1815. 11th November. Ex parte M'WILLIAMS.-In the Matter of GRAHAM. 1 Maddock, 141, 142. PETITION, praying a Reference to the Master to review the ment not allowed, signment was necessary. except where an Extent is apprehended. The VICE-CHANCELLOR. A provisional Assignment is not a Matter of Course, but is proper only where an Extent is apprehended. 1816. Feb. 1816 March 21. Ordered. Note. It was stated, that in the North it was very much a Matter of Course to have a provisional Assignment, but the Vice Chancellor expressed his Disapprobation of the Practice. A Ex parte BINMER. 1 Maddock, 250. 252. COMMISSION issued on a Denial concerted by Bankrupt and the petitioning Creditor, superseded with Costs. Ex parte JENNINGS.-In the Matter of DAWSON. 1 Maddock, 331. 339. THE Court in Bankruptcy will decide the Validity of an equitable Ex parte Ex parte PEAKE.-In the Matter of LIGHTOLLER. 1 Maddock, 346. 362. VENDOR has a Lien on Estate sold for his purchase Money, though he has received Bills from the Vendee in Payment, and though the Vendee become bankrupt. One Partner may agree with retiring Partner to give him a Sum for the Concern, though they know the Partnership was insolvent, provided no Fraud was intended. 1816. 5th, 2d, March. O'BRIEN v. GRIERSON. 2 Ball and Beatty, 323. 337. ASSIGNEES of a Bankrupt, paying Debts contracted after Bank ruptcy, but before the Commission under Orders of the Court, and of the Commissioners, not liable to repay the Amount to the prior Creditors. It is not correct for Commissioners of Bankrupt, when receiving the Proof of a Debt, not to enquire at what Period the Debt was contracted. 1813. June 28, 29. HEWES v. MOTT. 2 Marshall, 192, 193. RULE to shew Cause why the Defendant should not be discharged out of Custody, having obtained his Certificate. The Plaintiffs had been Bail for the Defendant in a former Action, and been fixed 1816. Saturday, Feb. 10. Bail are not to be considered as Sureties for, or as liable for the Debt of a Bankrupt, within the Meaning of 49 Geo. 3, c. 121, s. 8. 1816. HEWES V. мотт. with the Debt after the Commission issued. The Ground of this Application was, that at the Time of issuing the Commission, they were Sureties for, or were "liable for," the Debt of the Bankrupt, and therefore might prove by Virtue of Stat. 49 Geo. 3, c. 121, s. 8. Lord Chief Justice GIBBS.-We do not think that Bail are to be considered as Sureties for, or as liable for the Debt of the Bankrupt within the Meaning of the Act. They enter into a Bond for the Defendant's Appearance, and their immediate Responsibility is to the Sheriff. We have communicated with the King's Bench on the Subject, and they agree with us. Per Curiam. Rulé discharged. DE DOE, on Demise, &c. v. BEVAN. 3 Maule and Selwyn, 353. EMISE for Years to S.-S. covenants, that he, his Executors, Administrators, or Assigns, would not assign the Indenture, or his or their Interest therein, or assign the Premises to any Person whatsoever, without Consent in Writing of Lessor. Proviso, that in Case S. his Executors, Administrators, or Assigns, should part with his or their Interest contrary to his Covenant, the Lessor might re-enter. S. deposited the Lease as a Security for Money borrowed, and became bankrupt; and the Lease was sold by Direction of the Chancellor, to pay that Debt. Held, that the Assignees under the Commission might assign the Lease to the Vendee without the Consent of the Lessor. ROBERTS ROBERTS v. HARDY. 3 Maule and Selwyn, 533. 536. TRESPASS. Verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to a Case. Walker and Coggill were Partners. The Plaintiff was indebted to them in 100l. In 1811, Coggill having been in America, came to England, and in July, 1812, returned to America, taking his Family with him. Previously to which, the United States declared War against this Country, but that was unknown when Coggill set Sail. An Act of Congress was passed to enable British Subjects to quit America within Six Months. Coggill did not leave the United States; but he did not trade there, nor was under any Restraint, except that British Subjects were ordered not to quit their Places (a) at their Peril. At this Place he resided, when the Commission issued against the Plaintiff on the Petition of Walker and Coggill, founded on the above Debt. Lord ELLENBOROUGH.