Text from Document
simple contract debt due to him from the in-
testate or testator. Ibid.
Ferguson v. Gibson (41 Law J. Rep. Chanc.
640; Law Rep. 14 Eq. 379) explained. Ibid.
Per Cotton, L.J.,—There is nothing in Hinde
Palmer's Act to prevent a creditor by specialty,
where the heirs are bound, if he is the heir-at-
law of an intestate, retaining the amount of
such debt. Ibid.
Decision of Chitty, J., affirmed. Ibid.
42.—Judgment debt: registration]—An un-
registered judgment debt ranks as a simple
contract debt bearing interest. Van Gheluive
v. Neringckx, 51 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 929 ; Law
Rep. 21 Ch. D. 189.
48.—Secured creditors]—The 10th section
of the Judicature Act, 1875, incorporating into
the administration of insolvent estates and the
winding-up of companies the rules of bankruptcy
as to the 44 respective rights of seoured and un-
secured creditors,** does not affect the rights of
either class of creditors inter se. Therefore a
creditor who has obtained judgment against the
executors of an insolvent testator is entitled to
priority. In re Maggi; Winehouse v. Wine-
house^ 51 Law J. Rep. Chanc« 560; Law Rep.
20 Ch. D. 545.
Priority of judgments: registration. See Judg-
44.—Evidence of claimant: corroboration]—
The rule that a claim upon the estate of a de-
ceased person cannot be maintained upon the
unsupported testimony of the claimant applies
to cases of alleged debt as well as to cases of
alleged gift. Per Jessel, M JR.—The rule is a rule
of prudence rather than of law; and in an action
tried by a jury it is the duty of the Judge to re-
commend the jury to disregard the unsupported
evidence of the claimant; but if they should
decline to do so, and should find for the claimant,
quare if their verdict could be interfered with.
In re Finch; Finch v. Finch (App), Law Rep.
23 Ch. D. 267.
An English widow lady residing in Paris in a
house wlnoh belonged' to her for her separate
use, married an English gentleman, and by the
marriage settlement certain plate which formerly
belonged to her first husband was settled to her
separate use. After the marriage, her husband
having family plate of his own, sent it to his
wife’s house in Paris, and she then sent her
own plate to her son by her first marriage.
Upon the death of the husband his family plate,
and also a marble bust of himself, was in his
wife’s house at Paris. In a suit for the ad-
ministration of his estate his wife claimed the
plate as having been given her in exchange for
her own plate, and the buBt as having been pre-
sented to her by her husband :—Held (reversing
the decision of Kay, J.), that the surrounding
circumstances did not furnish corroborative
evidence in support of the olaim by the wife to
the plate and bust, and that as the claim rested
on her unsupported testimony it could not be
45.—Insolvent estate: annuity: valuation:
contingency]—A testator covenanted to pay his
daughter a sum of 5.000Z., with interest at four
per cent, per annum, within one month after the
death of his wife, and to pay his said daughter
an annuity of 100Z. a year during the joint lives
of himself and his wife and the life of the
survivor, if his daughter should 60 long live.
The testator died in 1879, leaving his widow and
daughter surviving, and judgment for the ad-
ministration of his estate, which was insolvent,
was given in an action instituted by the daughter
as a creditor. The daughter sent in a proof in
respect of the principal sum and the annuity,
and they were valued as at the date of the
judgment. The testator’s widow died before
the chief clerk had made his certificate:—Held,
that section 10 of the Judicature Act, 1875,
applied as to the proof which was of a con-
tingent liability, and that, following the rules
in bankruptcy as to contingent liabilities, the
daughter was entitled to prove for the full
amount of the 5,000Z., less a rebate of interest
at four per cent, per annum for the period be-
tween the date of the judgment and the death
of the widow, but only for the amount of the
arrears of the annuity at the time of the judg-
ment, and for the amount accrued due between
that time and the death of the widow, less a
similar rebate. In re The Northern Counties of
England Fire Insurance Company (Lim) (50
Law J. Rep. Chanc. 273) followed. In re
Bridges; Hill v. Bridges, 50 Law J. Rep. Chanc.
46-—Insolvent estate: unregistered bill of
sale]—Under section 10 of the Judicature Act,
1875, the rules in bankruptcy do not apply so as
to render an unregistered bill of sale void as
against the unsecured creditors of a person who
has died insolvent. In re Count D'Epineuil,
51 Law J. Rep. Chanc. 491; Law Rep. 20 Ch. D.
47.—Secured creditor: bankruptcy rules]—
Secured creditors of an insolvent estate claimed
for 400Z. and interest; they valued their security
at 500Z.; their names were struck out from the
schedule of creditors in the chief clerk’s certifi-
cate. The security realised more than 500Z.'*.—
Held, that their right to the benefit of the
security was not limited to 500Z. In re Hopkins;
Williams v. Hopkins, 52 Law J. Rep. Chanc.
736; Law Rep. 18 Ch. D. 370.
Appeal: right of creditor to appeal from refusal
of claim. See Practice—Appeal, 47.
Assent of creditors to misapplication of assets.
See Executor, 6.
Bond for payment of mortgage debt: right of
creditor when barred by time. See Limita-
tions, Statute or, 23.
Executor’s action for administration: claim of
creditor whether barred. See Limitations,
Statute or, 25.