Summary

Peter Vivian Daniel Murrill v. Neill — Opinion of the Court

The reasoning of his Lordship, as going to show that his decision is founded in pure principles of equity, is peculiarly forcible. Speaking of the rule of Lord Thurlow, he says,-'The difficulty that has struck me upon it is, that what I order here sitting in bankruptcy, I shall forbid to-morrow sitting in chancery; for it is quite of course to stop the dividend upon a bill filed. The plain rule of distribution is, that each estate shall bear its own debts. The equity is so plain, that it is of course upon a bill filed.
Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel Murrill v. Neill — Opinion of the Court

Every order I make to prove a joint debt on a separate estate, must produce a bill in equity. It is not fundamentally a just distribution, nor a convenient distribution. Every creditor of the partnership would come upon the separate estate. The consequence would be, the assignees of the separate estate must file a bill to restrain the dividend upon all these proofs, and make the partners parties. But there is another circumstance. It is a contrivance to throw this upon the separate estate.' Again his Lordship says,-'It is not stated as a case where there are no joint funds.
Source: Wikisource

Peter Vivian Daniel Murrill v. Neill — Opinion of the Court

The daily habits of one so situated must imply, to some extent, an ignorance of the precise detail of all that may be consequent upon them. We think it natural, (nay, with a due regard to truth, inevitable,) that one so situated, if called upon on an emergency, should admit his inability to enumerate all that he had done,-all that he had authorized to be done through others, and every consequence which might flow from the one or the other.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature