be set forth, and not merely that part of it, in which the answers of the bankrupt to the questions put to him were deemed unsatisfactory. In re Tomline, 2 Law J. Chanc. 120.

If a bankrupt be committed, under a warrant of the commissioners, for not answering satisfactorily, it must set forth all the questions and all the answers. Tomlin's case, 1 G. & J. 373.

Held, that a single question, followed by a direct answer, which question is unvaried in terms, and not followed up by any further examination respecting the transaction, which has excited the suspicion of the commissioners, is not a sufficient ground to justify a commitment. Walker's case, 1 G. & J. 371.

A warrant stating that various questions had been proposed," and among others the following" is defective. Lawrence's case, 2 G. & J. 209.

A warrant is defective which refers to documents in a former examination, without setting them forth, go as to enable the judge to decide upon the same information as the commissioners possessed. Price's case, 2 G. & J. 211.

A warrant is defective which refers to, without setting out, previous examinations, and without which, the Court cannot judge of the sufficiency of what appears. Hooton's case, 2 G. & J. 215.

The omission to set out a previous examination, does not vitiate a commitment upon a distinct ground. Atkinson's case, 2 G. & J. 218.

The warrant of committal of a bankrupt being by mistake dated the 2nd March instead of the 2nd February: Held, that this is not such an error as can be amended under the 18th section of 5 Geo. 2, c. 30. Ex parte M'Gee, 6 Mad. 206.

On a question of the legality of the commitment of a witness by commissioners of bankrupt, all the questions and answers must be looked at as forming one examination; and a witness cannot be committed for not answering as to his belief of the intention of the bankrupt, unless other parts of his examination shew such belief to be material with reference to the person, trade, dealing, or estate of the bankrupt. Ex parte Baxter, 6 Law J. K.B. 124, s. c. 7 B. & C. 675, s. c. 1 M. & R. 572.

If commissioners of bankrupt order the bankrupt to be imprisoned under a warrant of commitment, for not answering a question put to him by them satisfactorily, and it does not appear on the face of such warrant, that the answer was altogether unsatisfactory, or that he ought to have been interrogated further, the Court will order a writ of habeas corpus to issue, to bring up the bankrupt before them. re Willment, 3 Law J. C.P. 144.

In

If a bankrupt be committed without any protection, a detainer may be lodged against him by the assignee, between the time of applying to be reexamined and his examination. Ex parte Wright, 2 G. & J. 202.

Where the last examination of a bankrupt was repeatedly adjourned, in order that he might produce a written account; and the bankrupt referred to a written account as the only mode of explaining his trade and dealings; and the last adjournment was made upon his assurance, that he would produce such account, if further time was given: Held, that such account not being produced, nor any satisfactory reason given for not producing it on the day to which the adjournment was made, the commissioners DIGEST, 1822-1823.

81

were justified in committing. Stanley Goddard's case, 1 G. & J. 45.

Where a bankrupt was, after repeated examinations, finally committed by the commissioners for not satisfactorily answering, the Court of King's Bench granted a mandamus conditionally to the commissioners to issue their warrant for a further examination, on a suggestion that the bankrupt was desirous of fully disclosing his estate and effects. In re Bromley, 3 D. & R. 310.

(f) Proceedings on habeas corpus.

Notice must be given to the assignees, when a bankrupt has been committed by the commissioners, and is brought up by habeas corpus; and notice on Saturday afternoon, for Monday, is not sufficient, unless his right to be discharged is perfectly clear. Bromley's case, 2 J. & W. 453.

A person who is lawfully committed by commissioners of bankrupt for not giving satisfactory answers to their questions, may cause himself to be brought by habeas corpus before them, in order to his giving satisfactory answers; but he must himself bear the expense. Ex parte Baxter, 6 Law J. K.B. 369, s. c. 8 B. & C. 344, s. c. 2 M. & R. 467.

A petitioning creditor allowed to prove her debt, at the opening of the commission, by affidavit. Ex parte Wise, 4 Law J. Chanc. 115.

A proof cannot be made by one person on behalf of several creditors, entitled to prove, unless from necessity or by consent. Ex parte the Bank of England, 2 G. & J. 363.

Although a party is not precluded from proving a debt under a commission of bankruptcy, because there is a question to be tried concerning it; yet, if a dividend be announced, its payment on that debt will be suspended. Ex parte Ackroyd, 1 G. & J.

391.

