GAZETTES.-FRIDAY, Dec. 19.

BANKRUPTS.

MEETINGS.

Richard Wix Philps, Dorking, Surrey, agent to the Royal Exchange Corporation, Dec. 30 at half-past 1, London, ch. ass.-Arthur Allen the younger, Harrow-road, Paddington, GEORGE WILLIAM BREMNER, Stockwell, Surrey, dealer in drain-pipes, Dec. 26 (and not Dec. 28, as previously oil merchant, (trading with Frank Broadhurst Farebrother advertised) at 12, London, aud. ac.-Chas. Poole, Brighton, and Joseph Henry Collyer, under the style or firm of Fare- Sussex, livery-stable keeper, Jan. 1 at half-past 11, London, brother, Bremner, & Co.; and also carrying on business seaud. ac.-John Ince, Eaton-terrace, Pimlico, surgeon, Jan. 1 parately at Manchester), Dec. 30 and Jan. 27 at 2, Lon- at 12, London, aud. ac.-Thomas Raw, Tyson-street, Kings. don: Off. Ass. Edwards; Sols. Lawrance & Co., 14, Old land-road, Dalston, furniture broker, Jan. I at 11, London, Jewry-chambers.-Pet. f. Dec. 16. aud. ac.-John Long, Bedford-street, Bedford-square, board. WILLIAM HENRY GRIMSDALE and THOMAS HART ing-house keeper, Jan. 1 at 11, London, aud. ac.-Henry GRIMSDALE, Uxbridge, Middlesex, common brewers, Woodhams, Idol-lane, City, licensed victualler, Dec. 29 at 11, Dec. 30 at 2, and Feb. 3 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Ed- London, aud. ac.-Jas. Adams, Crown-wharf, Shad Thames, wards; Sols. Gardiner, Uxbridge; Chauntler, 8, Gray's- Surrey, bean splitter, Dec. 29 at 11, London, aud. ac.-Thos. inn-square.-Pet. f. Dec. 18. Harrison, Chancery-lane, Middlesex, and West End, Esher, JOHN PROUT DAVIS STEPHENS, Brabant-court, Phil- Surrey, tailor, Dec. 29 at 11, London, aud. ac.-Geo. Smith, pot-lane, London, wine merchant, (trading under the style John M'Lachlan, and Wm. Blackburne, Liverpool, tailors, or firm of J. P. D. Stephens & Co.), Jan. 5 and Feb. 2 at 1, Jan. 8 at 11, Liverpool, aud. ac.-W. Wathen, St. Nicholas, London: Off. Ass. Pennell; Sols. Lawrance & Co., 14, Old Herefordshire, upholsterer, Jan. 9 at half-past 11, Birming. Jewry-chambers, Old Jewry.-Pet. f. Dec. 18. ham, aud. ac.-John Corbett, Birmingham, licensed victualler, FRANCIS JOHNS, Walter-villas, Eleanor-road, Hackney, Dec. 31 at half-past 10. Birmingham, aud. ac.—Wm. Shep Middlesex, and Gweek, Wendron, Cornwall, timber mer-pard Jones, Tredegar, Monmouthshire, grocer, Jan. 22 at 11, chant, (carrying on business with Thomas P. Tyacke, Wal- Bristol, aud. ac.-John Tanner, Chippenham, Wiltshire, and ter Borlase, John Cornish, W. R. T. Pender, and John Bath, Somersetshire, common carrier, Jan. 29 at 11, Bristol, Tyacke, under the style or firm of Cornish & Borlase), Dec.aud. ac.; Feb. 5 at 11, div.—Titus Gaukroger and James 29 at 11, and Feb. 2 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Nicholson; Gaukroger, New Bridge and Lord Holme Mills, near HebSols. Lawrance & Co., 14, Old Jewry-chambers, Old Jewry. den Bridge, Halifax, Yorkshire, cotton spinners, Feb. 10 at 11, Leeds, aud. ac. and div.-Alfred John Franklin, Highstreet, Clapham, Surrey, ironmonger, Jan. 9 at 1, London, div.-Joseph Tucker, Southampton, china dealer, Jan. 13 at 12, London, div.-S. Smith, Northampton, machine maker, Jan. 13 at 12, London, div.-Wm. Brinkley, Bruton-place, Berkeley-square, and Duke-street, Grosvenor-square, builder, Jan. 9 at 11, London, div.-Duncan Hairs, St. Martin'slane, Westminster, seedsman, Jan. 9 at half-past 1, London, div.-Robt. Feast, Finsbury-pavement and Little Moorfields, City, Italian warehouseman, Jan. 9 at half-past 1, London, div.- David Stevens, Montague-place, Millwall, Poplar, cattle dealer, Jan. 9 at 11, London, div.-Robert Heath, Manchester, and Wm. Welch and John Heath Barber, Burslem, Staffordshire, ironmasters, Jan. 12 at half-past 10, Birmingham, aud. ac. and div. sep. est. of Wm. Welch.-Thos. Tebbutt, Manchester, merchant, Jan. 19 at 12, Manchester, div.-Thomas Punshon, Durham, builder, Jan. 16 at halfpast 11, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, fin. div.

