Gemmell Petitioner [1902] ScotLR 39_315 (18 January 1902)

Gemmell Petitioner [1902] ScotLR 39_315 (18 January 1902)

The bankrupt's failure to pay five shillings in the pound did not arise from circumstances for which he could not justly be held responsible, as he entered into litigation recklessly without means to meet potential liabilities, and acting in the public interest does not excuse imprudence or the voluntary assumption of risk.

Citation
[1902] ScotLR 39_315
Parties
Petitioner/appellant: James Gemmell; Trustee in Sequestration: George Lisle, C.A., Edinburgh; Respondents: Creditors of James Gemmell
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
18 January 1902
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy Petition (discharge) Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; petition for discharge refused.
Legal Topics
Sequestration, Discharge of Bankrupt, Statutory Requirements for Discharge, Responsibility for Failure to Pay Dividend
Bankruptcy Insolvency Sequestration Discharge of Bankrupt Statutory Requirements for Discharge Responsibility for Failure to Pay Dividend

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Gemmell

Petitioner/appellant

George Lisle, C.A., Edinburgh

Trustee in Sequestration

Creditors of James Gemmell

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy Petition (discharge) Appeal / Appeal From Sheriff Substitute to Court of Session Inner House

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bankrupt's failure to pay five shillings in the pound arose from circumstances for which he cannot justly be held responsible under Bankruptcy and Cessio (Scotland) Act 1881, sec. 6(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The bankrupt's failure to pay five shillings in the pound did not arise from circumstances for which he could not justly be held responsible, as he entered into litigation recklessly without means to meet potential liabilities, and acting in the public interest does not excuse imprudence or the voluntary assumption of risk.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; petition for discharge refused.

Orders

  • Petition for discharge refused.
  • Appeal dismissed.