Dinning v Henderson
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1850 |
| Date | 09 February 1850 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 64 E.R. 668
HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY
[702] dinning v. henderson. Feb. 9, 1850. In paying a creditor who has proved in an administration suit upon a bill of exchange, income tax is deducted from the interest. This was a petition, presented on behalf of the Eoyal .Bank of Scotland, who had proved under the decree for a sum due, in respect of principal and interest, upon a bill of exchange, accepted by the testator in the cause, and which fell due after his decease. The bill was as follows:-"Grlasgow, 6th March 1849.-Six months after date pay to me or my order, at my counting-house here, One Thousand Pounds, value received." The Master had deducted a sum in respect of income tax from the amount payable on account of interest upon the bill, and the petition sought that the Master might review his report in this respect. Mr. Lewin, in support of the petition. Interest in a case like the present is in the nature of damages, and therefore not payable under any contract; it does not therefore come within the meaning of the Income Tax Act. The Petitioners would have, if the tax were now deducted, to pay twice over in respect of the same sum. Holroyd v. WyaM (1 De G. & S. 125), Damon v. Dawsan (11 Jur. 984). Neither in the Courts of Common Law nor in Bankruptcy is any such deduction made in cases of bills of exchange. Mr. Toller, for the Eespondents, said that the practice was uniformly in the Masters' offices according to the decision now sought to be reviewed, and had been S DE G. & SM. 703. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. VINT 669 adopted soon after the passing of the Income Tax Act, with the general concurrence of all the Masters. The Vice-Chancellor, who, during the argument, sent a communication to the Masters' office, stated that both Master Dowdeswell and Master Farrer, whom His Honour [703] had consulted, were of opinion that the deduction ought to be made. Mr. Lewin, in reply. The practice may be as stated; but, as the question now comes before the Court upon appeal, the Court is bound to decide according to its own construction of the Act of Parliament, as laid down in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colclough v Colclough
...8 TC 454, 1 K & J 217. Berry v Farrow [1914] 1 IR 358. Cox v Murray [1919] 1 IR 358. Dawson v Dawson 11 Jur 984. Dinning v Henderson 3 de G & S 702. Glamorgan Quarter Sessions v Wilson 5 TC 537, [1910] 1 KB 725. Goslings and Sharpe v Blake 2 TC 450, 23 QBD 324. Hamilton v Linaker [1923] IR ......
-
Bebb v Bunny
...deducted in all cases of debt bearing interest, including even bills of exchange. Lord Justice Knight Bruce, in Dinning v. Henderson (3 De G. & S. 702), having found that practice to be settled in respect of interest on bills of exchange, declined to disturb it, and allowed the deduction, a......
-
Hamilton v Linaker
...income tax at the current rate. If I am wrong in this, the Court of Appeal will set me right. (1) Before Pim J. (1) 13 Vesey, 316. (2) 3 De G. & Sm. 702. (3) 23 Q. B. D. (1) 1 K. & J. 216. (2) 23 Q. B. D. 324. (3) 3 De G. & Sm. 702. (4) [1907] 2 Ch. D. 448. (1) 23 Q. B. D. 324. is with the ......
-
Re Colclough, Colclough and Others v Colclough and Others
...of Mr. Justice Dixon must be affirmed in all respects. Haugh J.:— I also agree. Walsh J. :— I also agree. (1) [1923] 1 I. R. 104. (2) 3 De G. & S. 702. (3) 1 De G. & S. (1) [1923] 1 I. R. 104. (2) [1918] 1 I. R. 30. (1) [1936] I. R. 164. (1) Before Ó Dálaigh ó dálaigh, C.J., Lavery, Kingsmi......