Wm. Keith, Accomptant in Edinburgh, Trustee on Sir Robert Maxwell's estate v. Sir Wm. Forbes, Bart., Jas. Hunter & Co. [1794] UKHL 3

UKHL
Wm. Keith, Accomptant in Edinburgh, Trustee on Sir Robert Maxwell's estate v. Sir Wm. Forbes, Bart., Jas. Hunter & Co.
[1794] UKHL 3 · 1794-06-11
Three parties became bound, conjunctly and severally, in a personal bond for the sum of £10,000, borrowed for the use of one of them: the other two being mere sureties, and having bonds of relief granted. The principal became bankrupt, and nothing could be derived from his estate. One of the sureties also became insolvent, and the other being obliged to pay the whole debt. Held that the latter was entitled to rank on his co-surety's estate for the whole debt paid by him, to the effect of recovering the one half due by him. Reversed in the House of Lords, and held that he was only entitled to rank for the one half of the debt, each of them having been indebted as principal for a moiety thereof; and as surety for the other moiety.Sir Robert Maxwell of Orchardtown, Bart., Patrick Heron of Heron, Esq., and Robert Maxwell of Cargen, Esq.,

Page: 351 ↓

The estate of Sir Robert Maxwell was sold by Mr. Keith, his trustee, for behoof of the creditors, and Sir Wm. Forbes & Co. ranked on the funds of this estate for the whole debt, to the effect of recovering one half of the amount payable by Sir Robert Maxwell as a co-surety. Mr. Keith refused to rank for the whole, but only for the half; and thereupon action was brought against him. It was maintained by the trustee, Mr. Keith, that Sir Wm. Forbes & Co. were no better than trustees for Mr. Heron, and that Mr. Heron being, together with Sir Robert Maxwell, merely sureties for Mr. Maxwell of Cargen, each could only have relief against the other to the extent of one half of the debt, which either might pay as surety for Mr. Maxwell,—that all therefore that was due from Sir Robert to Mr. Heron, was one half of the original debt, in respect of his paying the whole, the other half having been extinguished by Mr. Heron, the other co-obligant, for his own account, and for which he has no relief against him, and no right even to rank upon it to the effect of entitling him to recover full payment of his debt. For the pursuers (respondents) it was maintained; —that they came in the right of creditors, and were entitled to all the privileges of such. That they were by law entitled to come against either of the co-obligants bound conjunctly and severally, or either of their estates, and to exact payment of the full debt. And if all or any of the obligants become bankrupt, they may insist to be ranked in solidum upon any of their bankrupt estates, or upon all of them, under condition always of not drawing more than full payment of their debt. Accordingly, though law concedes this

Page: 352 ↓

Feb. 8, 1792.On report to the Court, the Lords, of this date, found “the defender, William Keith, as trustee for Sir Robert Maxwell's creditors, is bound to rank Patrick Heron and Sir Wm. Forbes and Co., as trustees for him, upon Sir Robert Maxwell's funds, for the whole sums due upon those debts, in which Mr. Heron and Sir Robert Maxwell were jointly bound along with Maxwell of Cargen; but under this condition, that, in consequence of their being so ranked, they shall not draw more than one half of said debts, and decern.” * On reclaiming petition the Court

Footnote

* Opinions of Judges:—

Lord President Campbell .—“This is a question of relief among co-cautioners, where one of them is solvent and another bankrupt, and the former having paid upon an assignment from the original creditors.It is maintained that Mr Heron's personal demand can only be for one-half against his co-cautioner, Sir Robert Maxwell's estate; and if by Sir Robert's insolvency he should not recover twenty shillings in the pound, there is no help for it. He must take his chance with the other creditors, as there is no legal ground upon which, by enlarging his debt in the ranking, he can indirectly obtain a preference over them. In the case of Tilloch's creditors, June 1776, Sess. Papers, Vol. 31, No. 85, the reverse proposition

Page: 353 ↓

Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought.May 1777.Ante, vol. ii. p. 437.Pleaded for the Appellant Pleaded for the Appellant .—Of the sum paid by Mr.

Footnote

was maintained, e.g e.g . that the creditor should not be allowed to rank for the full debt upon the estate of the insolvent obligation, but should first take his payment from the solvent person, leaving him to claim against the estate of the bankrupt co-obligant; but the Court thought that the creditor might do either the one or the other as he pleased.But, in the present case, it may make a difference, that the estate of Sir Robert Maxwell was disponed for his whole debts, which may be said to be equal to an attachment for the whole, at least as the creditors were entitled to claim for the whole upon the estate so disponed—and this right belonging to them, is assigned by them to Heron, who is fairly entitled to avail himself of it.Suppose both estates bankrupt, they would be put into a very unequal situation, if one is to be ranked upon the whole and the other for the half. On the other hand, I doubt if the trust-deed made any particular lien.”Lord Justice Clerk —“Heron paying the whole debt, could only have adjudged, or done diligence against Sir Robert Maxwell for the one-half. But the case is different here. Sir Robert conveyed his estate for whole whole debts, including this, therefore the estate is pledged for the whole whole . Mr. Heron is entitled to use that pledge for operating his relief to the full extent of one-half. It is not merely a personal claim. When Heron got assignation from his creditors, he got it not only to the extent of his own personal claim, but to the whole extent, to the effect of relieving him of the half. The case of Sommervell, 3d December 1751, in Falconer, was different. He could not adjudge for the whole whole , when one-half one-half was paid.”

Lord Swinton .—“I think he can only claim for one-half one-half .”

Lord Eskgrove .—“I am of Lord Justice-Clerk's opinion.”

Lord President Campbell , on further advising, said,—

“The interlocutor seems to be right. The trust having been accepted of and acquiesced in by all parties, the estate of Cargen became thereby applicable to the payment of this whole debt, as well as other debts; and Mr. Heron, when afterwards called on to pay it, was entitled to an assignation to this security, whole and entire, to the effect of relieving himself of one-half.”

Page: 354 ↓

Pleaded for the Respondents Pleaded for the Respondents .—The relief among correi debendi correi debendi abstractly from the circumstances of the loan or valuable consideration, arises either from each being equally bound to the obligee or creditor; or from a mutual contract implied by the law between them, by which each is bound for the whole debt. This is the nature of their relation to the creditor. As between themselves, if one is called on to

Page: 355 ↓

After hearing counsel, it was

Ordered and adjudged that the interlocutor of the 8th Feb. 1792, complained of in the appeal be affirmed, with the following variations, viz. after the word (for) insert (half), and after (the) leave out (whole), and after (Cargen) leave out to the end of the said interlocutor, and insert (each of them having been indebted as principal for a moiety thereof, and as surety for the other moiety).—And the cause was ordered to be remitted back to the Court of Session to proceed accordingly. And it is farther ordered and adjudged, that the interlocutor of the 23d of Feb. 1792, also complained of, so far as the same is repugnant to the interlocutors of the 8th Feb. 1792, varied as aforesaid, be reversed reversed .Counsel: For Appellant, W. Grant, W. Adam. For Respondents, Sir J. Scott, J. Anstruther, Allan Maconochie, Wm. Tait.