-Pet. f. Dec. 13.

Dec. 17.

f. Dec. 16.

EDWARD RICHARD NASH, College-hill, London, wine merchant, Dec. 30 and Jan. 29 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Bell; Sols. J. & J. H. Linklater & Co., Sise-lane.-Pet. f. JOHN COTCHING, Hail Weston, Huntingdonshire, farmer, Jan. 3 at 12, and Feb. 6 at 1, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sol. Sismey, 11, Serjeants'-inn, Fleet-street.-Pet. FREDERICK PULBROOK, Surbiton, near Kingston-uponThames, Surrey, grocer, Jan. 3 at half-past 11, and Feb. 6 at 12, London: Off. Ass. Cannan; Sol. Smythe, 12, Serlestreet, Lincoln's-inn.-Pet. f. Dec. 17. FRANCIS NICHOLLS, Thornhill-crescent, Islington, merchant, (formerly with John Venables, Arthur Mann, and Henry Grasett, of Burslem, Staffordshire, earthenware manufacturers, trading under the style or firm of Venables, Mann, & Co.; also formerly with the said Arthur Mann and Henry Grasett, Austin-friars, London, merchants, trading under the style or firm of Arthur Mann & Co.). Jan. 3 at half-past 12, and Feb. 6 at half-past 1, London: Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Richardson & Sadler, 14, Old Jewrychambers, Old Jewry.—Pet. f. Dec. 18. Henry James Brown, Queen's-buildings, Knightsbridge, ROBERT HENRY ADAMSON, John-street, Berkeley-cheesemonger, Jan. 9 at 11, London.-Charles Cannon, Lovesquare, wine merchant, (trading under the style or firm of lane, Eastcheap, City, meat salesman, Jan. 9 at 1, London.Robert Adamson & Co.), Jan. 3 and Feb. 13 at 1, London: Walter Robert Johnson, Adelaide-chambers, Gracechurch-st., Off. Ass. Whitmore; Sols. Lawrance & Co., 14, Old Jewry- merchant, Jan. 9 at 11, London.-Edw. Phillips, Lillgwenlly, chambers, Old Jewry.-Pet. f. Dec. 18. Newport, Monmouthshire, innkeeper, Jan. 13 at 11, Bristol.WILLIAM PORTER, Nottingham, builder, Dec. 30 and Thomas Edward James, Cowbridge, Glamorganshire, wine Jan. 20 at half-past 10, Nottingham: Off. Ass. Harris; merchant, Jan. 13 at 11, Bristol.-John Bourne and Thomas Sols. Bowley & Ashwell, Nottingham.-Pet. d. Dec. 9. Rowson, Macclesfield, silk manufacturers, Jan. 23 at 1, ManJAMES REID, Liverpool, tailor, Jan. 1 and 23 at 11, Liver-chester.-Robert Saul and Thos. Kirby, Preston, Lancashire, pool: Off. Ass. Bird; Sols. Evans & Son, Liverpool.-joiners, Jan. 23 at 12, Manchester.-William Tyson, Liverpool, corn dealer, Jan. 14 at 11, Liverpool.-Robert McLean, Liverpool, licensed victualler, Jan. 13 at 11, Liverpool.— Charles Abson, Castleford, Yorkshire, earthenware manufacturer, Jan. 19 at 11, Leeds.

