PROPERTY-After-acquired Leaseholds-Mortgage by Undischarged Bankrupt Non-Intervention of Trustee― Disclaimer-Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 88. 44, 55. The principle laid down in Cohen v. Mitchell that until the trustee intervenes all transactions by a bankrupt after his bankruptcy with any person dealing with him bonâ fide and for value, in respect of his after-acquired property, whether with or without knowledge of the bankruptcy, are valid as against the trustee, applies to chattel interests in land. Consequently a mortgagee in possession of leaseholds acquired by the mortgagor after bankruptcy can sell them if the trustee in bankruptcy has not intervened. Quare, whether section 55 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, applies to after-acquired property. In re Clayton & Beaumont's Contract. Pension, 201, 361. See Pension. PROTECTED TRANSACTION-Charging Order-Bankruptcy Act, 1883, (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 88. 45, 49. 66 A charging order, on a debtor's interest in a sum of money, is not a contract, dealing or transaction" within the protection of section 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Ex parte Pillers, In re Curtoys, approved and followed. RENT-Distress for, 192, 212, 400. See Distress. In re REPUTED OWNERSHIP-Book Debts-Mortgage-Appointment of Receiver-Bankruptcy-No Notice of Assignment to Debtors-Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 (44 & 45 Vict. c. 41), 88. 19, 24— Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), 88. 44, subs. 3, 49. As a general rule, the assignee of a debt, in order to take it out of the order and disposition of the assignor, is bound to give notice of the assignment to the debtor. And although, from the absence of notice, consent on the part of the true owner to the debt remaining in the order and disposition of a bankrupt is primâ facie inferred, that inference may be rebutted by the facts, and will be rebutted if the true owner takes every possible step to obtain possession of the debt, or if the failure to do so is not attributable to any fault of his If proper steps are taken while the assignee has no notice of an act of bankruptcy, the assignee will be entitled to the protection of section 49 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. own. A mortgagee of leasehold properties and of the goodwill and connexion of the business carried on there, and the book debts on 9 May, 1893, purported to appoint, under the Conveyancing Act, 1881, a receiver of the mortgaged property, who took possession and carried on the business. On 16 May the mortgagor committed an act of bankruptcy. On 17 May the mortgagee, who had no notice of the act of bankruptcy, commenced an action for foreclosure, and on 19 May the receiver already in possession was appointed by the PAGE 345 4 Court receiver of the leasehold properties and the book debts. On 16 June a receiving order was made against the mortgagor, founded on the act of bankruptcy, and an adjudication subsequently followed. No notice of the mortgage was ever given to the debtors of the business: Held, that neither the appointment of 9 May nor the subsequent appointment by the Court was sufficient to take the book debts out of the order and disposition of the bankrupt with the consent of the true owner, inasmuch as it was not followed within a reasonable time by notice to the debtors. Rutter v. Everett SECURED CREDITOR-Deed of Arrangement, 1. See Arrangement, Notice to redeem-Lumping Securities—Policies falling in—Rights of Where a secured creditor of a bankrupt holds several securities, and gives notice to the trustee requiring the trust under Rule to redeem a particular security or to be foreclosed, the notice is not bad merely because the creditor in his proof has lumped his securities and not valued each separately. The practice of a creditor in proving lumping debts and securities is primâ facie legal and proper, but the trustee has a right to call on the creditor to assess the value of any particular security, and the creditor has a similar right. In re Smith and Logan, Ex parte Fletcher and Brandon SET-OFF-" Mutual credits, mutual debts, or other mutual dealings "-- Where a person instructed auctioneers to sell property, and a sum of money became due to them in respect of their charges in connection therewith, and he subsequently delivered to them certain goods as bailees with an authority to sell the same, and thereafter became bankrupt : Held, that the credit given by the auctioneers to the debtor in respect of these charges for the sale of the property, and the credit given by the debtor to the auctioneers in respect of the goods to be sold by them and the money to be realized-the authority never having been revoked—was a giving of credit to the auctioneers, and constituted "mutual dealings" between them and the debtor within the meaning of section 38 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Palmer v. Day & Sons SETTLEMENT-Post-nuptial Settlement-" Apparent possession”—Husband and Wife living together-Bills of Sale Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 36), 88. 