Furlong v Fottrell

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 03 February 1869
• Date: 03 February 1869
• Court: Rolls Court (Ireland)

Rolls.

FURLONG

and

FOTTRELL.

Davis v. PercyELR L. R. 1 C. P. 256.

Cullingworth v. LloydENR 2 Beav. 385.

Stanger v. WilkinsENR 19 Beav. 626.

Manson v. Stock 6 Ves. 305.

Sadler v. Jackson 15 Ves. 52.

Mace v. Sandford 1 Gif. 288.

Jackman v. Mitchell 13 Ves. 581.

Alsager v. SpaldingENR 4 Bing. N. C. 407.

Smith v. CuffENR 6 M. & S. 166.

Turner v. Dodd D. & R. 27.

Cockshot v. BennettENR 2 T. R. 763.

Leicester v. RoseENR 4 East, 371.

Linton v. Bartlet 3 Wils. 47.

Hickson v. Lombard L. R. 1 Ap. 324.

Hazard v. MareENR 6 H. & N. 434.

Gilbert v. LewisUNK 1 D. J. & S. 38.

Lawes v. RandENR 3 C. B. N. S. 442.

Fessard v. Magnier 13 W. R. 388.

Re Madison 14 W. R. 50.

In re Farrell Ir. R. 1 Eq. 81.

Mare v. SandfordENR 1 Giff. 288, see p. 297.

Davis v. PercyELR L. R. 1 C. P. 256.

Jones v. SimpsonENR 3 H. & N. 836.

Kennedy's Estate 17 Ir. Ch. R. 104.

Lambe's Estate Ante, p. 286.

Cullingworth v. LloydENR 2 Beav. 385.

— 20 & 21 Vict. c. 60 — Arrangement Clauses — Composition Mortgage — Fraud.

432 THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. Bolls. merely inadequate, but wholly inapplicable. I must therefore vary 1869. the Master's order as sought by the notice of appeal (1). BEAMAN v. BEAHAN. Solicitor for the Petitioners : Mr. Thomas Lawlor. Solicitor for the Claimants, Finegan : Mr. John Julian. Solicitor for the Respondent : Mr. H. Clinton. Rolls. FURLONG v. FOTTRELL. 1869. Bankruptcy Act-20 21 Vick c. 60-Arrangement Clauses-Composition Jan. 21, 30. Feb. 3. Mortgage-Fraud. The Plaintiff presented a petition under the arrangement clauses of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act (Ireland). An arrangement was effected with the sanction of the Bankrupt Court for a composition of 10s. in the pound, payable by three promissory notes, to which the Defendant assented. A furÂÂÂther debt was afterwards contracted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The first note was paid ; and shortly before the second note fell due, the Plaintiff, under pressure of the Defendant, granted a mortgage to him for the sum due to him, including the balance due of the composition. The Plaintiff, having failed to pay the second note, presented a second petition for arrangement. The Defendant received notice, but did not actively intervene in the latter proceeding ; and a proposal for a composition of 5s. in the pound on all debts contracted after the first arrangement, and such sums as should be sufficient to make the composition due before equivalent to 5s. in the pound, was conÂÂÂfirmed by the Court. The Defendant was returned as a creditor for a much smaller sum than that secured by the mortgage. The Court set aside the mortgage as a fraud on the composition. Tins was a bill to set aside a mortgage granted by the PlainÂÂÂtiff to the Defendant, pending a composition by the Plaintiff with his creditors under the arrangement clauses of the Bankrupt Act, , 20 & 21 Viet. c. 60, as fraudulent. The material facts of the ease and the principal arguments are sufficiently stated in the judgÂÂÂ%cat. The cause was heard on a motion for a decree. . Butt, Q. C., and Mr. Frazer, for the Plaintiff, cited (1) Affirmed on appeal, May 27th, 1869. VoL. III.] EQUITY SERIES. 20 & 21 Viet. c. 60, ss. 343 to 356 ; Davis v. Percy (1) ; CulÂÂÂlingworth v. Lloyd (2) ; Stanger v. Wilkins (3) ; Manson v. Stock (4) ; Sadler v. Jackson (5); Mace v. Sandford (6) ; Jackman v. MitÂÂÂchell (7); Alsager v. Spalding (8) ; Smith v. Cu/ (9) ; Turner v. Dodd (10) ; Cockshot v. Bennett (11) ; Leicester v. Rose (12) ; Linton v. Bartlet (13). Mr. Palles, Q. C., and. Mr. Bewley, for the Respondent, cited Hickson v. Lombard (14) ; Hazard v. Mare (15) ; Kerr on Fraud, 157 ; Gilbert V. Lewis (16) ; Lawes v. Rand (17) ; Archbold on Bankruptcy, 994 ; Fessard v. Magnier (18) ; Re Madison (19) ; In re Farrell (20). THE MASTER. OF THE Rms. This is a suit to set aside a mortgage as being a fraud upon a composition made under the arrangement clauses in the Irish Bankruptcy Act. The Plaintiff, Furlong, filed his first petition for arrangement on the 26th of May, 1862. At that date he was liable to the Defendant, Fottrell, on foot of various bills of exchange, some of which were ovef-due, and some current. According to the Defendant's statement of the account, the debt on over-due bills was £41, and the current secuÂÂÂrities represented £129 13s. 6d., subject to some credits amounting to about £18. Between May, 1862, and the date of the mortgage, the Plaintiff incurred a further liability to the Defendant, amountÂÂÂing, according to the Defendant's statement, to £40 9s. 4d., on three other bills of exchange. Some items of both claims are disputed by the Plaintiff; but I do not think it is material at pre Feb. 3. sent to ascertain accurately what the sum due was...