The Sun.
London, England, 1833-10-23 00:00:00

BANKRUPTCY COURT, OCT. 22.

(Before Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD.)
IN THE BANKRUPTCY OF WILLIAM CROGGAN.—
The first meeting of the creditors under the fiat
awarded against Mr. William Croggatt, artificial
stone and scag!iola manufacturer, was held to-day for
the proof of debts and the choice of assignees.
DETENTION OF A MONUMENT.—An application
was made to the Court to authorize the delivery
of a monument under the following peculiar circum-

stances :
The executors of the late John Robinson, Esq ,
appeared to support the application for the delivery
of the monument. They stated that the deceased
was a man of some wealth, and he had built alms-
houses at a place called The Retreat, at Hackney.
Twenty years before his death he had given orders
for the construct;on of a monument to be placed

over his remains; and the bankrupt had constructed
one after the directions given by the deceased. The
late Mr. Robinson had paid the bankrupt 1001. for
the monument, but it had remained at the ware-
house of Mr. Croggan up to the period when the
fiat was issued, and it was then taken possession of
as being the property of the creditors. As the
executors of the deceased, they now claimed to have
the monument delivered over to them, in order that
the intentions of the deceased might be carried into
effect.
Mr. JAMES, the solicitor to the estate, had to sub-
mit whether the monument had not passed into the
hands of the assignees according to the law, it being
in the hands of the bankrupt at the time the *at
was issued. It was material to know when the exe-

miters were aware that the monument was in the
hands of the deceased. The fiat issued on the 4th
August, and the deceased did not die until the 4th

September.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD said it was a ques-
tion of disputed ownership, and it was provided that
property left in the hands of bankrupts at the time
of the fiat should pass to the assignees, except under
special circumstances.
The executors said the whole amount of the cost
of the monument had been paid before the bankruptcy.
Mr. JAMES—There was no inscription on the
monument, and parties who dealt with Mr. Crog,gan
had no means of knowing that it was not his pro-
perty.
The executors said it was known to be Mr. Ro-

binson's monument. They were placed in an awk
ward situation ; they had obtained a tablet to fix on
it, as well as the railing to surround it, but could not
carry the deceased's intentions into effect in conse-
quence of the detention of the monument.
The COMMISSIONER asked if the monument stood
apart from the property of the bankrupt?
Mr. Croggan's superintendent stated that the
monument was known as belonging to Mr. Robin.
son. It was pointed out to persons visiting the
works. It was made for Mr. Robinson, and was
never exposed for sale.
The bankrupt confirmed this statement, and said
he was in the habit of showing the monument to his
customers, and told them whose it was, in conse-
quence of the remarkable fact of a man ordering his
own monument so many years before he died.
The COMMISSIONER said there appeared no doubt
as to the facts of the case, but it was a question of
law. If Mr. Robinson allowed it to remain in the
hands of the bankrupt without some special cause, it
it would pass into the hands of the assignees. He
thought there was sufficient in the case to warrant
him in directing the monument to be delivered to
the executors.
Mr. JAMES submitted that it would be a hardship
not to allow it to be delivered, but as he attended
to the interests of the creditors, and it being a nice
point of law, he had thought it his duty to call the
attention of the Court to it.
The COMMISSIONER said it was a nice point of
law, and one he believed that had never been before
the Court. He thought there would be no difficulty
in the way of delivering it up.
At the request of Mr. JAMES no order was made
until the assignees had been appointed.
IMPORTANT DECISION RESPECTING BONDS.—
Mr. James stated that Mr. John Danford appeared
to prove a debt for 2,0001. against the estate, to
which he should object. The claimant had formerly
been in partnership with Mr. Croggan under a deed
dated in 1830, the former having brought 3,0001
into the concern. The partnership lasted for two
years, and, being unprofitable, a bond was given to
Mr. Danford on the dissolution of the partnership
for the sum now claimed. He (Mr. James) objected
to the proof being allowed on four grounds; first,
on the ground thot there were debts now outstand-
ing which were due from the joint estate, and
therefore the claimant could not by proving be al-
lowed to prejudice the separate creditors; secondly,
the proof could. not be allowed as Mr. Danford had
placed an execution in the premises; in the thin;
place, there was no proper balance of the accounts
when the partnership ceased, the bond in question
being given for an amount only guessed at, as it
might as easily have been for 10,0001.; and, in the
fourth place, Mr. Croggan had during the partner-
ship requested more money, which Mr. Danford
had refused to advance, and the bankrupt being
driven to his own resources, obtained money which
was employed in trade, and thus the loss of the
claimant was lessened. On these grounds he ob-
jected to the proof. His strong ground was dint
the partnership debts had not been paid.
The COURT said it appeared by the partnership
agreement that Mr. Croggan was bound to pay the
debts.

Mr. MONTAGU, who appeared as Counsel for
Mr. Danford, said his client was in a situation in
which many persons were placed in this commercial
city, who were induced to advance their money in
concerns in the hope of their proving as productive
as the mines of Mexico, instead of which they found
nothing but losses: With respect to the first ob-
jection, Mr. Croggan stipulated to pay the debts.
An erroneous view of the law on this subject had
recently been set at rest by the Court of Review in
the case of" re Saxe." It was a question of proof
and dividend. The proof was admitted, and the
gentleman proving elected himself assignee, and so
it stands. One partner could, therefore, prove
against another, but not receive dividends against
the interests of the separate creditors. A partner
could not prove against the separate estate, as that
might stop in transitu the surplus of the separate es-
tate to the joint estate. With respect to the warrant
of attorney on which the execution had been put in,
that was done in case a valid act of bankruptcy
should not have occurred. As to the third objection,
it had been decided that unless an act of fraud
could be made out, a bond given under such circum-
stances as the present was valid. In Boldero's
bankruptcy the question was decided. But he had
an account that was made out by the bankrupt
when the bond was given, by which it appeared the
bankrupt was solvent, and his client took a bond for
2,0001. out of 3,0001. he had advanced. The last
objection, that his client would not advance more
money, was not tenable. With respect to the exe-
cution, it was now clear law that goods, so taken and
not converted into cash before tt,e fiat, should pass
into the hands of the assignees.
Mr. JAMES considered that as the law stood Mr.
Danford could not prove unless the joint debts were
paid.
The COURT said that the practice had been as
stated by Mr. James.
Mr. MONTAGU said he held the converse opinion
and had always ruled to. Sir John Leach in a case
thought as he did, but Lord Eldon overruled the
decision. The Court of Review had decided in a
case like this that it was not one of dividend.
Mr. Commissioner HOLROYD considered that Mr.
Danford had a right to prove for the amount of the
bond, reserving the right with respect to dividends.
Mr. JAistro considered he should have the right
of opening the accounts at the close of the part-
nership, when the bond %%as given.
Mr. MONTAGU denied that such right existed.
The bankrupt had made out his accounts, and he
must abide by them.
Mr. Danford then proved for the amount of the

bond, a minute of the reservation, with respect to
,he dividend, being entered also.
The debts of the bankrupt amount to nearly
10,0004, and the stock, which consists of ar►icles
nif a fancy nature chiefly, is valued at about 2,0001.
The amount of assets are not yet fully known.
Mr. Peter Paul Grillier and Mr. Thomas Robson
were appointed assignees, and the proceedings were
adjourned.