BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Hendrie v. Lindsay (C.& A. Christie's Trustee) [1879] ScotLR 16_730 (11 July 1879)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1879/16SLR0730.html
Cite as: [1879] ScotLR 16_730, [1879] SLR 16_730

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 730

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Friday, July 11. 1879.

[ Lord Adam, Ordinary.

16 SLR 730

Hendrie

v.

Lindsay (C.& A. Christie's Trustee).

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Bankruptcy
Subject_3Reporting a Creditor against Interlocutor granting Trustee's Discharge
Subject_4Intimation to Creditors — Bankruptcy ( Scotland) Act 1856 (19 and 20 Vict. c. 79), sec. 152.
Facts:

A trustee in bankruptcy applied with the concurrence of all the creditors except one for his discharge. The usual remit was to the Accountant of Court, who in his report left it for the consideration of the Lord Ordinary whether there should not be special intimation to the dissenting creditor of the application for discharge. The matter was not brought under the notice of the Court, and an interlocutor was pronounced granting discharge. On this coming to the knowledge of the creditor he presented a reclaiming note, but after the expiry of the reclaiming days, asking to be reponed. Held (following the case of Milne v. Maccallum, Jan. 22, 1878, 5 R. 546) that notice not having been given to the dissenting creditor of the application for discharge, he was entitled to be reponed, and case remitted to the Lord Ordinary to inquire into the merits.

Headnote:

The estates of C. & A. Christie, coal and iron masters, Gladsmuir, were sequestrated on April 5, 1871, and Mr T. S. Lindsay was appointed trustee in the sequestration. The realisation of the estates were then proceeded with, and a final division of the funds made.

The trustee, in terms of section 152 of the Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1856, then duly called a meeting of the creditors, with a view to an application for discharge. Prior to this meeting, however, Mr Hendrie, a creditor, ranked on the estate for the sum of £49, 17s. 8d., had presented a complaint to the Accountant in Bankruptcy, proceeding on the grounds that the trustee's commission, as fixed by the commissioners, and the law expenses, were excessive. To this complaint the trustee lodged answers, and the matter was discussed before the Accountant in Bankruptcy. This note of complaint, the answers thereto, and the deliverance of the Accountant in Bankruptcy thereon, were, along with the sederunt book, accounts, &c., laid before the above-mentioned meeting of creditors which was held on February 20, 1879.

The meeting resolved that there were no grounds for the complaint in question, and authorised the trustee to proceed with an application for discharge—Mr Hendrie for himself, and as mandatory for Mr M'Culloch, their claim amounting in cumulo to £80, 12s. 8d., dissenting.

The trustee accordingly presented the usual petition for discharge, and the Lord Ordinary on the Bills on 1st May 1879 remitted to the Accountant in Bankruptcy to report. On 4th June 1879 the Accountant made his report, which, inter alia, contained the following observation with reference to Hendrie's dissent:—“The Accountant begs to refer to his acknowledgment of the sederunt book, in which he points out the objection which has been taken by Mr James Hendrie, a creditor, to the trustee's management. It may be for the Lord Ordinary's consideration whether any special intimation of the trustee's application for discharge should be made to Mr Hendrie before answer.”

That observation was not brought under the notice of the Lord Ordinary ( Adam), and without any special intimation having been made to Mr Hendrie (who remained unaware that the trustee was obtaining his discharge) he on 11th June 1879 granted the prayer of the petition and discharged the trustee.

Mr Hendrie, when he was informed of what

Page: 731

had been done, presented a reclaiming note, but subsequently to the expiry of the reclaiming days, asking to be reponed against that interlocutor.

Authority— Milne v. Maccallum, Jan. 22, 1878, 5 R. 546.

At advising—

Judgment:

Lord President—On looking into this case I have no doubt as to the competency of this proceeding, dealing with it as a reponing note. It is a proceeding in the absence of a creditor, and though there is no provision in the Bankruptcy Statute as to reponing in such circumstances, we are entitled to treat reclaiming notes in bankruptcy questions as we should a reclaiming note in ordinary actions. By the provisions of the Act of Sederunt of 11th July 1828 a note to repone may be presented, and though that Act does not say that such a note may be presented after the reclaiming days are past, yet that is a matter of decision in the leading case of The Scottish Union Insurance Company v. Calderwood, July 8, 1836, 14 S. 1114. It would be very inconvenient and very unjust if we could not apply the principle of the Act of Sederunt, and the cases which followed on it, to reclaiming notes in bankruptcy cases as well as to others. This is clearly a reponing note, for the interlocutor was pronounced in absence, and though there is no statutory provision ordaining intimation to a dissenting creditor of the presentation of a petition for a trustee's discharge, still it has been adjudged by the Court that such intimation ought to be given wherever it appears that any creditor dissented from the resolution of the body of the creditors allowing the trustee to apply for his discharge. The complaint here is that no notice was given to the dissenting creditor, and therefore I think that we are in a position to repone. The Court in Milne's case dealt with the application as a reponing note, and did not enter into the merits, but remitted to the Lord Ordinary to hear the reclaimer's objection to the trustee's discharge; and I propose that we should follow that course here.

Lord Deas, Lord Mure, and Lord Shand concurred.

The Court therefore recalled the interlocutor, and remitted to the Lord Ordinary to hear the reclaimer's objections to the trustee's discharge.

Counsel:

Counsel for Hendrie— Shaw. Agents—

Counsel for Trustee (Respondent)— Macfarlane. Agents— Boyd, Macdonald, & Co., S.S.C.

1879


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1879/16SLR0730.html