Mortgagee applying for leave to bid
must always pay costs of petition,
unless consent otherwise. Ex parte
Williams, re Hall, 1832. 1 Dea. &
Chit. 489. S. C. 1 Mont. 514.

An equitable mortgagee of one part-
ner, for a debt due from the other,
may prove his whole debt against
the separate estate of that other
partner, and retain his security
against the first.

Where a petition to prove is unne-
cessary, the petitioner is liable to
costs. Ex parte Rogers, re Parkin,
1832. I Dea. & Chit. 38.

The clerk of a creditor, claiming as
equitable mortgagee, drew up and
signed the memorandum accom-
panying the deposit of a lease by
the bankrupt; but it was not signed
by the bankrupt himself, nor was it
alleged that the clerk was autho-
rized by the bankrupt to draw up
such memorandum, or that it was
ever shown to the bankrupt :-
Held, under these circumstances,
that the equitable mortgagee was
not entitled to the costs of the sale.
Ex parte Reid, re Mills, 1832.
1 Dea. & Chit. 250.

Where an assignee is removed for the
benefit of the estate, he is entitled
to be reimbursed out of any fund
in hand, before it is transferred to
the new assignee. Ex parte James,
re Davis, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 272.

A bankrupt cannot petition to super-

sede a commission on the ground

of the insufficiency of the petition-
ing creditors' debt, when he has lain
by two years without adopting any
proceeding for that purpose. A
petition is not necessarily dismissed
with costs, because a previous peti-
tion for the same object has been
also dismissed, if the dismissal of
the prior petition was on a mere
matter of form. Ex parte Hooper,
re Hooper, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit.

117.

Where deeds relating to freehold and
leasehold property were deposited
with an equitable mortgagee, but
the memorandums accompanying
the deposit merely related to the
leasehold property :-Held, that the
mortgagee might nevertheless pray
a sale of the freehold as well as the
leasehold property, subject, how-
ever, to the payment of the costs of
the sale. Ex parte Robinson, re
Evans, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 119.

Petition for keeping separate accounts,
which might be done under the
general order, dismissed with costs.
Ex parte Green, re Holder, 1832.
1 Dea. & Chit. 382.

On petition presented to L. C. before

11th Jan. 1832, to supersede, an
action at law was directed to try
validity of commission, costs re-
served. Verdict in favour of peti-
tioner. A new petition was there-
upon presented to C. R. and
granted:-Held, petitioner was en-
titled to costs of both petitions,
and that C. R. had no jurisdiction

in question, whether the petitioning
creditor could set off the debt really
due to him against those costs. Ex
parte Thomas, re Thomas, 1832.
1 Dea. & Chit. 443.

Where petition is ordered to stand
over, and costs of the day to be
paid by petitioner, it is not usual to
draw up the order therefore non-
payment of those costs is not such
an objection as prevents the peti-
tioner from being heard on the
future day.
Ex parte Clarke, re
Sewercrop, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit.
525. S. C. 1 Mont. 503.

Though the appearance of a party is
wholly unnecessary, yet if he is
served with notice of an intended
application to the Court, he is en-
titled to his costs of appearance;
but if he makes affidavits which are
unnecessary, he must pay the costs
occasioned thereby. Ex parte Reid,
re Mills, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 322.

Where assignee, on being chosen, ac-
cepts the office, he can only retire
on payment of costs of his removal.
Ex parte Watts, re Henfrey, 1832.
1 Dea. & Chit. 322.

An equitable mortgagee, who applies
for a sale, will not be allowed the
costs of an action at law brought
for the mortgage money. Ex parte
Fletcher, 1832. 1 Mont. 454.

A bill of costs for business done under
a commission of bankruptcy need
not be delivered, signed by the at-

An attorney brought an action against
the petitioning creditor, under a com-
mission of bankrupt, for business
done previous to the assignment:-
Held, that notwithstanding the
14th section of the Bankrupt Act,
6 Geo. 4. c. 16. he might main-
tain the action without proof that
his charges had been allowed by
the commissioners, according to the
provisions of that section, as the
whole was matter of investigation
before the taxing officer. Fisher v.
Filmer, 1831. 5 Car. & P. 92.