The commissioners ought not to reject the proof of a debt against the bankrupt's estate, on the ground that the creditor has received payment of part of it, under such circumstances as to render it questionable whether he ought not to refund that payment.

The proper course is to allow the proof, but to retain the dividends upon it till the question is determined. Ex parte Ackroyd, 2 Law J. Chanc. 158.

If, after an arrest and before the return of the writ, the defendant become bankrupt, and obtain his certificate, the bail, as the bail-bond was not forfeited, are discharged, and the debt consequently proveable under the commission. Littlewood v. Crowther, 3 D. & R. 533.

A bankrupt was appointed, by his assignees, to be their agent for getting in his estate. He had had many dealings with merchants in America. After his bankruptcy, the proceeds of a ship, consigned to him before that event, came to his hands whilst acting as such agent. The Court held, that those

L

82

merchants could prove under the commission for those proceeds. Ogden v. Peele, 3 Law J. K.B. 100.

Equitable creditors cannot prove their debts under a decree for the proof of debts, without a declaration of their right by the Court, or some special direction to the Master. Therefore one partner having died, and the surviving partners afterwards becoming bankrupt,-creditors, by promissory notes of the original partnership, cannot, under a common decree, prove their claims against the estate of the deceased partner. Bowles v. York, 1 Law J. Chanc.

134.

(b) Creditors' election.

Where a party tenders the claim or proof of a debt under a commissino, he is entitled to the judgment of the commissioners, upon his right to prove or claim before he discharges the bankrupt or relinquishes his action; but the bankrupt must be discharged, and the action, and all the benefit from it, relinquished, before the claim or proof is admitted upon the proceedings. Ex parte Frith, 1 G. & J. 165.

Proving one debt under a commission, does not preclude the creditor from electing to sue for another. Bridget v. Mills, 4 Bing. 18.

A creditor for goods sold may prove on a bill for part of the debt, and proceed at law on a bill for the remainder, which he had negotiated before the bankruptcy, and taken up after the proof. Ex parte Sly, 2 G. & J. 163.

(c) Judgments.

The 46 Geo. 3. applies to a judgment for damages and costs in assumpsit; and, consequently, such judgment is a debt proveable under a commission of bankrupt, though final judgment be not entered up until after a commission issues. Ex parte Birch, 3 Law J. K.B. 118, s. c. 4 B. & C. 880, s. c. 7 D. & R. 436.

The defendant, in an action of tort, became a bankrupt, and afterwards obtained his certificate. The plaintiff signed judgment between the day of the act of bankruptcy and that of the commission issuing The Court held, that under 46 Geo. 3, c. 135, the judgment was a debt which might have been proved under the commission, and discharged the defendant out of custody, who had been taken on a capias ad satisfaciendum. Robinson v. Vale, 2 Law J. K.B. 171, s. c. 2 B. & C. 762, s. c. 4 D. & R. 430.

A judgment, though in an action of tort, signed in the term after a commission of bankrupt has issued against the defendant in the same term, will relate back to the first day of the term, so as to enable the plaintiff to prove under the commission, and the defendant to be relieved by his certificate. Greenway v. Fisher, 6 Law J. K.B. 34, s. c. 7 B. & C. 436, 8. c. 1 M. & R. 330.

(d) Mortgages.

Petitioner being an equitable mortgagee of lands of the bankrupt A B, for the sum of 12001., advances to him the further sum of 1350l., and takes a warrant of attorney to secure the last-mentioned sum: afterwards the bankrupt executes to the petitioner a conveyance of the lands, in trust to sell; and after payment of the 1200l. and interest, to pay.

the surplus to the bankrupt; and on the day on which the conveyance is executed, judgment is entered up, and execution levied under the warrant of attorney for the 1350/., and part of that sum is satisfied by the levy: Held, that the petitioner was not entitled to tack the residue of the judgment debt to the mortgage. Ex parte Pettit, 2 G. & J. 47.

An equitable mortgagee held to be entitled to the produce of the mortgaged estate, from the time of presenting his petition for a sale. Ex parte Bignold, 2 G. & J. 273, (Leach, V. C.) But contrà, per Eldon, L. C., who held, he was not entitled to the rents and profits previous to the sale. Ex parte Alexandre 2 G. & J. 275.

(e) Contingent demands.

[See 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 56.]

