Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

BILLS OF SALE

Ninsß, December 2. An important case re'atng to the liability of Sheriffs was beard here to-day. Mr Thomas, aheep-dip proprietor, is 1884 hsd, as agent, one Shepherd, who «as sasd for the balance of an account, judgment being given for £296, All bat £36 was paid prior to November, 1886, when Thomm cataed a writ to be issued. The heriff found the goods and chattels of Shepherd secured by a bill of sale for a loan of £2OO, part of which had been repaid at the time of issuing the writ The Sheriff did not execute the writ, on the eronnd that the goods were not seizibie. being covered by the bill of sal ; and secondly because if seized and sold he considered that they would not more than satisfy the bill of sale. Plaintiff alleged that it was the dnty of the Sheriff to execute the warrant because part of the debt having been rep id Shenherd had a saleable interest, which would have been realised. The defence relied chiefly upon the Inviolability of goods protected by a bill of sale, and also pleaded that the Sheriff was justified in considering the value of th - * furniture insufficient to do more than satisfy the balance due under the bill of sale.

The Chief Justice, who triad the ease wi h'iut a jury, said the Now Zea* land, interpreted according to our mode of procedure, was different from that in England, where an interest in chattels under a bill of sale could not be seized except in a case of partnership. Iu New Zealand it was the duty of the Sheriff to -eize such an interest on beba f of the judgment creditor, and the neglect to do so was at his peril. His Honor, however, gave judgment for the defendant on the ground that he was fully satisfied that no loss occurred to plaintiffs through the non-execution of the writ. In the evidence it was shown that Shepherd waa hoplessly bankrupt, with no means, and if the goods held under the bill had been sold the prcce°de would not have done more than satisfy the holder of the bilL Costa ware granted on the lowest scale. Tt was stated that this was the first* time this question bad been raised in New Z. -aland.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AG18861203.2.14

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1423, 3 December 1886, Page 2

Word count
Tapeke kupu
387

BILLS OF SALE Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1423, 3 December 1886, Page 2

BILLS OF SALE Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1423, 3 December 1886, Page 2

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert