in assumpsit by the original plaintiff,
the defendant pleaded the plaintiff's
bankruptcy, and that the causes of
action in the original suit accrued
before the plaintiff became bankrupt.
On special demurrer, for that the
plea did not show, whether the judg-
ment was recovered before or after
the bankruptcy:-Held, that the plea
was bad, inasmuch as it did not ap-
pear but that the bankruptcy might
have been pleaded in bar of the ori-
ginal action. Baylis v. Hayward, 4
A. & E. 256; S.C. 5 Nev. & M. 613.

(When a competent Witness.)
See WITNESS.

BANKRUPTCY.

(Effect of, during Action pending.)
C. brought an action against F. in
the Lord Mayor's Court for the reco-
very of a debt, and issued an attach-
ment against B., who had in his
hands funds belonging to F. W. filed
a bill against C., B., and F., claiming
a lien on the funds, and obtained an
injunction ex parte to restrain pro-
ceedings in the action. Whilst the
injunction was in force, F. became
bankrupt: Held, that though C.
might, but for the injunction, have
sued out execution long before F.
became bankrupt, yet he was not
entitled to be paid otherwise than
rateably with the other creditors.
Ullock v. Barber, 6 Sim. 300.

-

BIDDINGS.
And see SALE.

Biddings were ordered to be open-
ed, on a sale of mortgaged premises,
on an advance of 1901, on 310l. Ex
parte Hutchinson, re Hunt, 2 Mont.
& A. 727.

BILLS AND NOTES.
(Where Consideration illegal.)
Assumpsit by the drawer against
the acceptor of a bill of exchange.
Plea, that the defendant, being a
trader, was indebted to the plaintiff
in 100l. and upwards, and also to
divers other persons in large sums of
money; that he became a bankrupt,
and a fiat upon the petition of the
plaintiff was awarded against him;
that before he was adjudged a bank-
rupt, or had obtained any certificate
of conformity to the fiat, it was
wrongfully, and against the form of
the bankrupt laws, agreed between
the plaintiff and defendant, without
the concurrence of the other credit-
ors, that the plaintiff should abandon
the fiat and all proceedings there-
under; and that in consideration
thereof the defendant should accept
the said bill of exchange, and deliver
the same to the plaintiff. The plea
then averred the acceptance and de-
livery of the bill accordingly, and
that the consideration in the plea
mentioned was the consideration for
the acceptance thereof.-Held, on
demurrer to the plea, that the agree-
ment therein set forth, on the part of
the plaintiff, to abandon the fiat, was
illegal, on the ground of its being an
abuse of a process which a creditor

has a right to sue out, not for his
own benefit only, but for the benefit
of the other creditors also. Davis v.
Holding, 1 Tyrwh. & Gr. 371; S. C.
1 Mees. & W. 159.

(Proof of Consideration.)
A creditor of a bankrupt, who has
absconded with his books of account,
and had never surrendered to the
fiat, applied to prove on two bills,
one for 2001. and the other for 1231.,
the consideration for which the cre-
ditor alleged to be goods sold by
him to the bankrupt; but no entry
appeared in the creditor's books of
the sale of those goods, nor did he
adduce any evidence of the fact be-
yond his own statement:-Semble,
that the Commissioner was, under
the circumstances, justified in reject-
ing the proof. Ex parte Knight, re
Lewis, 1 Deac. 408.

(When affected by Usury.)
A creditor advanced money to the
bankrupt by discounting bills, paya-
ble within three months from the
date, and on the security of the de-
posit of goods, and took more than
51. per cent. for the discount:-Held,
that this was within the provisions of
the 3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 98. s. 7., and
that the contract was not usurious.
Ex parte Knight, re Pownall, 1 Deac.
459.

(When lost.)

Where a bill of exchange, exhibited
by a creditor at the time of his proof,
is lost before a dividend is declared,

| the Commissioner should, on the ap-
plication of the creditor, give special
directions to the official assignee to
pay the dividend, without requiring
the production of the bill. Ex parte
Wallis, re Hambly, 1 Deac. 496.