A debt, payable after a certain period of notice, is proveable under a commission, although notice may not have been given before the bankruptcy. Clayton v. Gosling, 4 Law J. K.B. 176, s. c. 5 B. & C. 360, s. c. 8 D. & R. 110.

Where money was lent upon condition, that six months' notice should be given before repayment was required,--it was holden, upon the bankruptcy of the borrower, not a debt proveable in the absence of proof that notice had been given. Ex parte Downman, 2 G. & J. 85.

Where two years' interest had been paid on a promissory note, which purported to become due after three months' notice, proof was allowed, under a commission issued against the maker, although no such notice had been given; the payment of interest evidencing that the parties dealt with the note as an immediate debt. Ex parte Algar, 2 G. & J. 1.

(f) Marriage Articles.

A sum covenanted by the husband to be paid when demanded by the trustees, on the request of the wife, is proveable, if demanded before the bankruptcy. Ex parte Blenchley, 2 G. & J. 174.

(g) Annuities.

The rule in bankruptcy applicable to the value of an aunuity, is not influenced by the state of the money market. Ex parte Webb, 2 G. & J. 29.

Since the 6 Geo. 4, on proof of an annuity, the commissioners are not at liberty to enter into the consideration of the altered health of the annuitant. And if the consideration be property, and not money, the price paid by the grantee for that property is not the criterion of value, provided such value be altered by accidental circumstances. Ex parte Fisher, 2 G. & J. 102.

An annuity was purchased by B from C, through the agency of D, to whom the money was paid, as C's agent, and placed to his account; D soon afterwards became bankrupt: Held, (in the absence of proof, that the grant of the annuities was merely colourable, and contrived for the purpose of obtaining B's money, in payment of the debt due from C to the bankrupt;) that B could not prove the consideration paid for the annuities under the commission against D. Ea parte Shaw, 2 G. & J. 106.

(h) Apprentices.

Where an apprentice fee has been paid, but the articles have not been executed from inattention,

on the bankruptcy of the master, the father is entitled to a return of part of the premium, under the 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 49. Ex parte Haynes, 2 G. & J. 122.

(i) Bonds.

Where a creditor held a bond as a security, and special circumstances appeared, the Court refused to direct its sale; but allowed the creditor to prove his whole debt under the commission. Ex parte Smith, 2 G. & J. 105.

(k) Bills of exchange and promissory notes. Where part of the account between two mercan tile houses which have become bankrupt, consists of bills that may be proved against both estates, there can be no proof, in respect of those bills, as between the two houses, unless there is a surplus after satisfying the holders of the bills. Ex parte Rawson, and Ex parte Lloyd, 1 Jac. 274.

C& Co. being embarrassed, the Bank of England agreed to advance them 40,000l. upon acceptances of the friends of C & Co. The acceptances were given; and the acceptors, or in case of any of them dying, declining, omitting, or ceasing to renew, any substituted acceptors, were secured by C & Co. assigning to trustees, for that purpose, certain property in America. Two of these acceptances were thus: C & Co. drew a bill on I and W I for 2,500!., which they accepted, and that was indorsed by C & Co. to the bank; R accepted another bill to that amount, drawn by I and W I, which was also given to the bank. The bills, when they became due, were renewed: before the renewed acceptance of I and W I became due, they stopped payment; and R, the acceptor, being called upon, he obtained an acceptance from CTT, and indorsed it to the bank, and the acceptance of I and W I was thereupon delivered to him: I and W I becoming bankrupt, R proved the amount of their acceptances in his possession, and received 18s. in the pound: Held, on appeal, that the proof was right. Ex parte Hunter, 2 G. &

J.7.

The drawer of certain bills having absconded, became bankrupt before they were due, and never surrendered to his commission. His house was kept open in the possession of the messenger till after the bills became due. While they were running, the holder knew that two persons were appointed assignees of the drawer. The acceptor also became bankrupt before the bills became due. The holder never gave, or attempted to give notice of the dishonour of the bills to the drawer or his assignees : Held, that the bills were not proveable under the commission issued against the drawer, because the holder by his laches had abridged the possible remedy over, of the drawer's assignees against the acceptor, and had thereby made the bills his own. Rhode v. Proctor, 3 Law J. K.B. 188, s. c. 4 B. & C. 517, s. c. 6 D. & R. 610.

