The Grainger Estate.

Temuka Leader, Issue 3471, 27 July 1899, Page 3

The Grainger Estate.

Mr Justice Denniston at Christchurch ou Monday dismissed the application of the Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association to set aside an order directing that the widow of Henry Grainger should cease to administer his estate, and that the Official Assignee should administer it. His Honour said that the representative of the present applicants had taken part in the appointment of the Official Assignee as administrator and afterwards actively acquiesced until the Official Assignee thought it necessai-y in the exercise of his duty to attack a security given to applicants.

Another case arising out of tho same matter, viz., a motion to set aside ,a bill of sale he’d by the same creditor (the Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association) was heard by his Honour. Mr Stringer again appeared for the Official Assignee, and Mr Kippenberger opposed. The deceased died on October 27th, 1898, and the instrument impeached was dated September 26th, 1898, and the order for administration was made on December 13th of tho same year. Mr Stringer contended that the estate must be treated as if tho deceased was bankrupt at the time of death, and that the assignment was, therefore, inoperative as against the Official Assignee. He further claimed that the instrument was not registered under the Act of 1899, and that the description of the stock was insufficient under the provision of the Act. Further, he contended that the assignment was bad because the poods were in the order and disposition of the bankrupt at the time of his constructive bankruptcy.

Mr Kippenberger admitted that the instrument was a chattel security and unregistered, but claimed that the bankruptcy could only revert to the first moment of Grainger’s death, and that, therefore, both the non-registration and insufficient description of the stock in the schedule were immaterial. He contended, also, that the reference in the document to the land on which the stock was to be grazed was sufficient for the purpose of the Act. Having heard Mr Kippenberger, His Honor said that the instrument would have been void as against the Official Assignee had the deceased been made a bankrupt on the date of his death, instead of dying, because the stock would have been still in his possession. This brought the case within the exact words of sub-division s,section 13, of the Administration Act, 1888, which expressly provided that every bill of sale made by a deceased, and which would, if he became bankrupt on the day of his death, have been fraudulent or void as against the Official Assignee, would be liable to be treated as void, or set aside by the appointee administrating the estate under the Act, who in this case was the Official Assignee, just as if the deceased had been alive. Although not exactly determining the points, he considered that the document was not' invalidated by the meagre description of the stock, or because the land was not mentioned otherwise than stated in the argument. He made the order as prayed, with £lO 10s costs,