Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

about a bankruptcy case

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • about a bankruptcy case

    Hello,

    I have a query concerning a bankruptcy that raises a few questions. As the matter spans over a decade, I have to include a few links. Your help would be greatly appreciated.

    (1) towards end of left column : general meeting concerning bankruptcy HE Bird and E. Lewis had accountancy firm
    (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/23698/pages/240)

    (2) found further information in newspapers. From this : bankrupts failed to file all accounts. This already indicates delay.

    (3) After years of silence the matter resurfaced in November 1882. See http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/25164/pages/496, right column above

    (4) In later meetings : some creditors owed something from both Bird and Lewis, some from Lewis alone.

    (5) Finally discharge followed in 1883

    I have, as said, a few questions :

    a - Is it normal that it took so long before the bankruptcy was settled?
    b - What could have been the impact on both men? My interest goes to HE Bird. He remained active as an accountant, and even had another accountancy company
    with someone else (http://www.london-gazette.co.uk/issues/24949/pages/1161). Can this be explained?
    He was in the US for two years for other matters. I guess this means that the bankruptcy had but little impact on him.
    is possible so long?
    c - the article in the London Gazette of Nov. 1882 has the following quote : "The reason for this meeting was Lewis’ application for an order of discharge,
    upon the ground that his failure to pay a dividend of 10s. in the pound has arisen from circumstances for which the said bankrupt cannot justly be held responsible."
    This seems strange to me in relation to an accountancy firm. Does this mean that people invested in this firm?
    I know that at least Bird was active in railway transactions in the US that failed. Could this be what was meant here?

    Any help would be greatly appreciated!
    Hans

  • #2
    This looks very technical, Hans. I can see that several of us have had a look, but chickened out of replying!

    I'm not sure where else you would find information beyond the newspapers and London Gazette - where you've already looked. Sometimes there could be documents in the local or even national archives giving more information. A quick look at TNA (Kew) Archives online catalogue is not encouraging.

    Christine
    Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

    Comment


    • #3
      Bankruptcy proceedings will only be moved forwards by the actions of the creditors. If they do nothing, then the matter hangs till someone does! It may be that the principal creditors were persuaded not to push for settlement - perhaps he promised them full settlement if he was given time to go to the US and contract business there. Who knows. Perhaps he just ran?

      It was and still is illegal for any bankrupt to run a business, be a director or be self employed in any way. A bankrupt can only work as a paid employee and in days gone by, his salary would have almost certainly been garnished by the bankruptcy court.

      These days, bankruptcy is seen as a trifling matter and discharge is almost automatic after one year, whether debts have been paid or not. In the 19th century though, bankruptcy was social ruin and many a bankrupt committed suicide from the shame and dishonour it brought. Discharge was not automatic and as long as the creditors felt there was a chance of getting some more money, discharge would be withheld. Possibly for a lifetime.

      OC

      Comment


      • #4
        The strange thing in the matter of both HE Bird and of Henry Bird, my previous query, is that they both went bankrupt at least once but recovered very well from all the bad luck. Henry, for example, became later on an accountant clerk, pub owner and newspaper agent. His son, H.E., was a very successful accountant at Coleman, Turquand, Young, and for a few years until his bankruptcy as a public accountant. From 1871 onwards I have plenty of evidence that he kept on accounting, but probably more off the record than before, although I find it hard to imagine with this bankruptcy still hanging on.

        About bankruptcy in general : I thought that this was relatively mild since the 1830's, the worst case being an insolvent debtor, as it were these people who could end up in jail. Perhaps I see this wrong?

        Any thought about the dividend quote would be hugely appreciated. I found similar expressions in other bankruptcy cases, but they didn't enlighten me.

        Hans

        Comment


        • #5
          I think the only difference after 1830 was that bankrupts did not AUTOMATICALLY go to prison as they had done previously. The law finally realised that if you wanted a bankrupt to pay off his debts, he was more likely to do that if he could work.Only those considered criminally bankrupt went to prison - those who had deliberately traded, knowing they were insolvent.

          As for the rest of it, bankruptcy was still a serious matter and socially disgraceful. You could not own property,(including any but the most basic furniture) amass wealth in any way, borrow money etc.

          Many bankrupts did of course clear their debts and on discharge were able to make a success of their lives. I have an ancestor who went bankrupt in the 1830s. His son started a new business and I am quite sure his father was "employed" in it, but in fact just carrying on as before. Only difference was, the business wasn't legally his, so its assets couldn't be seized.

          OC

          Comment

          Working...
          X