cumstances was not an act of bank-
ruptcy by T. J. as a procuring of
his goods to be taken in execu-
tion. Gore v. Lloyd, 12 M. & W.
463.

3. In an action by the assignees
of a bankrupt to recover property
of the bankrupt, a letter written by
him during his absence from home,
stating that he was absent to avoid
two writs that were out against him,
is admissible evidence for the plain-
tiffs of an act of bankruptcy, with-
out proof that there was in fact
any
writ issued, or any pressure of credi-

tors.

In order to make the declaration
of a bankrupt admissible evidence of
an act of bankruptcy, it is not essen-
tial that the declaration and act
should be contemporaneous. Rouch
v. Great Western Railway Company,
1 Ad. & El. N. S. 51.

4. Where a trader had been sum-
moned before a commissioner, under
5 & 6 Vict. c. 122. s. 11, and before
the proper time had elapsed to con-
stitute an act of bankruptcy within
the meaning of the 13th section, a
fiat was by mistake issued, which
was afterwards annulled: Held, that
the existence of this fiat was such
an obstruction to the payment of
the petitioning creditor's debt, that
if he sued out a new fiat founded on
the omission to pay, &c., accord-
ing to the terms of the 14th section
of the above act, the court would
annul such new fiat.

Quare, whether payment of the

debt, after the issuing of the impro-
perly issued fiat, would have consti-
tuted an act of bankruptcy under 6
Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 8. Ex parte Mus-
grove, 3 M. D. & D. 386.

5. A bill of sale by a trader of all
his effects to a creditor as a security
for an antecedent debt is an act of
bankruptcy, although it does not
purport to convey all his effects, and
may have been executed in the hope
of obtaining further advances from
the creditor, and with the intention
of continuing to carry on trade, and
although advances may have been
subsequently made, and no posses-
sion taken under the bill of sale until
several weeks afterwards, during
which time the trader carried on
business as before. Lindon v. Sharpe,
7 Scott, N. R. 730.

(Notice of.)

See EXECUTION, 12-FRAUD, 2-No-
TICE-PROOF, 6-RELATION.

ACTIONS.

See ASSIGNEES-COSTS, 4.

ADVERTISEMENT.

1. A petition to the Court of Re-
view is comprehended within the
words "other proceeding," contained
in the 24th section of the 5 & 6 Vict.
c. 122. Therefore, where a petition
of the bankrupts to annul the fiat is
not presented until after the expira-
tion of twenty-one days after the ad-
vertisement of the bankruptcy in the
Gazette, the Court of Review has
no authority to entertain it.

aside a compromise agreed to at a
meeting properly convened, on the
ground merely of its being an im-
prudent agreement, without fraud
being suggested.

Neither the bankrupts nor their
representatives have a right to ap-
pear on petitions relating to com-
promises of claims on behalf of the
estate. Ex parte Magnus, 3 M. D.
& D. 693.

AFFIDAVIT.

1. J. W., in support of a petition
for a fiat, deposed that the alleged
bankrupt was indebted to him, J. M.
his copartner, (omitting the word
"and") for goods sold and delivered
by the deponent and his said copart-
ner: Held, that the omission rendered
the affidavit unavailable for the pur-
pose of striking a docket; and the
officer having permitted the docket
to be struck, subject to the question
of the sufficiency of the above affi-
davit, and having afterwards permit-
ted a docket to be struck by another
creditor: Held, that the latter credi-
tor was entitled to the fiat. Ex parte
Hill, 3 M. D. & D. 51.

2. The Court refused to order an
affidavit filed under 1 & 2 Vict. c.
110, to be taken off the file, on the
ground that no fiat could issue upon
it. Ex parte Cheese, 3 M. D. & D.

4. Where there are two petitions
in the same bankruptcy, an affidavit
intituled generally in the bankruptcy
is regular; but, if it do not point.
with sufficient distinctness to the
petition, in the matter of which it is
proposed to read it, time will be given
to file an affidavit in answer. Ex
parte Musgrove, 3 M. D. & D. 386.

5. Neither the Court of Review
nor the Lord Chancellor has juris-
diction to allow a bankrupt's certifi-
cate, unless the bankrupt himself
makes an affidavit of conformity.
Ex parte Carruthers, 3 M. D. & D.
269.

See also PETITION-PETITIONING
CREDITOR, 6.

AGENT.

1. An agent has no right, without
the authority of his principal, to
overdraw a banking account. But
if it appear that the agent has done
so with the knowledge of his princi-
pal, the jury will be warranted in
inferring from this, that the agent
had, in fact, the requisite authority.
Pott v. Bevan, 1 Car. & K. 335.

2. M. employed R. and Co.,
bankers in Edinburgh, to obtain for
him payment of a bill drawn on a
person resident at Calcutta; R. and
Co. accepted the employment, and
wrote promising to credit him with
the money when received. R. and
Co. transmitted the bill in the usual
course of business to C. and Co. of
London, and by them it was for-

warded to India, where it was duly
paid. R. and Co. wrote to M. an-
nouncing the fact of its payment, but
never actually credited him in their
books with the amount. The house
in India failed.

