The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIciENCE.

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY, August 14.
(Before Mr. Ganmissioner FANa.)
IN RE TAYLOE.—NON-LIABILITY OF " ALL" FUTURE AC-
QUIRED PROPERTY TO THE PAYMENT OF OW DEBTS.
Tue insolvent in this case was an attorney, and an appli-
cation had been made by Mr. Reed, on behalf of the official
assignee, to " claim and obtain" certain property to which
the insolvent had become entitled upon the demise and in
pursuance of the will of a Mrs. Watts, of Brighton.
A lengthened argument upon that application having
take❑ p 1 ,ce,

The Learned COMMISSIONER said the case was one of too
much nicety and importance to be decided without mature
consideration, and now proceeded to deliver Lis judgment.
"This insolvent petitioned the Court in 1843, and obtained
his dial order in the same year. In 1845 he became en-
titled to a legacy and other property, under the will of a
Mrs. Watts, who died in that year. No creditors' as-
signee was ever appointed. Mr. Whitmore, the official as-
signee, having accidentally heard that the insolvent bad ac-
quired property, ' claimed and demanded' such property
from the insolvent personally, pursuant to the 9th section of
the sth and 6th Victoria, chapter 116, on the 20th of July
last; and, on the same day, filed a copy of his claim. Mr.
Whitmore now asks that I should make an order authorising
him to take possession of the estate and effects which the
insolvent acquired under the will of Mrs. Watts. Mr. Whit-
more's application was opposed by Mr. Nicholls, as counsel
for a Mr. Bertram, to whom the insolvent assigned his inte-
rest under Mrs. Watts' will, by way of security for a loan of
200/., by a deed dated the 15th of January, 1846. It was
also opposed by a Mr. Edwards, as attorney to some trustees,
to whom the insolvent on the 18th of July last assigned his
property in trust for creditors who had become such since his
insolvency. The question is whether I ought to give to Mr.
Whitmore the authority asked? Taking the view I do of
the state of the case, I cannot authorise Mr. Whitmore to
seize any property which came to the insolvent after the
date of the final order which was not his property on
the 20th day of July, when the claim was filed
It is represented to me that the insolvent had heard in Jun,
or July that the official assignee was going to make and file a
claim under the 9LII section, and that he lost no time in
making the assignment of the 18th of July, expressly to de-
feat Mr. Wt.itmore's claim; if so, his conduct was most un-
fair towards his former creditors, and it is possible that the
official assignee might, by proceedings in Chancery, set
aside the as-ignment by the insolvent as fraudulent; and t •
assist him or any creditor in making out smelt case, I would
execute an authority to Mr. Whitmore, in general terms,
authorising him to take possession of any estates or effects
acquired by the insolvent, not effectually assigned away b)
him before the filing of the claim, subject, if necessary, to
proper qualifications. The official a-signee or creditors un-
der the old insolvency might also psocure redress against the
insolvent for his improper conduct, by procuring a rescind!
ing of the fin-il order under the 12th sec., 5 and 6 Vic., c.
116, on the ground that he had not given due notice to hi,
assignees of property acquired by him after the date of his
final order."

Saturday, Aug. 15.
IN RE REAY AND REAY.

A question of a n,,vel character was brought bef)re the
Court in tin matter of Rea} and Rear, the wine mr,rchan.,
of Mark-lane, in whose estate a dividend has recently been
declared of 2s. 6d. in the pound.

On the part of a creditor for 5,0001., an attorney applied
for the payment of a dividend on bills of exchange to 4,8004,
notwithstanding that since the bankruptcy payment had
been made by bills to 2,670/. The original debt was 5,000/.
money advanced, and bills of exchange were deposited for
7,0001., being drawn and indorsed by the bankrupts. Since
the proof of the deb', which was for 5,0001., when the bits
were exhibited, 2,6701. of the sem ities had been paid, and it
was insisted that the party who tad proved was entitled to
a dividend on 4,8907.. being the amount of the bills he held,
notwithstanding that his actual debt was much under that
sum, he having been paid 2,6701. off his original claim of
5,0001.

On the part of the assignees, several cases were cited,
bearing on the point.

His Hostipuft said it was a very nice question. He was
impressed with the opinion, that under the circumstances.
the creditor was entitled to a dividend on the securities be
held, but it was a matter fur the official assignee, and he
would suggest that the point had better be brought before
another Learned Commissioner before the matter was taken
into the C. urt of Review. As at preient advised, he was in
favour of the creditor.