The Sun.
London, England, 1841-12-09 00:00:00

SITTINGS OF THE COURT.

His LORDSHIP said that he had made a mistake when
he stated to the bar yesterday that he should not be
enabled to sit on Thursday. He found that he should be
able to sit on that day, but not on Friday. His Lordship
also stated that he should take motions on Thursday.

IN THE MATTER OF PLUMMER, A BANKRUPT—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment to-day
on this bankrupt's petition. His Lordship said
that this was a special case, stated under the Act
of Parliament, by the Court of Review, for the
opinion of this Court. The facts of the case, as far as
it was necessary to state them for the present purpose,
were shortly these :—Messrs. Plummer and Wilson
carried on business as West India merchants ; they
were indebted in a sum of 2,0001. for money lent to a Mr.
George Joad, and they were desirous of obtaining further
advances, and for the purpose of securing Mr. Joad
they assigned to him a mortgage security which they had
on West India property, and they also entered into a
joint and several covenant for the payment of the sums to
be advanced, including the 2,000/. • but the whole
amount to be advanced was not to exceed 1,0001. There
was a similar transaction with respect to money due for
freights. Messrs. Plummer and Wilson became bank-
rupts. A commission was sue/Pout against them, and
Mr. George Joad did that which he was entitled to do,
being a joint and several creditor ; he offered to prove
against the separate estates of each of the bankrupts.
It was objected that he was not entitled to do that un-
less he sold or gave up his joint security ; that was
the point for the consideration of the Court, and the
question was what were the principles applicable
to questions of this description ? If a party, a creditor
of a bankrupt, has a security upon the bankrupt's estates,
be is not allowed to prove without selling or giving up
that security, and for this reason, that the principle of the
Bankrupt Laws was that all the creditors of a particular
estate should be put upon an equal footing. If a party
chose to prove he must sell or surrender the particular
security, but if he had a security on the estate of a third
person that principle did not apply, because he was
then entitled to prove for the whole debt against the
bankrupt's estate, Sand for any deficiency he might
apply to the security, provided he was not paid more
than twenty shillings in the pound. It was unnecessary
to refer to any authority on the subject, but his Lord-
ship might mention the cases of ex parte Bennett in
2d Atkins, ex parte Bar in lst•Rose, and ex parte Good-
man in 3d Maddox. The next point was this :—ln
the administration of property, and other bankrupt laws,
the joint estate and the separate estate were
considered distinct, and accordingly when a party
offered to prove under the joint estate, having
an income under the separate estate, he is en-
titled to prove against the separate estate, with-
out giving up his security. That was laid down in
ex parte Peacock, which was first decided by Sir John
Leach, and afterwards upon appeal by Lord Eldon, and
it had since been followed by the Court of Review in
ex parte Bodman. Now what was :the present case ?
Why it was the converse of that ; and looking at all the
circumstances his Lordship was of opinion that the party
had a right to prove against the separate estate, without
giving up his security against the joint estate.
It had been considered that the present was
a ease of principal and surety ; it appeared to his
Lordship that it could not be looked at in that
light. His Lordship was therefore of opinion that the
representatives of Mr. George Joad were not obliged to
refund the dividends which they had reeeived under the
arrangement pending the present question. The case
had been long, under litigation. The Commissioners
were divided in opinion upon it ; the Judges of the
Court of Review, when there were four, and afterwards
when there were only two, were divided in opinion upon
the question, and under those ,circumstances it came
before the Court fOr its opinion: His Lordship on the
whole, thought, looking at the principles to which he had
adverted, that the representatives of Mr. George Joad
had a right to prove against tfie separate estate, without
givit6r up the security they held on the general estate.
With respect to the question of costs, his Lordship would
state his opinion to-morrow.