Pet. f. Dec. 5.

JAMES LONGMORE, Liverpool, provision dealer, Dec. 30
and Jan. 26 at 11, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Cazenove; Sols.
Evans & Son, Liverpool.-Pet. f. Dec. 11.
MOSES LIPMAN, Liverpool, tailor, (lately carrying on
business at Liverpool with David Lazarus, an infant, under
the style or firm of Lazarus & Lipman), Jan. 2 and 23 at
11, Liverpool: Off. Ass. Turner; Sol. Dodge, Liverpool.

--Pet. f. Dec. 18.

CERTIFICATES.

To be allowed, unless Cause be shewn to the contrary on or before the Day of Meeting.

To be granted, unless an appeal be duly entered. Thomas Percival Willcox and Edwin Willcox, Bristol, contractors.--John Squire Tween, Ware, Westmill, Hertfordshire, miller.-Isaac Parsons, Rye, Sussex, printer.-Benjamin Parker, Albany-road, Camberwell, Surrey, builder.-Charles Gaiger, Winchester, Southampton, draper.-John Phillips, Crumlin, Monmouthshire, grocer.-Edward Lane, New Ferry, Cheshire, merchant.-Richard Burch, Bury, Lancashire, bobbin maker. Joshua Binns, Dukinfield, Cheshire, cotton manufacturer.-Ralph Hammond, Macclesfield, innkeeper. Anthony Bennett, Ashton-under-Lyne, painter.-John Wood, Ashton-under-Lyne, corn dealer.-Edward Fenton, Batley Carr, Yorkshire, rag merchant.-John Anderton, Halifax,

[For continuation of Gazette, see p. 553],

The first point which would appear to arise is, whether the equity of redemption, the intestate having died before the passing of the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 104, was assets at all. Lord Cranworth, in the case of Foster v. Handley, (15 Jur., part 1, p. 73), is reported The decision was, that the title could not be forced to have said that an equity of redemption of a morton a purchaser; the reasons being, that when the mortgage in fee was not assets. The report in 1 Sim., N. S.,

2

The most important point, however, which is sug gested by this case is the following-how far is the right of a creditor against real assets an independent

200, does not advert to this; and we are strongly in-against real estate, and we still think that it does notclined to think that his Lordship did not make the ob- that it does not charge the real estate with debts, but servation attributed to him. It is singular how obscure only makes it assets for payment of debts. Be that as and unsatisfactory the cases on this point are. In Solley it may, Beale v. Symonds was a case not coming within v. Gower (2 Vern. 61) it is said "The equity of re- the act; and before the act it is clear that an heir withdemption of an inheritance is not assets at law, because out notice of debts might withdraw the estate from his the estate is forfeited; but the heir having a right in ancestor's creditors by any bonâ fide alienation for value. equity, that ought in equity to be liable to satisfy a bond Supposing the estate here to be assets in the hands of debt." It appears from Mr. Raithby's note that the the mortgagee, we think it would seem the better cause did not call for a decision on this point; but it opinion that a bonâ fide alienation for value by him would be very strange if a Court of equity, always so would give the purchaser a good title. It may be anxious to provide for payment of debts, should assist urged against this, that the money was clearly not an heir to recover his estate from the mortgagee, and about to be applied in payment of Cowley's debts; but then allow him to hold it free from the liability to debts, that we apprehend is, upon the authorities, immaterial to which it would have been subject in his hands if not -a point which we have already considered in the above mortgaged. Plucknett v. Kirk (1 Vern. 410) bears the articles. same way. In Deg v. Deg, (2 P. Wms. 416; as to which see Mr. Cox's note), and Plunket v. Penson, (2 Atk. 291), it appears to have been considered that an equity of redemption was in its own nature equi-specific claim, which is kept alive as long as his debt is table assets. As, however, the wills in those cases contained charges of debts, it is difficult to see how this point can have arisen. There would, we think, be great difficulty in holding it equitable assets if not charged with debts; for a Court of equity would be obliging the heir or devisee to do something more than equity if it subjected the land to debts of a class to which it clearly would not have been liable if not mortgaged. There does not, however, appear to be anything in the early cases opposed to the dictum in Solley v. Gower, that it was assets to pay specialty debts; and the reasoning in that case appears decisive, as far as principle is concerned. There remains, however, the question, in a case like the present, whether the remedy of the creditors might not be lost in consequence of there being no heir. The dictum in Gawler v. Wade (1 P. Wms. 99) is in favour of the creditor's right to sue in equity when there is no heir, though an action could not have been brought. On the other hand, Lord Langdale, in Evans v. Brown, (5 Beav. 121), lays down-but in a case where the point did not call for decision that the creditor had no right in equity, except in cases where he could bring his action. We should be disposed to think, that unless authority can be found the other way, of which we are not aware, the dictum in Gawler v. Wade would be followed. We are not, therefore, disposed to dispute the soundness of the opinion of the Master of the Rolls, that in the present case the equity of redemption was assets for payment of specialty debts. If the case came under the present statute, Evans v. Brown would seem almost decisive in favour of the creditor.

