Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord Balgray.—Where there is a competition, I conceive it is within the discretionary power of the Court, on sufficient cause, to decide which of the competitors shall be preferred, even though there be great disparity in the number and value of the creditors who vote for each respectively. It is a common rule that the residence of the trustee should he where the bankrupt had chiefly carried on business, because, in general, that will best facilitate the management of the estate, at the same time that it will afford the readiest access to the creditors to examine into the trustee's proceedings. But I think the creditors, being the parties who are chiefly or solely interested in the realizing of the bankrupt estate, arc the best judges of what is for their own interest; and where there is so decided a majority in value, voting for M'Grigor, I incline to confirm him, notwithstanding that he resides in Edinburgh, and the bankrupt's seat of business was Glasgow. The creditors think M'Grigor, notwithstanding that circumstance, to be the best trustee.

Lord Gillies.—I am decidedly of the same opinion. The statute requires us to confirm the nomination of the trustee, if no good objection is made. In this case, the disproportion in value between the two sets of creditors is very great indeed. The creditors have the chief interest in the winding up of the bankrupt's estate, and they may, in general, be relied on as being fully alive to their interests, and perfectly able to understand them. I therefore cannot allow myself to confirm Dreghorn in the face of the nomination of M'Grigor by so great a majority in value; for, although M'Grigor resides in Edinburgh, all these creditors consider him to be the most eligible trustee. The minority supporting Dreghorn is extremely small, and I hold the Court, in the circumstances, to be bound to confirm M'Grigor.

Lord Mackenzie.—I am of the same opinion with both of your Lordships.