Where a petitioner was a creditor of the bankrupt on a cash balance, and having given acceptances for the bankrupt's accommodation, which acceptances were not paid at the bankruptcy, and having received a larger amount of bills of exchange and promissory notes than the cash balance, which the petitioner had negotiated, he was not permitted to prove the cash balance, on the principle of excluding

83

the unpaid acceptances on both sides, or otherwise. Ex parte Read, 1 G. & J. 224.

If a creditor proves for several bills of exchange under a commission, and one of them be afterwards paid, the Court will order so much of the proof as relates to that bill to be expunged. Ex parte Barratt, 1 G. & J. 327.

Where a London banker and a country banker both became bankrupt, and the London banker was at the time of his bankruptcy in possession of short bills, and a mortgage deposited with him in the usual course of dealing, as a security against the acceptances of the London banker, and the assignees of the country banker did not relieve the estate of the London banker from the outstanding acceptances: Held, that the holders of such acceptances were entitled to have a preference to the general creditors, by having the proceeds of the short bills and mortgage applied in liquidation of the acceptances. Ex parte Waring, and Ex parte Inglis, 2 G. & J. 403.

Upon a promissory note as follows:-" Borrowed and received of S D, August 20, 1816, four hundred pounds, which I promise to pay, with five per cent. interest for the sum,-it is agreed that six months' notice shall be previously given before payment is required;" and interest was paid until fourteen months before the commission issued against the maker: although no notice was given or demand made before the date of such commission, the debt is proveable. Ex parte Downman, in re Downman and Offley, 2 G. & J. 241; overruling, s. c. 2 G. & J. 85.

(1) Costs and damages.

Costs are not proveable under a commission, if the verdict, as well as the judgment, be given after the party becomes a bankrupt; though semble that the certificate is a bar. Ex parte Poucher, 1 G. & J. 385.

Where, in an action of contract, there is a verdict before bankruptcy, but judgment is not entered up till after bankruptcy, both the debt and costs are proveable under the commission.

Where there is a verdict proceeding upon tort and judgment after bankruptcy, neither the damages nor the costs are proveable.

In no case are costs proveable where the verdict is not before bankruptcy. Where the verdict is not before bankruptcy, the costs, though not proveable, are barred by the certificate. Ex parte Poucher, and Ex parte Parkinson, 2 Law J. Chanc. 168.

81

The executors of the petitioning creditor, who died between the issuing and the opening of the commission, permitted to prove the debt before the commissioners at the opening. Ex parte Winwood, 1 G. & J. 252.

(n) Trustees.

A and B were trustees of a bequest of stock, and the dividends were to be paid by them to the testator's brother for life, and at his decease, to testator's sister, and upon the death of the survivor, to A absolutely. A, the surviving trustee, became bankrupt; but prior to his bankruptcy, sold out the stock, and applied the same to his own use. Upon a petition by testator's sister and her husband to prove the value of the stock sold, it was ordered, that the value of the stock so bequeathed, should be computed by the commissioners, and that the husband should be at liberty to prove the amount of such value, and the dividends in the meantime to be paid into the bank, subject to the further order of the court. Ex parte Fairchild and wife, 1 G. & J. 221.

A sum of money being assigned to the bankrupt, as a trustee, to invest and pay the interest to the settlor for life, and after as to 1007. part thereof to himself, for his care and pains, and the residue for the benefit of A and B, retaining 201. a year to himself for his trouble. He never invested the fund, but applied it to his own use, continuing to pay the dividends during the life of the settlor, and shortly after her death became bankrupt: Held, that the parties entitled could only prove for the same, subject to the sum of 1004., which, upon the death of the settlor, became the absolute property of the bankrupt. Ex parte Kettlewell, 1 G. & J. 321.

A bequest to J B and JT, in trust for the wife of JB during her life, and after her death, for the children of the wife of J B and in such shares as JB and his wife, or the survivor of them, should appoint; and if no appointment was made, for all the children to share equally, and to be divided at twenty-one. J B and his wife had five children, and no appointment was made; but J B advanced and sold out part of the trust funds for J B the younger and GF B, two of the children; and J B, JB the younger, and G F B became bankrupts: Held, that M B the younger, one of the five children who had each a vested interest of one fifth part of the trust funds after the death of their mother, subject to the power of appointment, was entitled to prove one-fifth part of the trust funds no mimupplied against the estate of J B, the dividends to be paid into the bank, subject to the further order of the court. I parte Beilby, 1 G. & J. 167.

(0) Sureties.

