NO RIGHT TO SUE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7979, 9 December 1911, Page 1

NO RIGHT TO SUE

EFFECT OF BANKRUPTCY TOWER. OF ADMINISTRATRIX. The. effect of a bankruptcy in de P”'‘" ing an administratrix of certain rights ■ was defined by Sir Robert Stout (Chief . Justice! at the Supreme Court yesterday . in his judgment in tho special case of . Briggs v. Hnrcourt. The parties to tho action were Teresa • Briggs, plaintiff, and John Bateman Har- : court, and Charles James Stanton Harcourt, defendants. Mr 11. .1. Fitzgibbon appeared for the plaintiff, and Air F. G. Dalziell for the defendants. The farts, as set out in tho special case, wore that on March 12th, 3592, plaintiff, as administratrix of Phenix Briggs, deceased, was registered as tho proprietor of certain land in "Wellington and Marlborough. Plaintiff had a IR® interest in the property, -which, on her death, was to go to the three children of deceased. Since .Tune, 1901, plaintiff had borrowed moneys from tho defendants, J, 31. and C. J. S. Harcourfc, and given ix security over the properties. Certain of the properties mentioned were sold through defendants, tho proceeds being applied to the credit of plaintiff s account. On July 7th. 1939, at Hokitika, plaintiff filed a petition in bankruptcy, and, following on this, on October 31st, 1910. tho OfUcial Assignee sent to defendants a notice disclaiming bankrupts, interest in the properties which she had mortgaged to defendants. Plaintiff received her-discharge from bankruptcy in March. 1911, and she now claimed to be entitled to an'account from defendants of all moneys received or paid by them in connection with the properties comprised in their securities. Defendants claimed that they had rendered full accounts, and that plaintiff was not entitled to an account in respect of tho period before or since her bankruptcy. Tho questions submitted for tho dexcision of the court wore: (1) Is plaintiff entitled to any interest in tho properties in her estate disclaimed by the Assignee? (2) Assuming that defendants have not. already accounted, is plaintiff entitled to the account claimed? (3) ‘Was tho Assignee entitled to disclaim, and is the disclaimer valid? (I) Is tho court, under section 84 of tho Bankruptcy z\r.\ entitled'to vest the, interest so disclaimed either in plaintiff or defendants? The learned judge quoted a parallel case of in re Hickman, and decided that plaintiff had no power to sue. Until a claim were made by. some person having power to sue it was unnecessary to answer the further questions submitted to tho court. In reply to Mr Dalziell, his Honor stated ‘that, in respect of the Marlborough property, the Official Assignee had power to make the disclaimer.