Shackell v Howe, Thornton and Palmer [1909] HCA 14

Shackell v Howe, Thornton and Palmer [1909] HCA 14

The sum payable by the agent (wool-brokers) to the principal (Dillon) for proceeds of wool consigned for sale, and assigned by Dillon to Howe, Thornton & Palmer, does not constitute a 'book debt' within the meaning of the Book Debts Act 1896 (Vict.), and is therefore not invalidated by non-registration under the Act. The assignment is valid and the trustee is not entitled to recover the money.

Parties
Appellant: Edward Herbert Shackell; Respondent: Howe, Thornton & Palmer
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 April 1909
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debts, Book Debts, Registration Requirements Under Book Debts Act 1896 (vict.)
Commercial Law Insolvency Law Assignment of Debts Book Debts Registration Requirements Under Book Debts Act 1896 (vict.)

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Herbert Shackell

Appellant

Howe, Thornton & Palmer

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether money to be paid by an agent to principal upon sale of goods constitutes a 'book debt' under Book Debts Act 1896 (Vict.)
  2. 2 Whether non-registration of the assignment affects validity

Ratio Decidendi

The sum payable by the agent (wool-brokers) to the principal (Dillon) for proceeds of wool consigned for sale, and assigned by Dillon to Howe, Thornton & Palmer, does not constitute a 'book debt' within the meaning of the Book Debts Act 1896 (Vict.), and is therefore not invalidated by non-registration under the Act. The assignment is valid and the trustee is not entitled to recover the money.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs