2 K. B. 70, there may be
Per Vaughan Williams L.J.: Semble, that the indorsement of a bill of exchange in a foreign country, valid under the foreign law but invalid under English law, would be effectual to give the indorsee a good title to the bill as against the drawer or acceptor.
Sect. 24 of the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882. does not apply to an indorsement of a bill of exchange abroad. That section is only declara- of English law and does not control the general rule of international law. Lacave v. Crédit Lyonnais, [1897] 1 Q. B. 148, distinguished.
A cheque on a London bank was drawn in Roumania in favour of the plaintiffs, who the same day specially indorsed it to a firm in London, and placed it, with a letter, in an envelope
« PředchozíPokračovat » |