against them and their partners Saverio Castelli and Giovanni Baptista Giustiniani. Adjudications had been made on all these petitions, but the validity of the adju- BRAGGIOTTI. dication upon the joint petition, as regarded Messrs. Saverio Castelli & 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 1852, 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.
Braggiotti's certificate, which was not opposed until the 8th of December 1852.
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.
CONTAINED IN THIS VOLUME.
ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS.
1. An administrator of an intestate died in 1817 indebted to a large amount in respect of his receipts as administrator, but leaving sufficient personal estate to pay this amount, and also leaving freehold estates. In the same year a suit was insti- tuted for the administration of his personal estate, and in 1832, it ap- peared from the report in that suit, that his personal estate had been mis- applied, and that his executor had become bankrupt. Thereupon, and in the same year (1832), an ad- ministratrix de bonis non of the in- testate, instituted a suit against the administrator's heir and the sureties, in the usual administration bond,
and against the representatives of the Archbishop (who had died), praying to have the benefit of the bond, and to charge by means of it the administrator's freehold estates. No decree was made in this suit, the Plaintiff having married in 1838, and having died in 1847, without the suit having ever been revived. In 1848, another of the next of kin, who had been a Defen- dant to the suit of 1832, took out administration de bonis non of the intestate, and filed a bill of revivor and supplement to have the benefit of the suit of 1832.
Held, that the suit of 1832 must be considered as having been aban- doned, and that the suit of 1848 must be considered an original suit, and as such barred by length of time and laches.
Quære. Whether the circumstance of the administrator dying largely indebted to the intestate's estate
was a breach of condition of the bond.
Quare. Whether the suit of 1832 was in its nature one which it was competent for the Plaintiff in that of 1848 to revive.
Quare. Whether either suit could be maintained upon the bond, the ordinary's personal representative not having declined to lend his name in an action. Bolton v. Pow- ell, 1 2. An Insurance Company lent money on the security of a bond given by three obligors to two of the direct- ors and of a policy effected with the Company by one of the obligors on his own life, and deposited as a collateral security. By the terms of the policy the insurance money was charged on funds and property of the Company only. The con- dition of the bond was for payment of the money lent, with interest,
before the dissolution of the Com- pany, although the dissolution took place long before the end of the year for which the premium was paid; but that no proof could be admitted for any premium the time for payment of which had not arrived when the Company was dissolved. Atkinson v. Gylby, 670
See also SOLICITOR, 1, 3. TRUSTEE.
AFFIDAVIT.
See BANKRUPTCY, 19.
ANNUITY.
See WILL, 7, 8, 9.
and of the premiums upon the The title of an assignee for value of
policy. The Insurance Company was dissolved, their funds distri- buted, and their business trans- ferred to another Company, to whom the obligees assigned the bond. One of the obligors who had not effected the insurance having died, and the policy having become forfeited for nonpayment of the premiums, the assignees of the bond debt sought to prove in the Master's office, under a decree for the administration of the estate of the deceased obligor. Held, that the proof ought to be admit-
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- kinson, 140
ted to the extent of an unpaid A receiver of an estate, who had a premium, which became payable private account at his bankers',
2. Where a case is established of a trader having bought goods on credit, with the intent of raising money by pledging them, the Court will visit such conduct with the utmost severity; and the circum- stance of goods which had been 5. purchased on credit having been pledged the next day by the bank- rupts is one open to suspicion.
Where, however, that circum- stance was explained by uncontra- dicted evidence, showing that the goods had been purchased in the ordinary course of business, and had been pledged by reason of a sudden pressure requiring money to be raised forthwith, the Court allowed the bankrupts' certificates. Ex parte Martyn,
3. Where there was joint estate to the amount of 131., Held, that the joint
creditors could not receive divi- dends from the separate estate until all the separate creditors were paid in full, although it did not appear that after payment of costs any part of the 137. would remain for distribution. Ex parte Kennedy, 228 Where bankers continued to trade for two years after they were hope- lessly insolvent, Held, that their certificates had been properly re- fused; but by the consent of the assignees, and of the creditors op- posing the certificate, protection was granted to them.
If bankers continue to receive deposits, knowing that if the busi- ness were wound up they could not pay 58. in the pound, that is a trad- ing which is utterly unjustifiable.
Semble, that the effects of the misconduct of a banker are such as to distinguish his case from that of other traders upon an application for a certificate. Ex parte Rufford,
A partner in a firm of two solici- tors received monies belonging to the sister of the other, for the pur- pose of investment, and in a few instances without any specific se- curity having been arranged. The usual charges of an attorney or solicitor were alone made upon the transactions. Held, that this did not amount to trading as a scrive-
Uncontradicted general evidence of a course of dealing amounting to scrivening is sufficient to warrant an adjudication without proof of specific acts. Ex parte Dufaur, 246 6. Where
« PreviousContinue » |