Limitation in liquidation does not bar a claim alive on the winding-up date, even if proved later.

In liquidation, a creditor's claim that was still subsisting on the date of the winding-up order is not defeated merely because it was presented later or became time-barred thereafter. The liquidator is treated as holding the company's assets in trust for distribution among existing liabilities, so limitation does not run in the same way against a claim proved after the winding-up order. A debt already barred when liquidation begins cannot be admitted, but an alive debt may be proved later, subject to protection of dividends already paid or commitments already made. On that footing, the claim was admitted as an ordinary debt to the extent proved, with the creditors' list modified accordingly.

---

---

Issues: Whether a creditor's claim, though presented after the winding-up order and after the ordinary period of limitation, could still be admitted in liquidation if it was not time-barred on the date of the winding-up order.

Analysis: The claim against the company in liquidation was not a suit instituted by presentation of a plaint, so the ordinary bar under section 3 of the Limitation Act did not control the matter in the same way. The liquidator was treated as a person holding the company's assets in trust for the specific purpose of applying them to the company's liabilities under the companies law, bringing the case within the principle that limitation does not run against such a trust after the winding-up order. Authorities relied upon established that a debt already barred when the winding-up order is made cannot be admitted, but a debt subsisting on that date may still be proved later, without disturbing dividends already paid or commitments already made, unless special reasons exist. The right to move the court also arose when the liquidator rejected the claim, so the application was in any event timely on that footing.

Conclusion: The claim was admissible in liquidation because it was alive on the date of the winding-up order and was not barred merely because it was presented later.

Final Conclusion: The liquidator was directed to admit the creditor's claim as an ordinary debt to the extent satisfactorily proved, with the settled list of creditors modified accordingly and without disturbing any dividend already paid or declared.

Ratio Decidendi: In liquidation, limitation does not defeat a creditor's claim that was subsisting on the date of the winding-up order; the liquidator holds the assets in trust for distribution of existing liabilities, and such a claim may be admitted even if it becomes time-barred only after the winding up has begun.

---