47
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
BE
5 PUBLIC
8855
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
IV. Subject to the foregoing rules, any creditor of the bankrupt may prove his debt
under any of the adjudications of bankruptcy.
in
V. The surplus property of the debtor in the hands of any such officer as aforesaid may be remitted in such manner as the Court having jurisdiction in the bankruptcy may direct to the proper officer appointed under the adjudication any other part of Her Majesty's dominions, or in equal moieties to the proper officers appointed under adjudications in the other parts of Her Majesty's dominions, if more than one, in which the debtor has been adjudged bankrupt, to be distributed by him or them according to the laws of such part or parts of Her Majesty's dominions.
5. The discharge of a bankrupt by a Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy shall have effect as to all debts of the debtor wherever contracted, except only such debts as were contracted in some other part of Her Majesty's dominions in which the debtor has also been adjudged bankrupt.
6. When a person carries on business alone in one part of Her Majesty's dominions and carries on business in another part or other parts of Her Majesty's dominions in partnership with another person or other persons, and when the same person is a member of distinct firms carrying on business in different parts of Her Majesty's dominions, then in the event of the bankruptcy of such person or of the firm or firms of which he is a member, such person or firms shall be regarded for the purposes of the winding up of the affairs in bankruptcy as separate and distinct debtors.
Define "Part of Her Majesty's dominions.'
Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy." "Debt."
(?) "Trusteo" and use that term.
No. 19.
ADMINISTRATION OF ASSETS.
MEMORANDUM,
S. W. GRIFFITH.
According to an opinion given by Sir Roundell Palmer (now Lord Selborne) and Mr. Charles Hall (afterwards Vice-Chancellor Hall) in 1870, where a person whose domicile is not British India dies intestate leaving assets in the country of his domicile and other assets in British India, and administration is taken out in the country of his domicile and also in British India, the administrator in the country of domicile cannot give the administrator in British India a good receipt for the assets collected by him in British India, but the British Indian administrator must himself distribute thosc assets among the next of kin.
If this is sound law it must apply to all the Colonies, and (as a recent case in British India shows) must cause expense and difficulty, especially in the administration of small
estates.
Where a deceased person leaves assets in one country and next of kin in another, the administrator in the latter country would be better able to distribute the assets than the administrator in the former country. Moreover, an administrator is technically an officer of the court by whom he is appointed; and it would be desirable that the officers of the several British courts should be empowered to act in aid of each other.
In the case of small estates where it is not worth while to take out administration in the country of distribution, it is possible that some arrangement might with advantage be made for remitting Colonial assets to a public officer in this country, who should be empowered to distribute them without representation in accordance with the rule adopted for the assets of deceased soldiers and seamen and for deposits in the Post Office Savings Banks, and that reciprocal arrangements might be made by the Colonies for the distri- bution of assets there.
C. P. ILBERT,
21st April 1887.
•
No. 20.
COMPANIES (COLONIAL REGISTERS) ACT, 1883.
MEMORANDUM by the AGENT GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND.
Os behalf of the Australasian Delegates, I beg permission to bring before the Conference a grievance resulting out of the Companies (Colonial Registors) Act,
1883.
The Act to which I am referring was passed in order to enable companies registered under the Companies Act, 1862 to 1883, to keep branch registers in Colonies, and under it large numbers of Colonial shareholders hold shares on Colonial registers of banks and other companies.
But by sub-section (b) of section 7 of the Act it is provided that upon the death of a shareholder whose shares are on any Colonial register, his shares are, for the purpose of the British stamp duties, to be deemed part of his estato in the United Kingdom, and probate has to be taken out in the same way as if he had been on the principal (English) register.
The effect of this provision is that if a person resident in a Colony becomes the owner of shares in an English compang, but is registered on the Colonial register, his will must be proved in this country as well as in the Colony. Even, therefore, if the deceased was domiciled in the Colony, and acquired his shares there, and his shares only stood on the Colonial register, they are to be deemed estate situate in this country; and although he may not have had any other property in this country, his representatives are put to the delay and expense of taking out probate here. This not only imposes a double death duty, but when the value of the shares is small, as often happens, the law expenses involved are altogether out of proportion to that value. The death must be proved, and a copy of the will, verified by a notary, must be exhibited; the will must be shown to have been executed in accordance with the law of the Colony; a power of attorney must come here, with evidence to justify the attorney in making an affidavit that the deceased had no other property in England but the shares; and the attorney must be satisfied as to whether the deceased left a widow or children, and as to his domicile and nationality. The general effect is that while the representatives of the deceased shareholder are involved in great expense, the Imperial revenue derives hardly any benefit. Indeed, if the sub-section of the Act is not altered, it is evident that Colonists will have nothing to do with shares on Colonial registers, and the purpose of the Act will be frustrated.
We cannot doubt that Her Majesty's Government will recognise how desirable it is to encourage the establishment of companies in England embarking capital in the Colonies. Annexed is a list of such institutions now in actual operation in this country, distinguishing those which have Colonial registers under the Act, and showing that the amount of their capital already exceeds 52,000,0001., of which more than 2 millions are on Colonial registers.
We submit that the question should be governed by the domicile of the shareholder. So long as a shareholder whose shares are on the Colonial register retains his Colonial domicile, those shares should not be subject to English as well as Colonial stamp duty and probate. If the sub-section in question were repealed, there would be nothing in the way of Colonial legislation authorising companies formed in a Colony to establish branch registers in England, and exempting shares on such registers from Colonial death duties, as has been indeed proposed in one Colony; and the general result would be a great addition to the number of English companies that would establish Colonial registers.
F. D. BELL.
Westminster Chambers,
6th April 1887.
F 4
-18
LIST OF ENGLISH COMPANIES ENGAGED IN BUSINESS CONNECTED WITH THE COLONIES.