United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> George Brown - Lushingto - Brown v. Alexander Ewing, and Others [1830] UKHL 4_WS_122 (8 April 1830)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1830/4_WS_122.html
Cite as: [1830] UKHL 4_WS_122

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

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 122↓

(1830) 4 W&S 122

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1830.

2 d Division.

No. 19.

George Brown, Appellant.—Lushington—Brown

v.

Alexander Ewing, and Others, Respondents

April 8. 1830.

Lord Newton.

Subject_Bankrupt — Sequestration .—

A petition for approval of composition by a bankrupt having been refused by the Court of Session, and the opposition by the creditors who appeared in that Court having been withdrawn,—the House of Lords reversed, but remitted to allow a scrutiny if required by any opposing creditor.

The estates of the Dalmarnock Dye-work Company, and of the Greenhead Foundry Company, and of George Brown and Thomas Buchanan, the individual partners, having been sequestrated, an offer of composition both on the Company and individual estates was made, and a petition was presented to the Court for approval. No opposition was offered in so far as regarded the composition on the Company estate; but the petition for approval of the composition on Brown's individual estate having

Page: 123↓

been opposed, on the ground, inter alia, of an alleged want of the legal concurrence of nine-tenths of the creditors present, as required by statute, the Court, after some procedure, (7th March 1828), refused the petition in so far as concerned the individual estates of the said George Brown, but, in respect of no opposition being made, granted the prayer thereof quoad ultra in so far as regarded the Company estates, reserving all claim on the individual estate of the said George Brown. ^* George Brown appealed; but the Counsel for the respondents stated at the bar of the House of Lords, that he was not instructed to support the judgment complained of, or resist the appeal.

“The House of Lords ordered and adjudged, that the interlocutor or judgment complained of be reversed; and it is further ordered, that the cause be remitted back to the Court of Session, with instructions to grant a scrutiny in case the same should be required by any of the objecting creditors, and then to proceed further to determine the cause: And it is declared, that if no such scrutiny is demanded by such objecting creditors, the prayer of the original application by the appellant for his discharge ought to be granted.”

_________________ Footnote _________________

* 6. Shaw and Dunlop, 739.

Solicitors: Alexander Dobie— Caldwell and Thomson,—Solicitors.

1830

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010