cerned therein, or in any way affected thereby, to all intents and purposes whatsoever. Mr. Bagshawe, contrà. The object of this petition is to skreen the conduct of the petitioner, as one of the assignees under the fiat, and to harass the solicitors, by subjecting them to an examination, after their bills have been already regularly taxed by the Commissioners. Mr. Bacon, in reply. It is not because the solicitor's bills have been already taxed by the Commissioners, that they are not subject to re-taxation. And, with respect to their liability to be examined, it is expressly provided by the 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 33., that the Commissioners may summon before them for examination any person whom they believe capable of giving information concerning the person, trade, dealings, or estate of the bankrupt, or any information material to the full disclosure of the dealings of the bankrupt. VICE-CHANCELLOR KNIGHT BRUCE, C. J.-I think that I have power to refer these bills for taxation by a Master in Chancery, under the provisions of the 6 Geo 4. c. 16. s. 14.; and, besides the liability of the solicitors to be examined before the Master on the subject of such taxation, I am of opinion, that the Commissioner has full power to examine the solicitors as to the bankrupt's property. The Order will be, therefore, that the bills shall be referred to a Master for taxation, but that such taxation shall be postponed, until the solicitors are summoned before the Commissioner. 1843. Ex parte GLAISTER. 1843. Lincoln's Inn, Feb. 26 and March 16. A. borrows money of B. Ex parte THOMAS STADDON.-In the matter of AYSH- THIS was the petition of a creditor to withdraw a proof, & Co., country and to be remitted to his right of set-off. bankers, on his promissory note, which they de The bankrupts had traded as bankers at Newton Abbott, in Devonshire, where their house was known as along with other The Newton Bank." The fiat issued against them on posit indorsed, bills and notes, with W. & Co., the 20th July 1841. their London agents, to secure the payment of advances. B. & Co. become In November 1840, the Newton Bank advanced to the petitioner the sum of 500l. upon the security of the bankrupt, when petitioner's promissory note, dated the 7th November issued by their 1840, payable on demand with lawful interest. On the A. held notes bank more than sufficient to dis- 17th July 1841, the bank stopped payment, when the charge the amount of his promissory note; and IV. petitioner held notes of the bank and interest notes. to the amount, with the interest due on the notes, & Co. also held of 5811. 5s., being more than sufficient to have paid bills and notes of B. & Co. to a and discharged the petitioner's promissory note and greater amount than the balance interest; and he had in fact collected such notes toge due to them from B. & Co. W. & Co. compel A. to pay to them the amount of his promissory note, and refuse to allow him to ther, expressly for the purpose of taking up and paying his promissory note with a part of these notes of the bank; for which the petitioner alleged, that he had given, previous to the stoppage of the bank, full value. set off the notes It appeared that the petitioner's promissory note for & Co.; and A., 5007. was then in the hands of Messrs. Williams, Deanot knowing he held of B. that W. & Co. held sufficient securities to discharge the balance due to them from B. & Co., proved under the fiat for the amount of the notes which he held of B. & Co. The assignees of B.& Co. then pay W. & Co. the amount of the balance due to them, after receiving credit for the sum paid by A. in discharge of his promissory note, and take out of W. & Co.'s hands all the remaining securities. Held, that, as A. would have had a right of set-off against the bankrupts, if they had continued in possession of his promissory note, he was not to be deprived of this right by his ignorance of the state of the account between W. & Co. and the bankrupts, and that the assignees were therefore bound, on the withdrawal of his proof, to repay him the amount of his promissory note, on his giving up the bankrupts' notes to the same amount. con & Co., of Birchin Lane, London, bankers, who were the London agents or correspondents of the bankrupts, and with whom the note had been deposited by the bankrupts along with other securities, for the purpose of securing to Williams, Deacon & Co. such sums of money as they might lend, advance, or pay to or for the bankrupts, or which might be or become due to them on the balance of their account with the bankrupts. The petitioner alleged, that the note was deposited with Williams, Deacon & Co. only for the purpose of securing to them such balance, and that they were not absolutely entitled