an agreement in writing; and on the
same day he signed another agree-
ment engaging to pay 851. per an-
num, being the improved rental of
the premises," the leases of which
are deposited" with the petitioner,
viz. 457., being the improved rental
of a house in the occupation of
J. H.; 20., being the improved
rental of the adjoining premises let
to J. H., as tenant at will; and 201.,
being the improved rental of pre-
mises in the occupation of A. B.;
"the said 851. to be collected by me,
and paid over" to the petitioner.
The lease of the premises let to J. H.,
as tenant at will, had not been, in
fact, deposited with the petitioner;
but only the lease of the other pre-
mises in the occupation of J. H.,
and the lease to A. B.-Held, never-
theless, that the petitioner had a
lien, as equitable mortgagee, upon
the premises comprised in all the
three leases. Ex parte Edwards, re
Moore, 1 Dea. 611.

An equitable mortgage of slaves
in Antigua, by a deposit of a regis-
tered title-deed containing a sche-
dule of the slaves, was held to be bad,
where the memorandum accompany.
ing the deposit, which was registered,
did not also contain a list of the
slaves. Ex parte Borrodaile, re
Rucker, 2 Mont. & A. 398, overrul-
ing Ex parte Rucker, 3 Deac. & C.
704; 1 Mont. & A. 481.

A solicitor cannot receive a depo-
sit of title-deeds, by way of equitable
mortgage, to secure the payment of

VOL. 1.

future bills of costs. Ex parte Laing,
re Dudderidge, 2 Mont. & A. 381.

The depositary of a lease for se-
curing a debt is liable to the rent
and costs, although he has not taken
possession of the premises. Flight
v. Bentley, 7 Sim, 149.

ESTOPPEL.

And see BANKRUPT.
A bankrupt is not estopped from
petitioning to supersede, although
he has surrendered to his commission,
interfered in the choice of assignees
and the disposition of the estate, and
has also passed his last examination,
and endeavoured to obtain his certi-
ficate. Ex parte Chambers, 1 Deac.
197.

A bankrupt is not bound by acts
of acquiescence, when he is ignorant
of his rights. Ibid.

A judgment at law, establishing
the validity of a commission, is not
conclusive on the Great Seal, on a
subsequent petition to supersede;
and the Court is bound to look into
all the circumstances of the case, as
affecting the requisites to support
the commission. Ibid.

A party, on taking the benefit of the
Insolvent Act, swore that certain
goods, described in her schedule, be-
longed to the creditors of her de-
ceased husband; but afterwards
brought an action to recover them,
claiming them as her own.-Held,
that the fact of her so swearing, and
afterwards setting up a right to the
goods in herself, was an inconsistency

3 G

for the consideration of the jury;

but that such oath did not estop her
from asserting her claim. Thorne v.
White, 1 Tyrw. & Gr. 110.

Where a creditor compounds with
his debtor under a false impression,
in which the debtor knowingly leaves
him, as to the extent of the debtor's
estate, the creditor is not estopped
from suing for the balance of his
debt. Vine v. Mitchell, 1 Mood. &

R. 337.

EVIDENCE.

And see WITNESS.
(Examinations and Depositions.)
The examinations of the bankrupt
and other persons before the Com-
missioners may be read in evidence,
after notice has been given to the
other side of the intention to read
them, and may then in all respects
be treated as affidavits. Ex parte
Crosley, re Kidder, 1 Deac. 107.

The examination of a third party
before the Commissioner, which is
taken behind the back of the bank-
rupt, cannot be read in evidence, on
the bankrupt's petition to supersede;
but the Court, for its own satisfaction,
has a right to look at it. Ex parte
Chambers, 1 Deac. 197.

On a petition to prove, examina-
tions before Commissioners taken in
the absence of the party to be af-
fected by them, cannot be read in
evidence, unless notice of the inten-
tion to read them has been given, and
the party has been furnished with a
copy of them. Ex parte Bignold, re
Brereton, 1 Deac. 728; S. C. 2 Mont.
& A. 641.

