Bankruptcy: Solicitor and Client: Account Stated Bankruptcy of Client: Trustee's Right to Go behind Stated Account, and Require Details

1908 Michigan law review  
Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the mid--seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non--commercial purposes. Read more about Early Journal
more » ... out Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate--jstor/individuals/early-journal--content. JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not--for--profit organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org. MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW Lighting Co., Ltd., [1906], I Ch. D. 497, seems to lay down the correct rule to govern the case where a receiver has incurred debts without leave of court. In that case, in a debenture-holders' action, a receiver and manager was appointed and authorized to borrow 3,000 pounds "for the general purposes of the business," the sum to be a first charge on the assets. The manager carried on the business and, without leave of court, incurred debts in excess of this amount. He withdrew from office and was subsequently declared a bankrupt. The debenture holders brought an action to declare that he was not entitled to indemnity in respect of liabilities incurred beyond the amount allowed. The court said it was the duty of the receiver, if he found the amount allowed by the court insufficient to carry on the business properly, to have called the court's attention to the matter to get leave, if the court sees fit, to incur further liabilities. But the court refused to rule, as a matter of law, that failure to obtain such leave would deprive the receiver of the right to indemnity in all cases. The rule as laid down by the court is, that if he contracts additional debts without leave of court, the receiver assumes the burden of showing that, having regard to all the circumstances under which he did so, he was justified in incurring such expense without leave first obtained. In Strapp v. Bull, Sons & Co. [I895], 2 Ch. D. I, a manager had entered into obligations beyond the limit allowed by the court, yet the question as to his right to indemnity for such excess was not raised. "I have no doubt that the receiver must be indemnified, and have his costs as between solicitor and client out of the fund." Master of the Rolls, in Courand v. Hamner, 9 Beav. 3.
doi:10.2307/1273965 fatcat:zitlssjjc5g7rhrt3cic7cktlm