FAILLITE.—DECHARGE

SUPERIOR Court, Montreal, 27th june 1872 Present : MACKAY, J.

QUESNEL et al., insolvents, petitioners for discharge.

The insolvents petitioned for their discharge, alleging that more than a year had passed since their insolvencey, and that, havi ing conformed to the requirements of the law, the judge was bound to grant them à discharge. The parties had made à voluntary assignment, and from that time to the time of application, not one meeting had been called under the Act; there Was no public examination of the insolvents, and, in fact, nothing done:

Held : That”the petition must be rejected, section 109 not having been conformed to.

MackAY, J.: Petitioners apply for a discharge, under the Insolvent Act of 1869, alleging that more than a year has passed, and that having conformed to the requirements of the law, the judge is bound to grant them a discharge. But, I consider that the judge has a duty to perform, namely, to see that the proceedings have been regular, and that the bank-

rupte These date been ation assigni requir to. I applic reject

(GRANC

ofthe a had ac the acti

Held :

and, th accepta

20 TI tice of t]

AHERN

Held boarders

Ex par

Held :

couple of cific qua

t, and avernined, no at nt in leave e the

now LS Wiis of the à nan ccuser rering Plainccuser ; him, on is NOW dding been lowed.

s, and,

iavine

Y the r has ts of

ruptey law be not used as a mere whitewashing machine. These parties made a voluntary assignment, and, from the date of the'r cession to the present time, not one meeting had been called under the Act. There has been no public examination of the insolvents, and, in fact, nothing done; yet, the assignee certifies that petitioners have complied with all the requirements of the law. Section 109 has not been conformed to. I have examined the parties, as L sball do on all such applications, and I am not satisfied. Petisson for discharge rejected for the present. (2 R. C., 478.)

HERITIERS.—ACCEPTATION DE SUCCESSION.—PROCEDURE. SUPERIOR COURT, Montreal, 28th june 1872.

Present : MACKkAY, J.

GRANGE vs McDoxALD.

Suit was brought against nine heirs, for a debt due by their father, aud the question raised, upon law issues, Were: lo as to the sufficiency of the ailegation of the declaration, it not being asserted that the heirs had accepted the succession ; and 20 as to the correctness of bringing the action against the heirs jointly:

Held: 10 Thatit is the duty of the heirs to show non-acceptance, and, therefore, that it need not be specially alleged in the declaration ; acceptation is the general rule. |

20 That the suit against the heirs jointly is conformable to the practice of the court. (2 R. C., 478.)