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
Article image
Article image

LEGALITY OF DISTRESS TESTED

DECISION RESERVED.

A case involving intricate legal argument was heard before Mr. \V. G. Biddel], S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon, when F. Price, of Christchurch, claimed to recover from E. J. Solomon, of Wellington, £55 Is 6d. It was shown from the evidence that a Mr. Hean had a monthly tenancy of land at Petone on which he lived, and on which he carried on a business as an icecream manufacturer. He died with the rent in arrear, and his wife carried on the business for a time on behalf of the deceased's estate. Eventually it was found that the estate could not be conveniently realised, and an order was made for its administration as an insolvent deceased estate. On the land was an ice-cream plant, which was subject to a bill of sale. The Official Assignee endeavoured to realise it, but after unsuccessful efforts the creditors passed a resolution abandoning it to' the bill of sale holder. In the meantime, further rent had become due, and the landlord distrained for rent. An arrangement was come to for the depositing of the money I in trust until the legality of the distress was decided. J It was contended by Mr. W. P. Sh.or- ' land, who represented the plaintiff, that I the chattels were the property, not of the Official Assignee, but of' the bill of sale holder, and that they could be seized because the bill of sale holder was not the tenant. And, further, that the goods were immune from distress because the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act prohibited distress after an order of I administration. •

Mr. R. Iveunedy, who represented the defendant, contended that the particular provisions of tho Bankruptcy Act, relating to distress were prohibited, and did not apply to the deceased insolvent estate, and that the chattels, still in law, were the chattels of the Official Assignee as he had not disclaimed them, and a mere resolution of the creditors was ineffective to transfer them. His Worship ■ reserved his decision.

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/EP19250527.2.19

Bibliographic details

Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 122, 27 May 1925, Page 4

Word Count
340

LEGALITY OF DISTRESS TESTED Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 122, 27 May 1925, Page 4

LEGALITY OF DISTRESS TESTED Evening Post, Volume CIX, Issue 122, 27 May 1925, Page 4

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