The Sun.
London, England, 1832-02-20 00:00:00

SOUSE OF LORDS.-(THIS DAY.)

Tic LORD CHANCELLOR and the Judges, among whom
vaa Mr. Baron GURNEY, sat in the House of Lords, to-
lay, to hear the case of Cadell v. Palmer, the question in
.vhich was of no importance whatever to the public,
arising principally upon the law of perpetuity.
Sir E. SUGDEN on the part of the appellant was addres-
sing the House when our reporter left.

BANKRUPTCY COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

JUDGMENT.-MOULT V. BARROW.

Their Ilialsouits gave judgment this morning in this
,iankropt petition, which was heard some time ago, on the
petition of the assignees of the estate of Thomas
arrow and George Geddes, against the judgment of the
Commissioners, finding Messrs. Williams and Company
entitled to prove against the joint estate of Barrow and
Geddes, and also against the separate estates of
Geddes. The facts of the case were shortly these :—W.
[bacon and Co., were holders and endorsees for the value
of two bills, one for 2551. 165., and another for 3821. 13s.
it three months. The bills were drawn by Barrow and
Co. upon, and accepted by, Thomas Johnson and Co. ;
they were endorsed by the drawers to Geddes and Co.,
and by them to Ratcliffe and Co. Thomas Barrow and
Co. were commission-agents at Manchester, and that busi-
ness was carried on by T. Barrow and G. Geddes, the two
bankrupts. The firm of Johnson and Co. carried on busi-
ness as warehousemen in London ; that business was con-
ducted by Jahnson and Geddes, one of the bankrupts.
The firm of Geddes and Co. carried on business as cotton-
manufacturers at Stockport, and was conducted by George
Geddes, Ratcliffe and Co., carried on their business at
Chester. Messrs. Williams and Co. at the time of taking the
bills were ignorant that Geddes was a partner with Barrow
and Co. In Sept. 1828, a joint commission issued against
Barrow and Geddes, and in the October following a com.
mission was sued out against Thomas Johnson and Co. In
the 'ninth of November, in the same year, Messrs.
Williams and Co. being the holders of the two bills, proved
them under Johnson and Co.'s commission, under
which dividends had been declared to the amount
of 2s. Sil. in the pound. In 1830, Williams and
Co. proved the s ime bills under the commission
against Barrow and Geddes, first against the joint estate
of Barrow and Geddes for the whole amount, and against
the separate estate of Geddes for the arnount--minue the
dividend declared under Johnson's commission. This
proof being allowed try the Commissioner, Moult and his
co-assignee presented the present appeal from that de-
cision, and prayed that Messrs. Williams and Co. might
be ordered to elect before the Commissioners whether they
would remain creditors of the joint estate of Barrow and
Geddes, or of the separate estate of the latter.
The CHIEF JUSTICE, in giving judgment, went elabo-
rately into the authorities that governed the question, and
in conclusion, stated his opinion to be that the creditor
must elect. That opinion was founded upon the general
rule established in bankruptcy, no case carrying the ex-
ception to that rule ►o far as would be necessary in the
present case, and also on an express decision of Lord
Eldon's. With respect to the dividends declared under
Johnson's commission, it was the opinion of his Honour
they must be deducted from the proof.
Mr. Justice PELL could not concur with the opinion ex-
pressed by the Chief Judge. The ground on which it was
contended there could not be a double proof, was that
the rule of bankruptcy was arbitrary. Was that arbitrary
rule correspondent with law or justice; clearly it was not.
He was, therefore, called upon to countenance a proposition
which was ba-ed altogether upon arbitrary judgment, and
not founded either upon principle, law, or justice. Before
he could do that lie must have direct and positive
authority. It was not to be supposed, that placed as
he was in a new situation, he was at all disposed to run
counter to the judgment of learned and eminent men—but
when his reason could not assent to their propositions, he
was bound to state the result of his judgment. He might
be charged with rashness for doing so, but he considered
it his duty. The Learned Judge then went at consider-
able length into the authorities, and concludeirdby expressing
it as his firm opinion, that Messrs. Williams and Co. were
entitled to the double proof.
Mr. Justice CROSS coincided entirely with the judgment
of Mr. Justice Pell.

Mr. Justice Ross concurred with the opinion expressed
by the Learned Chief Judge.
The result therefore was, that as no order could be
mad.. by the Court as to the double proof, the judgment of
the Commissioners remained in force, and the dividends
received under Johnson's commission were ordered to he
deducted from the double proof.