Prosper D'Epinay, James Alexander Pearson, and Henry Adams, Assignees of Messrs. Saunders and Wiche, Bankrupts, - Appellants; The said Messrs. Saunders and Wiche, Sir Charles Cockerell, Bart. and Company, Messrs. Ripley, Brothers and Others, - Respondents
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 25 June 1836 |
| Date | 25 June 1836 |
| Court | Privy Council |
English Reports Citation: 12 E.R. 751
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE MAURITIUS.
Mews' Dig. tit. Bankruptcy, H. V. Foreign Bankruptcies. For provisions of (i.) French law as to Acts of Bankruptcy, see Code de Commerce (law of 28th May, 1838); arts. 437 et seq.; (ii.) law of Mauritius as to acts of bankruptcy, see ordin. No. 23 of 1887, s. 6; and cf. ordin. No. 40 of 1899. For practice of Privy Council as to concurrent findings (1 Moo. P.C. 116), see Hay v. Gordon, 1872, L.R. 4, P.C. 337, 348; Allen v. Quebec Warehouse Co., 1886, 12 A.C. 101; Pauliem Valloo Chetty v. Pauliem Sooryah Chetty, 1877, L.R. 4, Ind. App. 109; Venkateswara lyan v. Skekhri, Varma, 1881, L.R. 8, Ind. App. 143; Moung Tha Hnyeen v. Moung Pan Nyo, 1900, L.R. 27, Ind. App. 166, and cf., as to House of Lords, Owners of P. Caland v. Glamorganshire S.S. Co. (1893), A.C. 207.
ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE MAURITIUS. PROSPER D'EPINAY, JAMES ALEXANDER PEARSON, and HENRY ADAMS, Assignees of Messrs. SAUNDERS and WICHE, Bankrupts,-Appellants; The said Messrs. SAUNDERS and WICHE, Sir CHARLES COCKERELL, Bart, and Co., Messrs. RIPLEY, BROTHERS and Others,-Respondents * [June 25, 1836]. Refusal to pay unless followed by a cessation of payment is not sufficient to establish the " ouverture de la faillite " under the 441 article of the Code de Commerce of France; and a suspension of payment does not necessarily amount to a cessation within the terms of that article: but as a general stoppage of payments necessarily amounts to a refusal at the time, if such stoppage has taken place, the " owvertwe de la faillite " may be carried back to the time of the antecedent refusal [1 Moo. P.C. 110, 111]. Where a house in the Mauritius carried on trade in co-partnership with one in London, and suspended its payments in consequence of the stoppage of the London house, though not till some time after the arrival of the intelligence of such stoppage, the Judicial Committee (affirming the judgment of the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court in the island) refused to carry back the date of the " ouverture de la faMite " to the failure of the London house, but held it fixed only from the period of the actual stoppage of payments in the island [1 Moo. P.C. 112]. This was an appeal promoted by the appellants (syndics definitifs) of the bankruptcy of Messrs. Saun-[104]-ders and Wiche, merchants in the island of Mauritius, on behalf of the general body of creditors in that island, against the said bankrupts and the other respondents, who were creditors of the firm of Saunders, Brothers, and Co. of London, partners of the said Messrs. Saunders and Wiche, from the judgment of the Supreme Court of the island, affirming the decree of the Court of First Instance, and declaring the bankruptcy of the said house of Saunders and Wiche open from the 1st day of October 1831; the appellants insisting that the bankruptcy ought to be open from the 25th day of August 1829. The question turned on the true construction of the French law regulating proceedings against persons declared to be " en faillite," contained in the 437th f and following articles of the " Code de Commerce," those principally relied on were 440,t 441, and 442.|| * Present: Mr. Baron Parke, Mr. Justice Bosanquet, Sir John Nicholl and Sir Herbert Jenner. t 437. Tout commerfant qui cesse ses paiemens, eat en etat de faillite. | 440. Tout failli sera tenu, dans les trois jours de la cessation de paiemens, d'en faire la declaration au greffe du tribunal de commerce; le jour oil il aura cesse ses paiemens sera compris dans ces trois jours. En cas de faillite d'une societe en nom collectif, la declaration du failli contiendra le nom et 1'indication du domicile de chacun des associes solidaires. 441. L'ouverture de la faillite est declaree par le tribunal de commerce; son epoque est fixee, soit par la retraite du debiteur, soit par la cloture de ses magasins, soit par la date de tous actes constatant le refus d'acquitter ou de payer des engage-mens de commerce. Tous les actes ci-dessus mentionnes ne constaterant neanmoins 1'ouverture de la faillite que lorsqu'il y aura, cessation de paiemens ou declaration du failli. || 442. Le failli, a compte du jour de la faillite, est dessaisi de plein droit, de 1'administration de tous ses biens. 751 i moore, loo d'epinay v. cockeeell [1836] As the general facts of the case are fully stated in [105] the judgment, and the authorities cited at the bar repeated and commented on by the learned Judge, and as the decree in the court below was affirmed, it is thought unnecessary to repeat the arguments of counsel, which were necessarily directed rather to the facts than the law of the case. Dr. Lushington and Pemberton, E.G., for the Appellants. Knight, K.C., and Wigram, K.C., for the Respondents. Mr. Justice Bosanquet.-The appellants in this case are the assignees (syndics definitifs) of Messrs. Saunders and Wich6, merchants in the island of Mauritius, who have been declared by a competent court of that island to be en faMite. The respondents are the said Messrs. Saunders and Wich6; Messrs. Ripley, Brothers, of London; Messrs. Cockerell...
To continue reading
Request your trial