The Sun.
London, England, 1812-11-13 00:00:00

ROBEkTSON, YOUNG, &C. V. GLASSE.

Mr. MARRYATT shelved cause against a ride Ob-
tained by Mr. Campbell, for having the defendant,
who had been arrested for a debt to the amount
of 30,0001. discharged.out of ,custody on filing.
common bail. The present defendant, Mr. Glasse,
was a partner of Hunters, Rennie, and' Co, who.
were, debtors to the plaintiffs to the amount of
40,000/. One of the. partners of this company
resided in Scotland,, and,' of course, was beyond
the jurisdiction of the law of this country.—
AgainSt the other three individual partners, coma
missions of bankrupt had been taken out. The
plaintiffs had proved their debt under Rennie's
commission, arid in consequence of having- done
so, the present application on the part -of
Mr. Glasse, another of the partners, and un-
der whose separate commission the. plaintiffs had
not proVed, was made, on the ground that having
proved their debt under the commission against
one of their debtot.s, they must thereby be held
to have made their option, and he precluded from
taking the person of any of the other co-ohligants
in this debt. This Mr. Marryait contended was
not, and could not he the fair construction or in-
tention of the Aet of Parliament. Supposing that
the plaintiffs were holders of a bill of exchange,
having the names Of twenty different indorsefs
upon it, could it be contended, .because they bad
claimed f;.- the amount on the estates of nineteen
of them, that they were thereby prevented from
taking the person of the twentieth 'The point
seemed to the Learned Counsel to be so plain;
that he did not think he had occasion to argue it
farther.
Mr. CAMPiItELL had no doubt he should be able
to satisfy their Lordships that .he was entitled to
have the nresent Rule ,made absolute. The firm.
of illiniters, Rennie, ,and'Co. of ;which the De-
fendant was a partner, consisted four co-part-
ners, Alexander Hunter, who resided in Scotland,
Duncan limiter, R. Rennie, and J. W. Glasse,
all Of whom resided in this country, From the
eircnnistance of Alexander Hunter residing out
,of the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, and
not having committed an act of ban kruptv, a joint
corrimission could not be sued out against the whole
four co-partners as a company, but separate com-
mi-.sinns.were sued out .against the three; as part
neri of Hunters, Rennie, and Co. The ex pence and
trouble attendant on the working, as' it is called,
ofthree several commissions, for distributing the
effects of one estate being great, a petition was
presented to the Lord Chancellor, praying that
the joint creditors might be allowed to prove un-
der the searate commission against Mr. Rennie,
and that the' joint funds should be distributed
among the joint creditors under that commission.
The former part of the prayer of this petition the
Lord Chancellor had granted,
,by allowing the
joint creditors to prove their debts under Mr.
Rennie's commission ; but as to the remaining
part of the prayer of the petition,ll;s Lordship post
poised it till after the choice of Assignees on the
other estates. The debt due to, the plaintiff was.,
a joint debt; and as such the
_plaintiff, Mr. Ro-
bertsOn, who vas Assignee on the estate of
the defendant, had proved it under Mr. Rennie's
commission. This being the case, and the
whole joint estate being to be distributed under
the' commission taken out against Mr. Rennie
individually, Mr:Campbell submitted, that a proof
under Min Rennie's- commission was, in such cir-.
cumstanees, tantamount to a proof under the com-
mission against the, defendant himself, if this
was not -so, the greatest injustice would be
done to the defendant in this ease, and. the object.
of the Act of Palelitiment would-be completely disr.
appointed,, which proVided that a creditor should
only have 'an option 'of proving 'under the com-
mission of Bankrupt, or of taking the person of
his debt Or. If he once embie4ced the option of the
former, then all right to avail himself of the latter
was totallyl,.?st to .11 im. Here, however; if the pla n-
tiff was to be allowed to keep the person of the de-
fendant, while, ,it the samethnee having proVed hiS
joint debt under Mr. 11.'s commisSion, under which
the...joint estate of the defendant, and of his other
partners, was to be distributed, not only would
he, in effect, have claimed under the defendant's
commission, and might- even receive dividends
from' the defendant's joitit property, while at the
same time he availed himself of the inconsistent
And contradictory right of keeping his person in
custody.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH.said, the present applica-
tion did not fall 'under tl'ie words of the Act.=
There was here no,'proof under the commission
against the defendant; and the Court could not
'extend the words of the Act. ' • •

Mr. CAMPBELL said, the object of the Act of
Parliament evidently was, that the creditor' shouhl
not have the property of the Bankrupt tinder his
commission, and his person at. the same time.
Lord ELLENBOROVG II said, the. meaning of the
Act, so far as he could collect it from the -words,
was, that.tbe creditor should not prove under the
commission against the Bankrupt, and have his
person at the same time.
Mr. CAMPBELL again submitted that this NI;t4S a
very hard case, and S. case of great importance.
Here all the property of the 'present defendafit was
to be distributed under a commission-under Nvhich
the plaintiff had proved this.yery debt against the
defendant, and yet sought to keep his person alsp.

Mr. Justice LE BLANC•said;the Lord Chancellor
had not vet decided that the joint. funds were to
be distributed under • the separate
..connuision
against Mr. Rennie. 'When his, Lordship. should
so order, the defendant's case would be,materially
changed for_the•better.—Ritle discharged.
The Court rose at au ear4.„kour, to pricl. the
Sheriffs in the Exchequer for tlic ensuing year.

`? • to