(Presentment-Notice of Dishonour.)
An offer of composition made by
the acceptor of several bills to the
holder, in the presence of the drawer,
accompanied by a declaration that
the acceptor could not, and would
not, provide for them when due,
does not dispense with the necessity
of presenting them when due, and
giving notice of their dishonour to
the drawer, although the drawer
urges the holder to agree to the com-
position. Ex parte Bignold, re Brere-
ton, 1 Dea. 712; S. C. 2 Mont. & A.
633.

BILL-BROKER.

A person ostensibly carrying on
the profession of a proctor, is made a
bankrupt as a bill-broker, and the
evidence to prove the trading is,
generally, " that he procured bills to
be discounted, that he carried on the
business of a bill-broker, and that on
one occasion he was employed to get
a bill for 487. discounted:"- Held,
that this was insufficient evidence of
the trading; as the affidavits did not
specify the name of any party, to
whom the bankrupt applied to dis-
count any bills, or with whose money
the same were cashed, nor even state
the whole of the particulars of any

re Box, 1 Deac. 571.

BILL IN EQUITY.
See SUIT IN EQUITY.

BONDS.

The bankrupt, previous to his
marriage, entered into a bond that
in case his wife should survive him,
and should within two months after
his death, at the costs and charges of
his heirs or devisees, release her
dower, his heirs or executors should
within three months after his death
pay to her 20001. The wife survived
the bankrupt, but did not, within two
months after his death, release her
dower, although she was always ready
and willing to do so. - Held, that
the bond was not proveable, either
under the first or last part of the
56th section of the Bankrupt Act,
inasmuch as the contingency had not
happened, and no value could be set
upon it. Ex parte Davies, re Harvey,

1 Deac. 115.

Where a creditor, who had proved
a bond debt, had subsequently lost
the bond, the Court made an order
that he might receive the dividends
on his debt, without producing the
bond, upon affidavit of the facts, and
indemnifying the assignees. Ex parte
Robins, re Phillips, 1 Deac. 587.

A bond to secure all monies, which
a party may draw out from, or owe to,
a bank, does not cover sums paid by
the bank on such unstamped drafts
as are declared illegal by the provi-

184. s. 13. Swan v. Bank of Scotland,
1 Dea. 746; S.C. 2 Mont. & A. 656.
A bond executed by the defendant
on the 1st March 1832, as surety
for J., was conditioned for payment
of 51. interest on a principal sum of
2007. on the 1st March 1833, 5l. on
the 1st March 1834, and 205l. on
the 1st March 1835. The first
year's interest was not paid till
March 30th 1833, and in June
1833 the defendant became bank-
rupt.-Held, that the bond had
become forfeited before the bank-
ruptcy, and was therefore proveable
under the defendant's commission.
Skinner's Company v. Jones, 3 Bing.
N. C. 481.

BOOK-DEBTS.

A creditor of a bankrupt, who has
absconded with his books of account,
and has never surrendered to the fiat,
applies to prove on two bills, one for
2001., and the other for 1231, the
consideration for which the creditor
alleges to be goods sold by him to
the bankrupt; but no entry appears
in the creditor's books for the sale of
those goods, nor does he adduce any
evidence of the fact, beyond his own
statement: --Semble, that the Com-
missioner was, under the circum-
stances, justified in rejecting the
proof. Ex parte Knight, re Lewis,1
Deac. 408.

Quære, whether the Commissioner
is justified in rejecting a proof, merely
on the ground of non-compliance of

CERTIFICATE.

(Signature of by the Commissioners.)
Where one Commissioner of the
Court of Bankruptcy had attended
to the proceedings under a fiat, and
had taken the bankrupt's last exa-
mination, and the bankrupt obtained
the signature of another Commis-
sioner to his certificate,-the Court
referred the certificate back to the
first Commissioner, in order to exa-
mine the bankrupt, and decide whe-
ther he would sign his certificate.
Ex parte Burn, re Isaacs, 1 Deac.

194.