Supposing this to be so, the question then arises, whether, although the estate was to this extent assets in the hands of the mortgagee, the sale to Beale did not nevertheless give him a good title. The Master of the Rolls, in Kinderley v. Jervis, (2 Jur., N. S., part 1, p. 602), adverts to the decision as turning upon the effect of the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 104. This appears to be an oversight, as Cowley died before the passing of that act. We have already, in the former articles above referred to, considered the question whether the statute makes any difference in the nature of the claims of creditors

unbarred, and how far does it enable him to go against the estate in the hands of persons claiming adversely to his debtor? To take the simplest case, suppose Cowley had left an heir who had allowed the mortgage to become irredeemable by the lapse of twenty years, could a creditor on covenant broken after Cowley's death have had any remedy against the land? We apprehend not; nor do we see any tenable ground on which the case could be argued in favour of the creditor. Even supposing the case to be under the 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 104, taking the highest ground, that the estate is by that act charged with debts, it can only be such estate as the debtor has that is charged with his debts; and if that estate is destroyed by the title of the mortgagee becoming absolute in equity, the charge surely must fail with it. If the estate remains vested in the heir or devisee, we apprehend that it remains liable as long as there is a debt not barred by the statute; but when the property is held by a person having an adverse title, quite a new state of things arises. If any principle is established which would support the conclusion that the irredeemable mortgaged estate would remain liable to the mortgagor's creditors, it would appear difficult to stop short of the conclusion, that if a person is disseised, continues so for nineteen years, and then dies, the right of his creditors against the land continues for years after his death, though the heir be barred in the next year. We think that according to the true view of the law, as established by the statutes and decisions, the right of a creditor against the real estate of his deceased debtor is, under ordinary circumstances, not a specific lien, but a right to go against the estate in the hands of his heir or devisee, which may be ripened into a specific lien by a decree for administration, but does not, until proceedings are taken for enforcing it, attach upon the estate in such a way as to interfere with the rights of a person acquiring an adverse title. In the present case, suppose that after the sale to Beale twenty years had elapsed. Beale, if he acquired no better title, became by such sale mortgagee in possession, and after twenty years would have an irredeemable estate. Would the creditors then have been able to establish any claim against him? We think it would have been difficult

