David v Malouf [1908] HCA 35

David v Malouf [1908] HCA 35

Under the amended statutory language, a current promissory note held by a petitioner is a liquidated sum due at law or in equity, payable at a certain future time, thus constituting a good petitioning creditor's debt for the purposes of sequestration.

Parties
Appellant: Joseph David; Respondents: Charles Malouf and Mary Malouf
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 June 1908
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Petitioning Creditor's Debt, Promissory Note, Sequestration, Liquidated Sum
Insolvency Petitioning Creditor's Debt Promissory Note Sequestration Liquidated Sum

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph David

Appellant

Charles Malouf and Mary Malouf

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From the Supreme Court of Victoria to the High Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a current promissory note (not yet due) is a good petitioning creditor's debt under Victorian Insolvency Acts
  2. 2 Construction of 'due' and 'payable' in the statutory context

Ratio Decidendi

Under the amended statutory language, a current promissory note held by a petitioner is a liquidated sum due at law or in equity, payable at a certain future time, thus constituting a good petitioning creditor's debt for the purposes of sequestration.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs.