had issued against William Dickenson, the Father of Harriet. In November, 1807, the Petitioners being both at that Time under Age eloped together, and were married in Scotland without either Licence or Banns; Dickenson, having Doubts about the Legality of their Marriage, wished to have the Ceremony performed again. To this the Father of the Petitioner Hall objected; but was at length induced to consent, by an Offer of Dickenson to settle £105 per Year on his Daughter, which was equivalent to her Expectations under his (Dickenson's) Marriage Settlement. Dickenson accordingly executed a Bond to one George Robertson for securing the said Annuity, and the Marriage was solemnized according to the Forms of the Church of England; the Petition alleged, that, at the Time of executing the Bond, Dickenson was solvent, and the Annuity had been regularly paid till his Bankruptcy; that since the said Marriage, and in consequence of the Bond, Hall the elder had paid to his Son £400, a Year, and since the Bankruptcy had executed a Settlement in his Favor to that Amount. The Petitioners had applied to prove the Bond under the Commission, and had been refused. Mr. Hart, in support of the Petition, argued, that, the Bond was granted for a sufficient Consideration. 1st, The Resolemnization of the Marriage, and 2dly, that the Annuity from Hall the elder to his Son, had been granted in Consideration of this Bond. The Lord CHANCELLOR. The Annuity having been given in Consideration of the Bond will not support it. Mr. 1810. Ex parte HALL-In the Matter of DICKENSON. Mr. Hart. Then it will depend upon the Question, whether the Marriage in Scotland was good; a Marriage of that Kind is not sufficient to satisfy the Court where its own Wards are concerned. The Lord CHANCELLOR. I have no Doubt the Scotch Marriage is good (a); the Practice in regard to Wards of this Court is a Matter of prudence, and their Settlements being made under the Order of the Court, would be protected against Creditors. I feel a strong Wish to indulge these Petitioners, but I cannot, on the Grounds here stated. The Resolemnization of the Marriage is not sufficient, and it does not appear that in consequence of an Agreement with Hall the elder to grant the Annuity, Dickenson gave the Bond. If you can prove, such an Agreement, the Execution of the Settlement being after the Bankruptcy, is immaterial. The Petition is drawn in a way to induce me to guess at that Fact, but I cannot act upon Surmise. The Petitioners may prove upon the Surplus of the separate Estate, after the joint Creditors are satisfied (b). (a) Ilderton v. Ilderton, 2 H. B. 145. Harg. and But. 3 Co. Lit. 79 B. No. 1. (b) It was a joint Commission against Dickenson and Another. Not. THIS Ex parte LAYCOCK AND OTHERS. HIS was an Application that joint Creditors might be allowed to prove and vote in the Choice of Assignees under a separate Commission. It was a separate Commission Commission taken out by a joint Creditor, and there was but one separate Creditor to the Amount only of £4. The petitioning Creditor made no Objection. The Lord CHANCELLOR. I do not recollect any Case where joint Creditors have been permitted to vote in the Choice of Assignees under a separate Commission (a); but as the petitioning Creditor consents I will make the Order. 1810. w Ex parte LAYCOCK and Others. (a) Vide p. 21, Ante, in notis. Ex parte Taitt, 16 Ves. 193, and the Cases cited Ex parte ROSS.-In the Matter of ROSS (a). THE HE Prayer of this Petition was, that the Assignees might be directed to deliver up to the Bankrupt his necessary Wearing Apparel, and that of his Wife and Children; that he might be furnished with a List of Debts proved under his Commission; and be permitted to inspect his Books for the Purpose of passing his last Examination, and that the Assignees might pay the Costs. (a) On this Petition being called on, Mr. Montague requested that it might stand. over, on the Ground that there was an Affidavit on the Part of the Petitioner of very great Length, (the Office Copy of which would be £20 or £30) just put into his Hand, and which he wished to have an Opportunity of reading. to wave the Affidavit. The Lord CHANCELLOR. of Expence not immediately affecting the Merits, may be Dec. 8. The Assignees are not under 5 Geo. 2. c. 30. entitled to de tain from the Bankrupt, any Books previous to his last Examination, on the Ground that such Inspection is with a fraudulent Object. 1810. Ex parte Ross. In the Matter of Ross. Sir Samuel Romilly, and Mr. Johnson, in support of the Petition. Mr. Leach, and Mr. Montague, opposed it; 1st. As to the Wearing Apparel, on the Ground that the Bankrupt's Conduct towards his Assignees, as supported by Affidavit (a), had been so fraudulent and improper as to forfeit all Claim to their Indulgence, or to the Interference of the Court; that he had Resources which placed him above the Necessity of such an Application, and the Petition was presented merely for the Purposes of Vexation and Expence. In regard to the other Parts of the Petition a List of Debts had already been delivered to him; and upon a former Application for liberty to inspect the Books, the Lord Chancellor confined the Order to the Inspection of the Proof of the petitioning Creditor's Debt, and he now desired an Inspection, not for the Purposes of his last Examination, but in order to defraud his Assignees of Remittances and Consignments which were expected. Sir Samuel Romilly, in Reply, insisted that he had a positive Right under the Statute (b), which the Impropriety of his Conduct, even if admitted, could not devest him of; and that the List of Debts was given after this Petition had been presented. The Lord CHANCELLOR. On opening this Petition I was of Opinion that it was necessary to consider the Question in two Points of View: (a) An Objection was taken to the Affidavit of the Assignees. It was in Terms the Affidavit of the three, but it had been sworn to only by one. It was admitted to be read as the Affidavit of the one. (b) 5 Geo. 2. c. 30. 1st. As to the Right to Wearing Apparel, and the Inspection of his Books under the Statute (a); and 2d. As to Costs. If he has a positive Right, then his Conduct can not affect it; I should wish to have it argued, as Matter of Law, whether his Conduct can deprive him of his Wearing Apparel, or his Right to inspect the Books be taken away, on the Ground of Intent as to the Object with which he seeks to inspect them. Mr. Leach, and Mr. Montague. The Words of the Statute are necessary Wearing Apparel; and whatever his Conduct may be, it must be admitted, that he is entitled to that, and also to his Books for the Purposes of his last Examination; but he is not entitled to his Wearing Apparel if it cannot be considered as necessary, or to the Inspection of his Books if it appear that he Claims such Inspection for other Purposes than those of his last Examination. He has not sworn that this Apparel is necessary, and the Assignees have stated, in their Affidavit, that it is not. If he had twenty Wardrobes it never could be the Intention of the Legislature that he should keep them all; and it has been decided under the Insolvent Debtor Acts, that a Person in that Situation is entitled to retain only what is necessary for his decent Appearance in the World. As to the Inspection of his Books, the Object with which he now applies for that, has already been stated; that it is discretionary in the Court to grant or refuse such an Application, may be inferred from your Lordship's having, on a former Application of this Bankrupt, confined your Order to the Inspection of the petitioning Creditor's Debt under the Commission. The Lord CHANCELLOR. My Order on that Occasion was made diverso intuitu ; (a) 5 Geo. 2. c. 30. |