27

for them to do so; they would seem, in fact, to come under the description of persons claiming under Cowley, and to be prevented from bringing a suit to redeem by the express terms of the Statute of Limitations. Again: if Cowley had died leaving an heir under no disability, then, as the dates in the case actually stand, he would have been barred, for there had been adverse possession for more than twenty years; and we think that in such a case the creditors must have been barred too. He did not, however, leave an heir, and there does not seem to be clear ground for adopting twenty years as the period for barring all the creditors. The case is certainly one of great difficulty; it may be said, that where there is neither heir nor devisee, the person on whom the estate devolves is in the same position as the heir or devisee would be, and that the estate remains liable in his hands till the debts are barred. We do not, however, feel disposed to acquiesce in this as a sound conclusion. We are disposed to think that creditors cannot put their claim higher than that of an heir or devisee, and that they must be barred so soon as a title has been acquired which, under the Statute of Limitations, is good as against persons claiming by succession from the mortgagor-i. e. forty years in the case of possession by trespassers, or twenty years in the case of possession under the mortgagee. The case, however, is one on which it is hardly possible to come to a conclusion until there shall have been decisions bearing upon it; but we think that Beale v. Symonds should not be relied upon as supporting the position, that the equity of redemption in the land of a debtor will remain liable to his debts in the hands of his mortgagee during the period, however long, for which those debts remain capable of being enforced by action against his personal representatives.

Correspondence.

THE JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES ACT, 1856.
66
TO THE EDITOR OF THE JURIST."

SIR,—As you are discussing the construction of the new Joint-stock Companies Act, 1856, I send you some doubts which have arisen to me in practice, and which may be useful to you.

Form F. is a form of words which purports to transfer the share or shares as between the parties to it, but which concludes, " as witness our hands," &c. The section implies a deed under seal; the form dispenses with it.

3. Does the 33rd section enable an existing company, formed by deed of settlement or charter, and registering under the 110th and 113th sections, and thus making its deed "regulations of the company" within the act, to alter such deed by special resolution? The latter part of the 113th section looks as if the framers of the act had intended this power to be conferred on such a company by the 33rd section; but the express words of the 33rd section (obviously framed in forgetfulness of the case in question) are insufficient to give any such power, if not inconsistent with it; and at all events, the power in such a case is so doubtful that no company can safely act on it; yet I understand that many companies have been led to believe that the power exists, and have purported to exercise it.

4. In the case of an existing company, similar to the one last supposed, does the 113th section, which makes the deed of settlement or charter "regulations of the company within the meaning of the act," and declares that "all the provisions of the act shall apply to the company, in the same manner as if the company had been originally incorporated under the act," effectually exclude the application of Table B. to such a company, subject, of course, to the deed or charter? If the 9th section of the act applies to such a company by virtue of the words of the 113th section above quoted, then it certainly appears very questionable whether Table B. is excluded, though I presume the framers of the act intended it so to be. Probably sect. 9 would be held not to apply to such a company; but the point should not have been left doubtful.

5. In the case last put, it would be very desirable if the framers of the act would say, or rather if they had said, to what extent, if at all, a shareholder, becoming such after the registration of the company under the new act, but omitting to execute the deed of settlement, is to be bound by the deed by virtue of this enactment, that the deed "is to be deemed regulations of the company within the meaning of this act." The provisions of the 7th and 10th sections, binding shareholders to the memorandum and articles of association, seem clearly inapplicable to such a case; yet what is the meaning and 1. Does the 13th section (taken with the 38th) dis-effect of saying that the deed shall be "regulations of within the act," unless, on becoming so, it pense with a license in mortmain, in the case of a is to become also, in some definite way, binding? trading company which desires to hold land? I preThere are other points on which the act is equally sume the intention of the framers of the act to have obscure, but on those which I have indicated the quesbeen, that the words in the 13th section, "with power tion in each case has arisen in practice. to hold lands," should have the effect of dispensing with the Mortmain Acts. But some doubt certainly appears to exist whether they are sufficient to do so, even if construed by the light (or darkness) of the 38th section.

2. Does the act require or not that the transfer of shares should be effected by deed? The 20th section says, that "the transfer of any share"-thereby meaning, it is to be supposed, the instrument of transfer "shall be in the form marked F.," &c., "and shall be executed both by the transferor and transferee." Now,

the company

I am, Sir, yours &c.,

Lincoln's Inn, Dec. 20, 1856.

X.

COMMISSIONER TO ADMINISTER OATHS IN CHANCERY.The Lord Chancellor has appointed John Bridgeman Smith, Gent., of Honiton, Devonshire, to be a Commissioner to administer oaths in the High Court of Chancery in England.