Where a surety in a bond for the bankrupts, after the bulure, joined with the bankrupts in a new bond to the representatives of the creditor, and the old bond we delivered up to the surety: Held, not to he equivalent to payment by the surety, so as to Ex cutitle him to prove under the commission. jurete Nexjunt, 16, & J. 183; affir. on appeal s. c.

A monely paying a debt after proof made, is Hourly allowed to atund in the creditor's place, not et to dividends, but in respect of the

A surety who discharges a debt after his principal's bankruptcy, and after the creditor has proved, stands in the same situation as the creditor did. Er parte Houston, 2 G. & J. 36.

The Court will not, without the consent of the assignees, direct the proof of a debt against a bankrupt's estate to be made by a party not a creditor, but who, being bound to indemnify the creditor, is entitled to the benefit of the proof. Ex parte the Bank of England, 6 Law J. Chanc. 140.

(p) Effect of proving.

A creditor by proving a debt is, under the 49 Geo. 3, c. 121, s. 14, bound to discontinue an action previously brought for another demand, but not, as it seems, an action for a distinct demand brought subsequently. Ex parte Glover, 1 G. & J.

270.

A debtor in custody on a detainer, is not discharged at law from such detainer, until his bail bave justified, and a Judge's order for his discharge issued; and even where such detaining creditor had proved his debt,-it was holden, that an order for the bankrupt's discharge was essential. Ex parte Cross, 2 G. & J. 100.

Proving one debt under a commission of bankrupt, does not preclude the creditor from electing to sue for another. Bridget v. Mills, 4 Bing. 18; Ex parte Sly, 2 G. & J. 163.

A creditor who has proved, will, upon a petition by the assignees, be restrained from issuing execution against the property of the bankrupt in the possession of the assignees. Ex parte Bernasconi, 2 G. & J. 381.

(I) OF SET-OFF AND MUTUAL CREDIT.

[See sec. 50, 6 Geo. 4.]

If the holder of a bill of exchange is a debtor to the bankrupt's estate, and has obtained the bill after he has had notice of the bankrupt's insolvency, such bill cannot be set off; he not being a bona fide holder. Ex parte Stone, 1 G. & J. 191.

Where the bankrupt had granted an annuity, the consideration for which was only payable at the grantee's death, and as collector and agent for the grantee, had fraudulently misapplied large sums received for other purposes; and after the death of the grantee, became bankrupt: Held, that the executor could not set off the consideration money then due, against the sums so misapplied. Whitaker v. Hall, 1 G. & J. 213.

A legacy, given by a testator to the wife of a bankrupt, may be set off by his creditors against a debt from the bankrupt to their testator. Er parte O'Ferrall, 1 G. & J. 347.

In an action of trover, by the assignees of a bankrupt, the defendants, to shew their right to retain the proceeds for which the action was brought, produced an agreement made before the bankruptcy, from which it appeared that the defendants undertook to accept bills, to enable the bankrupt, by his agent abroad, to purchase cargoes, and transmit them to the defendants, who were to pay their acceptances out of the proceeds, and to place the surplus to the account of the bankrupt: Held, no defence to an action for proceeds received after the bankruptcy. Carter v. Barclay, SStark. 43. [Abbott] Where A B brought an action against C D, to

recover the price of a borse sold by the former to the latter; and A B was afterwards declared a bankrupt, after which CD obtained judgment as in case of a nonsuit; and the assignees of A B afterwards sued C D, for the same cause of action, and obtained a verdict: Held, that the costs in the former action could not be set off against the damages and costs of the latter. West v. Pruce, 3 Law J. C.P. 95, s. c. 2 Bing. 455, s. c. 10 B. Mo. 154.

A colonel of a regiment, after being indebted to the army-agent for clothing furnished to the regiment, appointed him his lawful agent, and authorized him to receive from the paymastergeneral all sums due to the regiment; the agent, after receiving several sums, became bankrupt: in an action by his assignees against the colonel, for the sum due for clothing-it was holden, that the colonel might set off the sums received by the agent from the paymaster. Knowles v. Maitland, 4 B. & C. 173, s. c. 6 D. & R. $12.

In an action of trover, for cloth deposited by the bankrupt, prior to his bankruptcy, with the defendant, a fuller, for the purpose of being dressed, it was decided, that the defendant could not detain them for his general balance for such work done by him for the bankrupt before the failure, there being no mutual credit within stat. 5 Geo. 2, c. 30, s. 28. Rose v. Hart, 8 Taunt. 499, s. c. 2 B. Mo. 547.

