HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr0830 and id is 1 raw text is: NORRIS V. HARRISON
it appeared that at the periods of the bankruptcy of Hutchinson, and of Sill and
Watson, the Petitioners had in their possession a large quantity of Valonia unsold,
which was the joint property of Sill, Watson and Hutchinson, received by the
Petitioners in barter for 34 casks of coffee, part of the 125 casks, which Valonia was
sold after the bankruptcy of Hutchinson, and the larger part thereof after the
bankruptcy of Sill and Watson, and the proceeds applied in reduction of the
Petitioners' debt. It appeared also that the Petitioners, in return for the 125 casks
of coffee, received bills from Malta, which the deponent swore he believed did not
become due, nor were paid, until some months after the bankruptcies of Hutchinson,
Sill and Watson.
Mr. Bell and Mr. Montagu, in support of the petition.
[266] The property in the hands of the Petitioners at the time of the bankruptcy
was a pledge; and it was determined, in Ex parte Hill (in a note to Willett v. Pringle,
2 Bos. and Pull. N. R. p. 191) that having joint property in hand as a lien does not
prevent the party proving against the separate estate. Joint effects, says Lord
Eldon, in that case, means such as are under the administration of assignees to
distribute; not as in this case, where the only joint effects are those pledged to the
Petitioner for more than the amount. It is not pretended there was any other
joint property. The Lord Chancellor allowed the proof against Hutchinson's separate
estate, who stood in precisely the same circumstances as Sill and Watson. These
Petitioners are clearly entitled to prove.
I Mr. Agar and Mr. Rose, contr'. It is clear there were joint effects outstanding at
the time of these bankruptcies; and it is settled that where there are joint effects,
however small, the creditor cannot come upon the separate estate. In the case cited,
it does not appear whether the rum was sold before or after the bankruptcy. If
before, the creditor might undoubtedly prove.
A creditor having a pledge cannot, after the bankruptcy, sell it without first
applying to the commissioners, who will superintend the sale. If he sells it without
such application, he is not entitled to prove his debt. Here they sold this Valonia
for what they pleased, without any control over them, before they applied to prove
their debt-without any communica-[267]-tion with the commissioners, or the
assignees of the bankrupts. The affidavit in support of the petition is only that
there are no joint effects to be divided, not that there were no joint effects at the
time of the bankruptcies.
Mr. Bell, in reply. It never was determined, nor ever will be, that a creditor
selling his pledge, without applying to the commissioners, is not entitled to prove his
debt. It cannot be supposed they would sell the Valonia at an undervalue. It was
their interest to get their debt reduced as much as possible. In the case of Exparte
Hill the rum must have been sold after the bankruptcy. No question could have
arisen if it had been sold before.
TIE VICE-CHANCELLOR [Sir Thomas Plumer]. The proof was directed by the
Lord Chancellor under Hutchinson's commission ; and if allowed in that case, it must
be admitted in this; for the question is the same in this case as in that. Ex parte
Hill is a clear decision, that a pledge of joint property does not prevent proof upon
the separate estates of the bankrupts, if there is no other joint property. The
selling of the pledge, without applying to the commissioners, does not destroy the
right to prove. If any fraud, it might be made the subject of inquiry; but no fraud
in the sale is proved or suggested. The petition must be granted.
[268] NORRIS AND OTHERS v. HARRISON AND OTHERS. August 17, 18, 1817.
[See Rayner v. Preston, 1881, 18 Ch. D. 8; Warwicker v. Bretnall, 1822,
23 Ch. D. 194.]
Legacies of £1400 and £11,000 Bank stock held not to pass an additional capital given
by the bank subsequent to the will, and before the testator's death, in respect of
the stock, under the power contained in the 56 Gee. III. c. 96.
J. B. tenant for life, remainder to W. B. for life, remainder to J. B. in fee. During
2 MKADD. 266:](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr0830&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)