-I reserved the Point on the Authority of M'Connel v. Hector (), and in Deference to the Judgment of Lord Alvanley. There, it is observable was a trading. If that Fact was so here, we might draw the same Conclusion. But I think a mere Residence is not sufficient. (a) Those who did not quit the Country within the Six Months, were by an Order of Vide ante, p. 174. 1815. Tuesday, Feb. 7. A Debt due to two Partners is good to support a Commission of Bankruptcy, notwithstanding one of the Partners is resident in an Enemy's Country, such Residence not being shewn to be an adhering to the Enemy. TAYLOR against Sir THOMAS PLUMER. 3 Maule and Selwyn, 562. 580. TROVER. Verdict for the Plaintiff, subject to a Case, which stated the Plaintiff to be the Assignee of Walsh, under a Commission of the 10th December, 1811, against Walsh, a Stock Broker. In August 1815. Friday, Feb. 10. Where a Draft for Money was intrusted to a Broker to buy Exchequer Bills for his Principal, and the Broker received the Money, and misapplied it, by purchasing American Stock and Bullion, intending to abscond with it, and go to America, and did accordingly abscond, but was taken before he quitted England, and thereupon surrendered to the Principal the Securities for the American Stock and the Bullion; who sold the Whole, and received the Proceeds. Held, that the Principal was entitled to withhold the Proceeds from the Assignees of the Broker, who became bankrupt on the Day on which he so received and misapplied the Money. of 1815. TAYLOR v. Sir THOMAS of that Year, the Defendant expecting to have Occasion for a large Sum of Money to pay for an Estate, consulted Walsh on the Propriety of selling out Stock to provide for such Payment. In November, Walsh recommended the Defendant to sell out Stock, and on the 28th November, Defendant sent Walsh Orders to sell. Sales were accordingly effected by Walsh, as Broker, on the 29th, to the Amount of 21,774l. 5s. ; the Transfers to be made, and the Money to be paid on the 4th December. On the 4th the Stock was transferred by the Defendant, and the Price was received by Walsh, who, on the same Day, paid 21,500l. Part of the Price, into the Defendant's Bankers to the Defendant's Account, and informed him of it. The Defendant proposed to Walsh to invest the Money in Exchequer Bills, until it should be wanted to pay for the Estate, and desired him to call the following Day. Accordingly, on the next Day, the 5th, about eleven o'Clock, Walsh called, when the Defendant gave him a Draft for 22,2001., to lay out in Exchequer Bills, to be delivered on the same Day to him the Defendant, or his Bankers. Walsh received the Amount of the Draft in Twenty-two Bank of England Notes of 1000l. each, and one of 2004; but purchased Exchequer Bills to the Amount of 65001, only, and he lodged them at Gosling's, on the Defendant's Account. In the Afternoon, he called on the Defendant, and told him that he had lodged the 6,500l. Exchequer Bills at Gosling's, and that he had agreed for the Remainder of the intended Purchase of the Exchequer Bills to be delivered at a future Day, and had therefore left a Sum which he named (nearly corresponding with the Difference of the 22,2001.) to his Account at Gos ling's. But the Fact was, Walsh being ruined and insolvent, had, between the Time of the Sale of the Defendant's Stock and the Time when he received the Price of it, conceived an Intention of absconding with the Money, when it should come to his Hands, and with that View, on the 2d December, had given Order for the Purchase of American Shares Stock, and the Bullion in Question, in Order to take them with him, having no Means of paying for the American Shares and Stock, but out of the Money he expected to receive belonging to the Defendant, nor any Money of his own to pay for the Bullion, but intending to pay for that also out of the Defendant's Money. Accordingly, after receiving the Draft at Gosling's, he went from thence to the American Stock Brokers in the City, received the Certificates, and paid for them with eleven of the identical Bank Notes of 10004. each, which he had just received, taking back from the Broker, to whom he paid them, the Difference of 540l. 1s. 6d. The same Morning he delivered to his Brother-in-Law another of the 1000!. Bank Notes, and received from his Brother-in-Law in Exchange a Draft for 5004, and another for 100l., leaving the Remainder in his Brother-inLaw's Hands, and with the 5001. Draft he paid for the Bullion, receiving the Difference from the Goldsmith. In the Morning of the |