« PreviousContinue »
against them and their partners Saverio Castelli and 1852. Giovanni Baptista Giustiniani. Adjudications had been
Ex parte made on all these petitions, but the validity of the adju- BRAGGIOTTI. dication upon the joint petition, as regarded Messrs. Saverio Castelli 8. Giustiniani, was disputed before the Commissioner and on appeal before their Lordships, who directed the appeal to stand over, with liberty to bring an action (a).
The action was brought immediately after the date of the order.
The Petitioners had filed their balance sheets, and on the 12th of July 1852 they passed their last examination, and the Commissioner appointed the 14th of September 1852 for a public sitting for the allowance of their certificates.
The action brought by Saverio Castelli and Giovanni Baptista Giustiniani, to try the validity of the adjudication of the 8th of November 1851, came on to be tried on the 9th of July 1832, when a verdict was taken for the plaintiffs, subject to the opinion of the said Court on a special verdict.
At the meeting on the 14th of September 1852 the petitioning creditors under the joint adjudication appeared to oppose the granting of a certificate to the Petitioner Frank Castelli, and the Commissioner adjourned the consideration of Frank Castelli's certificate until the 8th of December 1852, upon the ground that he would not judge of the objections thereto until after the validity of the adjudication of the 8th of November 1851 should be determined. On the same day the Commissioner also adjourned the consideration of the Petitioner
Braggiotti's (a) See Ex parte Castelli, 1 De G. Mac. & G. 437.
1852. Braggiotti's certificate, which was not opposed until
the 8th of December 1852. Ex parte BRAGGIOTTI.
On the 8th of December 1852 the Petitioner and the petitioning creditors again appeared before the Commissioner, and submitted that at all events the application of Mr. Braggiotti, being unopposed, ought to be granted. The Commissioner, however, ordered and adjudged that the hearing for the allowance of both certificates should be adjourned till the last day of Trinity Term 1853, with liberty to apply for an earlier sitting, if the petition of appeal pending before their Lordships against the joint adjudication should be decided before such adjournment day. Against these orders of adjournment the Petitioners appealed.
Mr. Rolt, for the Appellant Mr. Braggiotti.
Mr. Cairns, for the Appellant Mr. Frank Castelli.
Mr. Russell, for the creditors opposing the certificate of Mr. F. Castelli.
Their Lordships made an order on Mr. Braggiotti's petition, granting him a certificate of the first class, on his undertaking to abide by such order as the Court might make on the joint petition for adjudication.
On Mr. Frank Castelli's petition their Lordships made an order, declaring that the pendency of the action, and the uncertainty whether Saverio Castelli and Giovanni Baptista Giustiniani were or were not legally bankrupts, did not form sufficient ground upon which the investigation or determination of the question, whether the Petitioner Mr. Frank Castelli was or not entitled to his certificate, should be delayed or adjourned ; and with that declaration their Lordships referred it back to the Commissioner to determine the right of the Petitioner to his certificate on the materials which existed.
THE PRINCIPAL MATTERS
CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.
See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
died in 1817 indebted to a large
and against the representatives of
Held, that the suit of 1832 must
Quære. Whether the circumstance
was a breach of condition of the ' before the dissolution of the Com-
pany, although the dissolution took
admitted for any premium the
See BANKRUPTCY, 19.
See PRINCIPAL AND AGENT.
See Will, 7, 8, 9.
an equitable interest is not affected
by a previous insolvency of the as-
signor, the assignee having no no-
tice of that insolvency.
The effect of the Act 7 Geo. IV.
c. 57, is to vest in the assignee in
insolvency all the property of the
insolvent, but subject to all equities
to which it would be liable in the
hands of the insolvent. In re At-
opened another there, under the creditors could not receive divi-
903 assignees, and of the creditors op-
posing the certificate, protection
rupt Law Consolidation Act, the If bankers continue to receive
223/ ing which is utterly unjustifiable.
trader having bought goods on misconduct of a banker are such as
Where, however, that circum instances without any specific se-
225 scrivening is sufficient to warrant