Upon a petition to annul the fiat,
or reverse the adjudication, the bank-
rupt is entitled to copies of the de-
positions, and the proceedings are
not evidence against him, unless pre-
vious notice is given to him of the
intention to use them. Ex parte
Goodwin, re Goodwin, 1 Deac. 695.

The depositions taken before the
Commissioners are, under the 6 G. 4.
c. 16. s. 92., evidence of the petition-
ing creditor's debt, the trading, and
the act of bankruptcy, in an action
of trover brought by the assignees;
although the declaration states a con-
version in the time of the assignees
only-provided the cause of action be
one for which the bankrupt might
himself have sued. Kitchener v.
Power, 3 Adol. & E. 232; S. C. 4
Nev. & Man. 710.

For ascertaining whether or not
the cause of action is within the 92d
section, the criterion is, whether the
bankruptcy be only a formal step in
the evidence, or whether it be so es-
sentially a part of the ground of ac-
tion, that, without proof of it, there
would be no right of action in any
party, as in the case of an action by
assignees for a fraudulent preference;
in which last case the defendant
ought not to be concluded by the
evidence taken by the Commission-

is not admissible in evidence against,
him, on a criminal charge. The
King v. Britton, 1 Mood. & R. 297.

(Bankrupt's Letters and Declarations.)
Upon an issue, whether or not a
trader had committed an act of bank-
ruptcy on or before the 5th March,
letters written by him on the 16th
January to the holders of bills to be-
come due in February, praying for
time, were held admissible for the
purpose of showing him to be in em-
barrassed circumstances, and as tend-
ing to give a colour to his absenting
himself from his home and business
from the 16th February to the 9th
March. Smith v. Cramer, 1 Scott, 541.

Goods were consigned to A. in
London. On the arrival of the ves-
sels in the river, the captain being
urgent that the goods should be
taken out, applied to A., who was
then insolvent, and who at first re-
fused to give any directions, but ul-
timately, to accommodate the cap-
tain, gave his son a verbal order to
land the goods at a wharf where he
had been in the habit of landing goods
under written orders, at the same
time declaring he would not take the
goods in question. 4. had no pre-
mises of his own on the river, but

had a warehouse in the city. The
goods were landed on the wharf and
piled away, and while in the hands
of the wharfingers were stopped in
transitu, shortly after which 4. be-
came bankrupt.-Held, in trover by
the assignees of A. against the wharf-

ingers, that the declaration made by
A., that he would not accept the
goods at the time he gave his son
orders to land them, was admissible
in evidence; although it was not

communicated either to the wharfin-
gers, or the vendor. James v. Griffin,
1 Tyrw. & G. 449; S. C. 2 Cr. M.
& R. 20.

(Substitution of Petitioning Creditor's
Debt.)

Where a new petitioning creditor's
debt has been substituted, under the
6 G. 4. c. 16. s. 18., it is sufficient, in
an action by the assignees, to prove
the petition to the Chancellor for the
substitution of the new debt, the
Chancellor's order referring the suf-
ficiency of the debt to the Commis-
missioners thereon. It is not ne-
sioners, and the finding of the Com-

cessary to produce the Chancellor's
order confirming such finding. Bat
chelor v.
Vyse, 1 Mood. & R. 331.
(Rule of Court.)

A rule of the Court of King's
Bench, made in an action pending in
that Court, cannot be read on a peti-
tion of bankruptcy, without being
verified by affidavit; and notice.
ought to be given to the other party

of the intention to read it on the

hearing. Ex parte Chambers, 1 Deac.

197.

(Copies, when receivable.)

A. was examined before Commis-
sioners of Bankrupt; and on his
examination, he produced a machine
copy of a letter he had sent to R.

While he was being examined, the
solicitor to the assignees made a copy
of this machine copy of the letter.
Held, that in an action by the assig-
nees against A., the copy of the letter
thus made by the solicitor, was not
admissible in evidence against A.,
without reading his examination;
although notice had been given to
A. to produce the machine copy.
Holland v. Reeves, 7 Car. & P. 36.

(Parol to explain written.)