Held, that R. and Co. were the
agents of M. to obtain payment of
the bill; that payment having been
actually made they became ipso
facto liable to him for the amount
received; and that he could not be
called on to suffer any loss occa-
sioned by the conduct of their sub-
agents, as between whom and him-
self no privity existed.

Where the judgment of the Court
below is reversed in the House of
Lords and the house pronounces the
judgment which ought to have been
pronounced in the Court below, the
effect of such judgment is to give to
the appellant the costs of the suit
in the Court below, which he would
have had there, had the proper judg-
ment been pronounced in the first
instance in that Court.

The house never gives costs
against a party coming to sustain a
decree in his favour. Mackersey v.
Ramsays, 9 Cl. & Fin. 818.

And see PARTNER, 2.

AMENDMENT OF DECLA-
RATION.

See COURT OF REVIEW.

ANNULLING FIAT.

1. Description of the bankrupt, as
late of a place at which he carried on

business a year before the issuing of
the fiat, he having carried on business
since elsewhere, held insufficient,
and the fiat annulled. To annul a
fiat for insufficient description, it is
not necessary that the existence of
actual fraud or mischief should be
shown. Ex parte Lewis, 3 M. D. &

D. 93.

2. Order made for superseding a
commission, and annulling a subse-
quent fiat, under the composition
contract clauses, sections 133 and
134 of the 6 Geo. 4, c. 16. Ex parte
Clarke, 3 M. D. & D. 595.

3. A docket was struck on the
22nd September, upon which a fiat
was issued on the 25th September,
but was not opened until the 11th
October. In the meantime, between
the 22nd and 29th September, the
bankrupt received several debts due
to him, and on the latter day filed
his petition under the Insolvent Act,
5 & 6 Vict. c. 116, and obtained an
interim order of protection, on the
allegation that his debts did not
amount to 300l. On a petition by
the bankrupt to annul the fiat, on the
ground of the delay in opening it,
and also for the purpose of giving
effect to the proceeding in insolvency,
the Court declined to do either under
the provisions of the 5 & 6 Vict. c.
122. s. 4, or the general provisions
of the 5 & 6 Vict. c. 116.
Ex parte
Whipple, 3 M. D. & D. 449.

4. A petitioner seeking to annul
the fiat for legal invalidity not patent
upon the proceedings, must apply

before the certificate is allowed, or
soon afterwards, or must account
satisfactorily for his delay. Ex
parte Gregory, 3 M. D. & D. 572.

5. A writ of fi. fa. having been
lodged with the sheriff after a debtor
had been declared bankrupt and as-
signees appointed, the sheriff re-
turned "nulla bona." Before the
return was made, the Court of Re-
view had ordered that the fiat be
annulled, if the Lord Chancellor
should think fit; and after the re-
turn, the Lord Chancellor made an
order accordingly: Held, that the
return was not false, since the annul-
ling of the fiat had not a retrospective
effect; and that even if it had, the
sheriff being a public officer, and
having. made the only return which
he could at the time have made,
ought to be protected. Smallcombe

v. Olivier, 2 Dowl. & L. 217.

6. The fiat issued on February 23.
Adjudication took place on the 27th,
but was afterwards annulled. Fur-
ther evidence in support of the bank-
ruptcy was adduced before the com-
missioner, who declined adjudicating
de novo upon the evidence. At the
end of fourteen days from the issuing
of the fiat, the bankrupt presented a
petition to annul the fiat. Held, that
the fiat ought to be annulled. Ex
parte Nicholson, 3 M. D. & D. 295.

7. The rule that after a fiat has
been annulled, the same petitioning
creditor cannot sue out a new fiat
against the same trader without the
leave of the Court, does not render

it imperative upon the Court to annul
the new fiat sued out without such
leave. Ex parte Thomas, 3 M. D. &
D. 307.

8. Debts had been proved, and
real or leasehold property had been
sold under a fiat, issued in June
1842, but the bankrupt had not ob-
tained his certificate: Held, that a
petition of a creditor, who had no
lien and had not proved, presented
in June 1844, to annul the fiat, for
legal invalidity, the delay not being
accounted for, came too late. Ex
parte Maxwell, 3 M. D. & D. 708.

9. Quære, whether a person who
has sued out a fiat, which is annulled
for want of the legal requisites, may
strike a fresh docket without the
leave of the Court. Ex parte Mus-
grove, 3 M. D. & D. 386.

10. Quære, whether the Court can
give validity to a fiat by annulling it
as to one of the bankrupts, against
whom it cannot be supported for
want of the legal requisites. Ex
parte Veysey, 3 M. D. & D. 420.
See ADVERTISEMENT, 3-COSTS, 3, 10
-COURT OF REVIEW-FRAUD-
PETITIONING Creditor.

APPEAL.

See SPECIAL CASE, 2.

APPROPRIATION.

B. S. & Co., of Calcutta, having
consigned certain gooods to G. B. in
England, on which they had a lien
for the price, write him word that