to the note, but merely held the same in the character of mortgagees (a). On the 28th July 1841, which was shortly after the date of the fiat, the petitioner, being applied to by Williams, Deacon & Co. for payment of the note, caused the amount to be tendered to them in a part of the notes which he held of the Newton Bank, but they refused to receive the same, or to deliver up the promissory note. The petitioner, having subsequently received a letter from the solicitors of Williams & Co. applying for payment of the note, showed the letter to Mr. Hernaman, one of the assignees, and requested his interference to obtain time, in order that the petitioner might be enabled to take the necessary steps for the payment of the note; but the assignee told him that time could not be granted, that the assignees could do nothing for him, and that Williams & Co. had not securities in their hands of sufficient value to secure the repayment of the debt due to them from the bankrupts, that he had no doubt that Williams & Co. would have to prove against the estate of the bankrupts, (a) The above allegation was not in the petition originally framed, but was inserted afterwards by way of amendment. 1843. Ex parte STADDON. 1843. Ex parte STADDON. and that there was no chance for the petitioner but to pay the money; whereupon the petitioner, trusting to such representation, on the 7th December 1841, paid to Williams & Co. the amount of the note, and also the sum of 231. 18s. 11d. for interest thereon, amounting together to the sum of 5231. 18s. 11d., whereupon they delivered up to the petitioner his promissory note. The petitioner alleged, that, in the belief that Williams & Co. did not hold sufficient securities to discharge the debt due to them from the bankrupts, he, on the 10th September 1841, proved the several notes of the said bankrupts of which he was the holder, amounting, with interest, to the sum of 5811. 5s., under the fiat, but that had not yet received any dividend thereon, or voted in the choice of assignees. Williams & Co. gave to the assignees of the bankrupts credit for the amount of the promissory note and interest; and, within two or three weeks after the petitioner had paid the same, the assignees paid Williams & Co. the balance of the debt then due to them, and took out of their hands all the securities which they then held. The petitioner alleged, that, since such payment so made by him to Williams & Co., he had discovered that at the time when such representation was made to him by Mr. Hernaman, Williams & Co. held securities, which were much more than amply sufficient for securing to them the repayment of all such sums as were then due to them from the bankrupts, and that Mr. Hernaman was well aware of the fact. And that, by means of such representations, the petitioner was induced to pay the sum of 500l. and interest so secured by the said promissory note, and to prove what was due to him as the holder of the bankrupts' notes under the fiat, instead of setting off (as he had been advised he had a right to do) what was due to him from the bankrupts against the sum of 5007. and interest so secured by the petitioner's promissory note. The petitioner insisted, that Williams & Co. acted in the transaction at the request of, and as the agents of, the assignees; and that, if the assignees had informed the petitioner of the true state of the account of the bankrupts with Williams & Co., the payment made by the petitioner to them in discharge of the promissory note would not have been made. That the estate of the bankrupts had benefited to the extent of the payment of the sum of 5231. 18s. 11d. by the petitioner to Williams & Co., inasmuch as the assignees paid to them so much less in discharge of their debt due from the bankrupts. That among the securities given up by Williams & Co. to the assignees were those of several persons who held notes of the bankrupts, or to whom they were indebted on accounts current; in all which cases one debt was allowed by the assignees to be set off against the other, as the petitioner submitted ought to have been done in his case. That the securities, which were so given up by Williams & Co. to the assignees had (with the exception of those in which a set-off had been allowed) since been realized by the assignees, and had produced a much larger sum than the balance so paid by them to Williams & Co., and the said sum of 5231. 18s. 11d. That the petitioner had, at various times since the payment to Williams & Co. of the said sum of 5231. 18s. 11d., and since the discovery by the petitioner of the state of accounts between them and the assignees, made application to the assignees for repayment to him of the said sum, and requested that the debt of 5811. 5s., so 1843. Ex parte STADDON. |