Where one of the Commissioners
refused to sign the bankrupt's certi-
ficate, because the assignees had as-
signed all the bankrupt's estate to
the bankrupt's son, upon the latter
securing 10s. in the pound to all the
creditors, and the Commissioner
thought that for this cause the com-
mission should be superseded; the
certificate was sent back to the Com-
missioners for their re-consideration;
Lord Manners saying, that the Com-
missioners are only to look that the
bankrupt gives a full account of his
effects; the disposal of them belongs
to the assignees. In re Baily, 2
Molloy (Irish), 444.

A trustee, who was directed to
convert the whole of the testatrix's

property into money, and place the
same out at interest upon mortgage,
for the benefit of the cestui que trusts,
employs the money in his business,
paying interest to the parties entitled
to it, and afterwards becomes bank-
rupt and obtains his certificate, with-
out any proof having been made
under his commission for the amount
of the trust money, either by himself,
or the cestui que trusts, who were
entirely ignorant of his misapplica-
tion of the trust money; and he con-
tinues to pay the interest to them
after his bankruptcy, the same as
before ;- he becomes bankrupt a
second time, when the cestui que trusts
discover that he had not invested the
money pursuant to the trusts of the
will. -Held, that his certificate under
the first commission was a bar to any
proof for the amount under the sub-
sequent fiat. Ex parte Holt, re
Makin, 1 Deac. 248.

The 127th section of the 6 Geo. 4.
c. 16,-which declares that where the

estate of a bankrupt, who shall have
been previously discharged by a cer-
tificate under a commission of bank-
ruptcy, or have compounded with his
creditors, or have been discharged
by an Insolvent Act, shall not pay
15s. in the pound, his certificate shall
only protect his person from impri-
sonment, and that his future estate
shall vest in his assignees,-is re-
trospective, and applies to discharges
by bankruptcy or insolvency before
the passing of the act, as well as to
discharges obtained subsequently.
Elston v. Braddick, 2 Cromp. & M.

435.

A., in the year 1815, was dis-
charged under an Insolvent Act, and
in 1830 obtained his certificate under
a commission of bankrupt issued in
1829, under which commission his
estate produced less than sufficient to
pay his creditors 15s. in the pound.
In the year 1832 he opened an ac-
count with the Bank of England, and
deposited with the bank a sum of

-

2941. 15s.- Held, that an action for
money had and received to recover
this sum was maintainable by his as-
signees against the bank. Ibid.

A previous composition, in order
to defeat a certificate, must be with
all the creditors. Where the bank-
rupt, therefore, had only compounded
with his principal creditors, and had
paid the smaller ones in full:-Held,
that such a composition did not
deprive him of the benefit of his cer-
tificate under a subsequent fiat. Ro-
berts v. Harris, 2 Cromp. M. & R.
292; S. C. 5 Tyr. 1102.

A bankrupt is entitled to be dis-
charged out of custody in an action,
notwithstanding he did not obtain his
certificate until after the action was
brought. Osborne v. Williamson, 1

Mees. & W. 550.

Money was invested in stock, pur-
suant to a will, for the benefit of a
legatee. An attorney obtained the
legatee's authority, and a power from
her trustee to sell out the stock, re-
presenting that it might be better in-
vested in a mortgage, and that he
would find a proper security. The
money was sold out, and the pro-
ceeds received and held by the at-
torney, he paying interest on the
amount to the legatee, who did not
know that the money had not been
re-invested. Inquiries being after-
wards made, the attorney admitted,
after some evasion, that he had not
re-invested the sum; but, upon being
further urged, promised that he would
do so, and at length proposed a
mortgage (which was thought insuffi
cient) on property of his own. No
further satisfaction being offered, the
legatee moved the Court of King's
Bench against him, and a rule was
made, by consent, (the attorney
having filed no affidavit,) ordering
that he should re-invest the money
in stock, on or before the 24th June
then next, and pay costs; and on
default, that an attachment should
issue against him. The money was
not re-invested, nor costs paid; and
on June 25th a fiat in bankruptcy
issued against him, under which he
in October following obtained his