In order to prove the agreement
of the plaintiffs to accept a composi-
tion of half the amount of their debt
in satisfaction of the whole, the de-
fendant put in a letter from one of
the plaintiffs, containing the terms
of the agreement for the composi-
tion.-Held, that evidence of a pre-
vious conversation, when the plaintiff
made inquiries as to what the other
creditors were likely to do, was ad-
missible, to show the motive which
induced him to write the letter, and
the intention with which the agree-
ment was entered into. Reay v.
Richardson, 2 Cromp. M. & R. 422.

In trover against the sheriff, the
officer, who seized the goods, being
called to prove the warrant, stated
that he entered on a certain day,
under a warrant in the usual form,
but that he had lost the warrant :-
Held sufficient to let in parol evi-
dence of the contents of the warrant.
Moon v. Raphael, 2 Scott, 489; S. C.
2 Bing. N. C. 310.

(Confidential Communications.)
Trover for a lease by the assignees
of a bankrupt. Plea, that before the

bankruptcy the bankrupt deposited
the lease with the defendant, as a
collateral security for money which
the bankrupt then owed him. At
the trial, the plaintiffs attempted to
show, that the lease was deposited
after the act of bankruptcy; and, for
that purpose, called a witness who
had been the attorney for the bank-
rupt after the act of bankruptcy, and
had been applied to by him to raise
him money. It was then proposed
to ask him, whether the bankrupt
had not the lease in his possession at
that time.-Held, that this was pri-
vileged from disclosure, as being a
confidential communication made to
him relating to his character as an
attorney. Turquand v. Knight, 2
Mees. & W. 98.

(Generally.)

A party has no right to read a
document in evidence, merely be-
cause he has offered the other side a
copy of it; nor can his counsel, on
the hearing of the petition, do hypo-
thetically what he cannot do directly.
Ibid. Ex parte Chambers, 1 Deac. 197.

EXAMINATIONS.

And see DEPOSITIONS EVIDENCE.
The examinations before the Com-
missioners of bankrupt, and other
persons, may be read in evidence
after notice has been given to the
other side of the intention to read
them, and may then in all respects
be treated as affidavits.
Ex parte
Crosley, re Kidder, 1 Deac. 107.

On a petition to prove, examina-
tions before Commissioners, taken in

the absence of the party to be af-
fected by them, cannot be read in
evidence, unless notice of the inten-
tion to read them has been given, and
the party is furnished with a copy of
the examination. Ex parte Bignold,
re Brereton, 1 Deac. 728; S. C. 2
Mont. & A. 641.

Where a party is brought before
the Commissioners to be examined,
and the question put to him does not
relate to the matter of the bank-
ruptcy, the proper course is to de-
mur to the question, when the Com-
missioners will refer it to the Lord
Chancellor; and not for the party
to apply by petition to the Lord
Chancellor, to restrain the Commis-
sioners from putting such questions.
In re Copperthwaite, 2 Molloy (Irish),

strain proceedings in the action; and
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.

Trover lies at the suit of the as-
signee of an insolvent debtor, by
virtue of the 7 Geo. 4. c. 57. s. 34.,
against an execution creditor under
a fi. fa. issued upon a warrant of at-
torney, for a sale of the goods after
the commencement of the insolvent's
imprisonment, although the seizure
was made before. Kelsey v. Minter,
1 Scott, 616.

EXECUTORS.

One of several trustees cannot
prove, without an order of the Court;
aliter, one of several executors. Ex
parte Smith, re Manning, 1 Deac.
385.

FACTOR.

The petitioners, who were the fac-
tors of the bankrupt, held a large
quantity of sugars in their hands at
the time of the bankruptcy, on which
they had a lien for 41,5917. and in-
terest, in respect of previous ad-
vances. They had deferred the sale
of the sugars, at the request of the
bankrupt before the bankruptcy, and
of the assignees afterwards, in ex-
pectation of a rising market; and
the sugars were eventually sold to
great advantage. - Held, that the
petitioners were entitled to apply the
proceeds of the sugars in payment of