1, 7. Chattels settled by a husband on his wife by post-nuptial settlement, and being in a house which is the matrimonial domicil at the PAGE 371 70 386 date of the husband's bankruptcy, are not in the apparent possession of the husband within the meaning of the Bills of Sale Act, 1854, though the settlement is not registered under that Act, if the possession is consistent with the trusts of the settlement. In re Satterthwaite, Ex parte The Trustee SETTLEMENT—Money of Wife lent to Husband not for Purposes of Trade or Business-Post-nuptial Settlement-Husband's Life Interest—Gift over on Bankruptcy or Alienation-Validity of Settlement-Married Women's Property Act, 1882 (45 & 16 Vict. c. 75), s. 3. A. and B. (husband and wife) were married subsequently to the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, the wife being possessed of certain property. There was no marriage settlement. This property the wife lent to the husband, but not for the purposes of trade or business. Subsequently a post-nuptial settlement was executed of this, together with other property, on A. for life, with a gift over to B. on bankruptcy or alienation, then to B. for life, remainder to the children. A. became bankrupt. Held (1), that the settlement was good as against the trustee in bankruptcy to the extent of the property of the wife received by the husband, and that this principle was not confined to marriage settlements. Dictum of WOOD, V.-C., in Whitmore v. Mason adopted. Held (2), that the money not having been entrusted to the husband for the purposes of any trade or business, section 3 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882, which postpones the wife's claim to that of other creditors in such cases, was not applicable. Ex parte Tidswell followed. Mackintosh v. Pogose. Settlement of Personalty-Bankruptcy of Settlor—“ Possession, Order, and Disposition" of Bankrupt "Consent and Permission of True Owner"-Cestuis que trustent-Trustees-Settlor-Bankruptcy Act, 1849 (12 & 13 Vict. c. 106), ss. 125, 141–Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52), s. 4, subs. 3. Semble, the beneficiaries under a settlement of personalty made for valuable consideration, and not the settlor or the trustees, are the "true owners" of the settled property within the meaning of section 125 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1849 (which is in similar terms to subsection 3 of section 44 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883). Such property will, therefore, not vest in the settlor's trustee in bankruptcy, unless it be shown that it has been in the "poss ssion, order and disposition" of the bankrupt with the "consent" of the beneficiaries. Even if the trustees are the true owners, persons who are appointed trustees of a settlement, but for several years do not know of its existence, and disclaim as soon as they do know, cannot be said to have consented" to the settled property remaining in the "possession, order and disposition" of the bankrupt, though in fact it does so. In re Mills' Trusts PAGE 52 27 479 SHERIFF REMAINING IN POSSESSION TWENTY-ONE DAYS, 23. See Act of Bankruptcy. SOLICITOR OF DEBTOR-Costs-Taxation, 217. See Costs. TAXATION OF COSTS, 217, 67, 369. See Costs. TIME-Computation-Fraction of a Day-Act of Bankruptcy-Holding of Debtor's Goods by the Sheriff for Twenty-one Days Bankruptcy Act, 1890 (53 & 54 Vict. c. 71), s. 1. The twenty-one days for which the sheriff must have held the debtor's goods under an execution in order to constitute the act of bankruptcy created by section 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1890, are exclusive of the day upon which the seizure takes place. In re North, Ex parte Hasluck. (C. A.) TRANSFER—Administration Action-Judicial Discretion-Bankruptcy Where an action for administration had been commenced in the Chancery Division by the beneficiaries of a deceased partner against the sole trustee of his estate, who was also his surviving partner, and less than two months afterwards a receiving order was made against such partner-trustee, the Judge in Bankruptcy in the exercise of his discretion, under section 102 (4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, made an order transferring the action to himself. In re Somes, Ex parte Deller v. Somes TRUSTEE-Account-Claim for by Board of Trade-" Such Trustee". The words "any such trustee," in section 162 (2) (b) of the Bank- Appointment-" Difficult to act with impartiality"-Accountability- The mere fact that a proposed trustee in bankruptcy may be PAGE 326 396 500 511 TRUSTEE-Costs-Taxation, 67. See Costs. PAGE Removal-Irregularity-Delay in Paying in-Deceit - Bankruptcy Though mere delay by a trustee in bankruptcy in paying moneys 526 BILL OF SALE APPARENT POSSESSION, 52. See Bankruptcy-Settlement. ASSIGNMENT OF CHATTELS WITH CHOSE IN ACTION—Assignment of Chattels void under Bills of Sale Acts-Severance of Assignment of Chose in Action. Chattels which were let out under a hire and purchase agreement were assigned by an indenture which also assigned to the same assignee the benefit of the agreement. The assignment of the chattels was void by virtue of the Bills of Sale Acts :— Held, that the assignment of the hiring agreement was separable from that of the chattels, and though the assignment of the proprietary rights was void by reason of the Bills of Sale Acts, the assignment of the contractual rights to which the agreement gave rise was valid. In re Isaacson, Ex parte Mason. (C. A.). FORM-Payment of Interest and Principal by Instalments—Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Vict. c. 43), s. 9, and schedule. A bill of sale is not void, as not being in the form in the schedule of the Bills of Sale Act (1878) Amendment Act, 1882, because it provides for payment by equal instalments "on account of interest and principal," the number of instalments not being limited, and the amount specified for the instalments being such that the last payment to be made will not, in fact, equal that amount. In re Bargen, Ex parte Hasluck, followed. Linfoot v. Pockett Stipulations not for the Maintenance or Defeasance of the Security— J. M. S. gave a bill of sale to the plaintiffs (who were creditors) to secure repayment of 150l. (which they advanced to him to enable him to pay a composition to creditors other than themselves), and also to secure a composition to which they themselves were entitled. The bill of sale contained a stipulation "that during the course of 11 482 |