BANKRUPTCY COURT.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5035, 14 May 1877, Page 3

BANKRUPTCY COURT.

Saturday, May 12.

(Before their Honors the Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Richmond.) 15 RE EDMONDSON, SELLAR, AND CO., EX PARTE CASELBERG. Mr. Brandon for the proving creditor; Mr. B. Stafford (instructed by Mr. Moorhouse) for the trustee. This was an application by a creditor of the bankrupt firm of Edmondson, Sellar, and Co., against the decision of the trustees of the estate, and made under the 54th rule of the rules under the Debtors and Creditors Act, 1870. From an affidavit made by George Roxburgh, it appeared that in August, 1576, Edmondson and Sellar and one lorns, who were trading together, sold to Caselberg certain book debts due to them, uud it was agreed that one of the bills forthepurchase money forau amount of ,£6OO should be lodged in the hands of tHeumnagerof the National Bank of New Zealand is security to Caselberg for any deficiency which might possibly arise in the amount of book debtaby reason of set-offs or counter claims by the debtors against Edmondson and lorns. Subsequently, however, it was agreed that this bill should be discounted by Edmondson and Sellar, and that they, who at this time were believed to be perfectly solvent, in consideration of tlie accommodation thus afforded them, should give to Caselberg their own promissory note as a security for the repayment of the deficiency (if any) in the book debts. It was found that the'deficiency amounted to £358; but in the interim between the purchase of the book debts and the realization Edmondson, Sellar, and Co. filed their declaration of insolvency, as also did Torus, and the question now was whether Caselberg was entitled to prove and receive dividends in respect of the promissory note for £6OO which he had taken from Edmondson and Sellar as security ror the deficiency. The trustee refused to accept proof except in respect of the ascertained deficiency. Mr. Brandon argued, on the authority of re Magnus ex parte Hodges and Hart, 1 2 L.J., to prove for the whole amount of his security. Without calling upon Mr. Stafford--who, however, mentioned ex parte Reader in re WlUatts 1. Buck, 3SI ; ex parte Phillips, in re Barker, 1 Montagu Deacon and De. Gex, 232; “Byleson Bills,” 11 ed. 449—the Court decided against Mr. Brandon, with costs. The Court then adjourned.