Under commissions prior to 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, the assignees are entitled to deprive a debtor of his set-off, in respect of all transactions within two months of the commission. In such cases they might, therefore, take only one side of the account against the debtor; and leave him to come in as a creditor, as to the items on the other side.

But, by 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 50, the mode of taking the account is altered; and the two sides are fairly placed against each other, up to the time of the commission, and the balance struck accordingly; provided the party dealing with the bankrupt had no notice of a prior act of bankruptcy. Kinder v. Butterworth, 5 Law J. K.B. 23, s. c. 6 B. & C. 42, s. c. 9 D. & R. 47.

Where a bill of exchange has been discounted by a trader for his customer, is entered in account, and is by the trader paid away to a third person, and becomes due after the bankruptcy of the trader, his assignees cannot sue the customer upon this bill, without allowing him his right of set-off upon the general account between him and the bankrupt; although the assignees have been forced to allow the bill in account with the third person after the bankruptcy. Bolland v. Nash, 6 Law J. K.B. 244, s. c. 8 B. & C. 105, s. c. 2 M. & R. 189.

(K) OF THE ASSIGNEES.

(a) Choice of.

Persons cannot vote in the choice of assignees, who are appointed by the Court to prove and receive dividends. Ex parte Shaw, 1 G. & J. 151.

The deposition of the petitioning creditor, at the opening of the commission, is not a proof to entitle him to vote in the choice of assignees. Ex parte Rawson, 2 G. & J. 358.

Where creditors are elected assignees by the major part, in value, of the creditors who have proved, the commissioners are bound to execute an assignment, though the latter may merely wish to

85

make a postponement for the purpose of investigating the sufficiency of the choice. Ex parte Woolley,

1 G. & J. 366.

Where a clear case of preference, by assigning goods in reduction of a debt, was disclosed, the Court ordered the choice of assignees to be proceeded in, after the party had tendered sufficient proof for the commissioners to determine on. Ex parte Barclay, 1 G. & J. 272.

Upon a joint choice of three persons as assignees, when the Court rejects the nomination of one out of the three, it invalidates the choice of the whole. Ex parte Shaw, 1 G. & J. 155.

A new choice of an assignee will be directed, where he is chosen before one commissioner, and the assignment executed to him by three. Ex parte Moore, 1 G. & J. 190.

(b) Rights.

Although a meeting of creditors may have been convened by advertisement, and they may have sanctioned the sale of the bankrupt's property to one of the assignees at a fair valuation, the Court will not permit the assignee to become the purchaser, unless a reference is made to the commissioners, to ascertain whether the property can be disposed of more advantageously. Ex parte Serle, 1 G. & J.

187.

Leave given to assignees to bid for part of the bankrupt's estate, a meeting of the creditors having previously given their sanction to the application. Anonymous, 2 Russ. 350.

Mode of proceeding where the assignees apply as mortgagees for a sale. Ex parte Cowdry, 2 Ĝ. & J. 272.

An application, by creditors, to restrain the assignees from selling the bankrupt's effects, was refused, on the ground that they act upon their own responsibility. Ex parte Montgomery, 1 G. & J.

238.

An executor, who has assets of the testator in his hands, becoming bankrupt, his assignees are made parties to a suit relating to the testator's property these assignees will not be allowed their costs out of the testator's estate. Thorne v. Balfour, 2 Law J. Chanc. 16.

On a petition, by a petitioning creditor, against a removed assignee, for payment of his bill of costs, taxed by the commissioners: Held, that no order could be made, as there was no evidence of collusion between the removed and present assignee. In re Gibson, 1 G. & J. 303.

If the assignees of a bankrupt obtain an ex parte order to enlarge the time for the last examination, when the bankrupt is ready to attend, the Court will discharge it, as being irregular. Ex parte Dayrie, 1 G. & J. 281.

A bill of foreclosure being filed by a mortgagee, against a bankrupt mortgagor and his assignees, the assignees cannot, without the concurrence or consent of the bankrupt, apply under the 7 Geo. 2, c. 20, s. Garth v. Thomas, 3 Law J. Chanc. 94, s. c. 2 S. & S. 188.

2.

Assignees of bankrupt, having failed in an action for want of proving an act of bankruptcy sufficiently early, cannot litigate the point in a second action; and though the record in the former action is not a conclusive estoppel, it is admissible in evidence