Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

18. There was in that case notice by the Bank of their lien to the bleachers shortly before the insolvency, but the statement of the bankers' rights in equity as against the debtors, and consequently as against the trustee in bankruptcy, is not made with reference to any question of notice. The rights between the immediate parties do not depend on notice, just as in the case of an equitable assignment of a debt notice is not necessary to complete the equitable right as between assignor and assignee. Thus in William Brandts' Sons & Co. v. Dunlop Rubber Company [1905] A. C. 454, it is clear that there was a good equitable assignment as between the merchants as assignors and the financiers as, assignees, though the assignment was not completed in the sense that the debtors to the merchants were bound by it or bound to pay the assignees, without receiving notice of it. Thus at p. 462 Lord Macnaghten says : "As between Kramrisch & Co. [the merchants] and Brandts' [the bankers] the assignment was perfect without them" (sc. the documents giving notice to the debtors). In the same way in the present case, though it is true that no third party holding the goods or dealing with them without notice of the respondents' lien would be affected by that lien, this is a consideration which is irrelevant to the equitable rights constituted as between the respondents and the insolvents. In this case nobody's rights are concerned except the rights as between these immediate parties : the appellant merely stands in the insolvents' shoes.