Cridland, ex parte
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 10 August 1814 |
| Date | 10 August 1814 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 35 E.R. 415
LINCOLN'S INN HALL.
S. C. 2 Rose, 164. See In re O'Reardon, 1873, L. R. 9 Ch. 78.
3 V. &B. 95. KX PARTK CRIDLAND 415 ckidland, Ex parte. Lincoln's Inn Hall. August 9, 10, 1814. [S. G. 2.Rose, 164. See In re O'Reardon, 1873, L. R. 9 Ch. 78.] A joint Commission of Bankruptcy not superseded on the Ground of a previous separate Commission, proceeding in Ireland. The Bankrupt's Books and Papers being in the Master's Office in Ireland in a Suit by the English Assignees against the Irish, the Assignees were ordered to procure them, if necessary, or Copies, if the Commissioners should think Copies sufficient, at the Expence of the Estate ; and the Bankrupt, not having the Power or Means of procuring them, not liable to Commitment, if his Examination should thereby prove defective. The Lord Chancellor will not make an Order upon Commissioners how to conduct the Examination of the Bankrupt. The Petition stated, that the Petitioner and his Brother Benjamin Cridland in August 1812, entered into Partnership as Merchants in England and Ireland ; [95] the Petitioner residing in Dublin, and Benjamin Cridland at Leicester; the Petitioner wholly conducting the Business in Ireland, and Benjamin Cridland in England. In January 1813, a Commission of Bankruptcy under the Great Seal of Ireland issued against the Petitioner; who, on the 15th of that Month was declared a Bankrupt; and on the 4th of May passed his last Examination, and delivered up to the Assignees all his Books of Account and Papers. On the 28th of January 1813, a joint Commission of Bankruptcy issued in this Country against the Petitioner and Benjamin Cridland; who were declared Bankrupts. The Commissioners under that Commission repeatedly adjourned the Examination of the Petitioner, who was unable to produce his Books and Papers, which he had delivered up to the Assignees under the Commission in Ireland ; where they were deposited in the Office of one of the Masters in Chancery, in a Suit, instituted by the Assignees in England against the Assignees in Ireland ; to which the Petitioner was made a Party. The Petition farther stating, that Copies of the Books, &c., could not be taken without the Order of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that the Expence of applying to the Court, and making Copies, was estimated at £130, that the Petitioner's Offer to his Assignees, if they would pay the Charges, to do all he could to obtain Copies, was refused, and that he had no Property, prayed, that the joint Commission may be superseded, at the Expence of the petitioning Creditor; or that the Proceedings under that Commission may be stayed as to the Petitioner; or that the Commissioners may receive a Certificate from the [96] Commissioners under the separate Commission, that the Petitioner had duly passed his last Examination ; or may receive a Balance Sheet and Statement, &c., or that the Assignees under the joint Commission may pay the Expcnces of the Petitioner's Journey to obtain Copies, and of procuring them, &c. Sir Samuel Bomilly, and Mr. Montague, in support of the Petition. Upon the Question, raised by this Petition, the Law was fully settled before the late Case, in the Bankruptcy of Stein and Co. (Ex parte The Royal Bank of Scotland, 1 Rose Bank. Ca. 462); which decided, that, a Commission of Bankruptcy having issued in England against a Person, who was a Member of a Partnership in Scotland, a joint Sequestration could not be maintained against the other Partners in Scotland. That Decision leaves no Doubt upon the Question as between Commissions of Bankruptcy in England and Ireland: the Proceeding in each Country being precisely the same : but several Distinctions exist between that and a Scotch Sequestration. The Case, that occurred lately upon a similar Proceeding in Russia...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Re Dunne (a bankrupt)
...& ORS DICEY MORRIS & COLLINS ON THE CONFLICT OF LAWS 14ED 2006 PARA 31.077 THULIN (A DEBTOR), IN RE 1995 1 WLR 165 CRIDLAND, EX P, IN RE 35 ER 415 1814 3 v & B 94 LYALL v JARDINE MATHESON & CO 1869-71 3 LR PC 318 O'REARDON, IN RE 1873-74 9 LR CH APP 74 HERMANOS, EX P CHALE, IN RE 1890 24 QB......
-
Penny v Watts
...528. not competent even at law to ask'the ground of that opinion, bufcthe general question only is permitted." And in an Anonymous case (3 V. & B. 94) in bankruptcy Lord Eldon said the rule of-the Court of Chancery never permitted an examination as to specific charges, although it might be ......
-
Anstruther v Adair
...for the information of the Court (Elliott v. Lord Minto, 6 Mad., 16 ; The King of Spain v. Machado, 4 Kuss., 225 ; E-x, parte Cridland, 3 V. & B., 94); and there would still remain an important question behind, namely, whether, when a trust fund belonging to a married woman came properly wi......