Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
In 1829, the estates of Liddel and Company, as a company, and of the partners, as partners and as individuals, were sequestrated, in terms of statute 54 Geo. III. c. 137. Liddel, with the concurrence of his trustee and four-fifths of the creditors, applied for his discharge, and for a commission to any fit person in India, whither he had gone, to take his oath preparatory to his discharge.
Lord President .—There are great doubts of the competency of granting the prayer of this petition, for there is no instance of our ever having allowed the oath to be taken in India.
Mr Bell , one of the Principal Clerks of Session, stated, that the Court had, under the above statute, refused such an application; and he recollected, that in one case, the bankrupt, though a poor man, was forced to return from the West Indies to take the oath in this country.
Lord Gillies .—The Court has refused such an application where the bankrupt has improperly gone abroad. But this gentleman has done so without any alleged fault. The creditors do not object, nor state any subject of complaint against him, and in so far, this case is different from those referred to.
Lord President .—This is a serious matter for the bankrupt himself, for if the taking of the oath be irregular and incompetent, and he should return from India with an immense fortune, his creditors might then object to the discharge.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.