BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Weldon v. Ferrier (Weldon's Trustee) [1879] ScotLR 17_117_1 (15 November 1879) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1879/17SLR0117_1.html Cite as: [1879] ScotLR 17_117_1, [1879] SLR 17_117_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 117↓
The consent of the commissioners is, by section 139 of the Bankruptcy Statute 1856, necessary before the trustee can call a meeting of creditors to consider an offer of composition made by a bankrupt subsequent to
Page: 118↓
the meeting held after his examination; but in the event of the trustee or commissioners abusing their office in refusing such consent, a remedy is open under the 169th section of the statute, either by appeal or by petition and complaint. Circumstances where in such an appeal at the instance of the bankrupt the Court declined to interfere, and refused the appeal, there being no evidence that the commissioners had abused their office.
Charles Weldon became bankrupt, and his estates were sequestrated in March 1879, a trustee (Mr Ferrier) and two commissioners being appointed. At the first general meeting of the creditors on 19th March there was submitted a written offer by the bankrupt of a composition of 2s. 6d. per £1, and suggesting the name of one or other of two gentlemen as security. This offer was subsequently rejected, as the gentlemen named did not consent to give caution. At the second general meeting of creditors on 8th April a state of affairs of the bankrupt shewed assets nil, liabilities (preferable) £530 and (ordinary) £1022. On 11th August the bankrupt wrote to the trustee offering a composition of Is. per £1, to be paid by instalments, and to this letter was appended—“I hereby become security for the composition above offered.—George Weldon, 33 Montague Street, Edinburgh.” The trustee and the commissioners subsequently held a meeting on 20th August, the minute of which bore that “George S. Ferrier, the trustee, laid before the meeting an offer of composition of 1s. per £, dated 11th August 1879, from the bankrupt, with an offer by the bankrupt's brother Mr George Weldon of security for the said composition. The meeting after due consideration refused to give their consent to the trustee to call a meeting of the creditors to consider and decide upon that offer, in respect, first, of the inadequacy of the offer, and second, of the insufficiency of the cautioner.”
On August 26th the bankrupt's law-agent wrote to the Accountant in Bankruptcy requesting him to “require the trustee to call the necessary meeting of creditors to have the offer and security disposed of in terms of the statute.” The Accountant replied (on August 27th) that under section 139 of the Act, the commissioners having refused their consent, “I do not find that I can order the trustee to call such a meeting. It is for the bankrupt's consideration whether he should not, under the provisions of the 169th section of the said Act, appeal against the deliverance of the trustee and commissioners in regard to this matter.”
The bankrupt appealed, and on 15th September the Lord Ordinary officiating on the Bills ( Currie-Hill) refused the appeal, adding to his interlocutor the following note:—
“ Note.—The consent of the commissioners is by section 139 of the Bankrupt Statute necessary before the trustee can call a meeting of creditors to consider an offer of composition made by a bankrupt subsequent to the meeting held after his examination. It appears to me that it is absolutely within the discretion of the commissioners to grant or withhold their consent. In this case not only do the commissioners withhold their consent, but it was stated at the hearing, and not denied, that the trustee concurs with the commissioners in thinking that the offer is not one which should be submitted to the creditors. I can see no grounds for holding that the commissioners are abusing their discretionary powers, and, on the whole, I think the note of appeal must be refused, with expenses.”
The bankrupt reclaimed, and argued—The commissioners were not entitled at their own hand to prevent the calling of a meeting of creditors to consider an offer of composition made in proper form and on sufficient caution. As to the offer being too small, the assets were nil, and the composition offered would be found money to the creditors. The proceedings had, in fact, been actuated by private and interested motives.
At advising—
But what we have to consider is that there has been no allegation even at the bar that the commissioners have abused their office for the purpose of oppressing the bankrupt. If they had done so, a remedy might have been had from the Accountant in Bankruptcy, who can come to this Court for aid; and further, section 169 of the statute authorises a petition and complaint against any deliverance of the trustee or commissioners. We cannot therefore entertain this appeal against the commissioners; and as to the trustee, the absence of his consent renders it incompetent for him to call the meeting, I am therefore for refusing the reclaiming note.
The Court refused the appeal.
Counsel for Appellant and Reclaimer— Mair. Agent— James Barton, S.S.C.
Counsel for Respondents— Rhind. Agents— J. & W. C. Murray, W.S.