After a commission of bankruptcy
was sued out against the plaintiff,
the defendant signed judgment as
in case of a nonsuit, taxed the costs,
and sued out execution. The first
day of the term, to which the judg-
ment related, was before the com-
mission was issued:-Held, that
the costs were not proveable under
the commission, as they did not
constitute a debt till judgment was
actually signed; and that although
the plaintiff had obtained his certi-
ficate, he was still liable for such
costs. Brough v. Adcock, 1831.
5 Moore & P. 678.

COUNTRY COMMISSION.
Bankrupt has houses of business at
L. & M., majority of creditors liv-
ing at M.
Order necessary to ob-
tain country commission at M. Ex

parte Wood, re Swainson, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 410.

COVENANT.

By indenture of demise, reciting that the lessee had purchased certain fixtures on the premises, on condition of their being repurchased as after-mentioned, it was agreed between the lessor and lessee, and the lessor covenanted, that on the expiration or other sooner determination of the term, he, the lessor, should and would take the fixtures at such price as they should be appraised at by two competent persons, one to be named on each side.

The lessee became bankrupt, and his assignee declined the lease (which was delivered up), but he required the fixtures to be re-purchased, and brought an action of covenant against the lessor for not appointing an appraiser: Held, that as by 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 75. the bankrupt, on delivering up the lease, was discharged from all the covenants on his part, performance of the covenant in question could not be enforced by the assignee against the lessor. Kearsay v. Carstairs, 1831. 2 B. & Ad. 716.

of a contract. Wright v. Fairfield, 1831. 2 B. & Ad. 727.

W. and T. arrested M. and S. for debt, and shortly afterwards issued a commission of bankruptcy against them, but, after proving their debt, abandoned the commission, in order to proceed against the bail in the action. They then obtained the joint note of H. (one of the bail) and of M. and S., and compelled H. to pay the note; soon after which a second commission issued against S. as surviving partner of M. After giving this note, the bail took an assignment from M. and S. of all their stock in trade, &c. as an indemnity against the consequences of becoming bail :-Held, that none of these circumstances operated as a forfeiture of the debt of W. and T. within the meaning of the 8th section of 6 Geo. 4. c. 16:-Held, also, that M. having died before adjudication under the first commission, that commission became null and void, without any writ of supersedeas. Quære, whether, in case of such a forfeiture of the debt by the petitioning creditor, this Court can order him to pay over the amount to the assignees. Ex parte Green, re Madders, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 230.

DAMAGES.

Assignees under 6 Geo. 4. c. 16. may maintain an action for unliquidated damages which have accrued before the bankruptcy by non-performance

DEBTS PROVEABLE. A defendant compromised an action for libel, by agreeing to apologise, and pay the plaintiff's costs. The

apology was made, and a rule of
Court obtained, ordering the de-
fendant to pay the costs, amounting
to 671. On default made, an at-
tachment issued, and the defendant
was committed. While in custody
he became bankrupt, and obtained
his certificate:-Held, that the sum
named in the rule of Court was a
debt which might have been proved
under the commission, and that the
defendant was entitled to be dis-
charged out of custody. Riley v.
Byrne, 1831. 2 B. & Ad. 779.
After a commission of bankruptcy
was sued out against the plaintiff,
the defendant signed judgment as
in case of a nonsuit, taxed the costs,
and sued out execution. The first
day of the term, to which the judg-
ment related, was before the com-
mission was issued :-Held, that
the costs were not proveable under
the commission, as they did not
constitute a debt till judgment was
actually signed; and that although
the plaintiff had obtained his certi-
ficate, he was still liable for such
costs. Brough v. Adcock, 1831.
5 Moore & P. 678.

DECISIONS OVERRULED.
Ex parte Billiards, Buck, 220; Ex
parte Edwards, id. 232; and Ex
parte Marks, 1 G. & J. 70, over-
ruled. Ex parte Thomas, re Thomas,
1832, 1 Dea. & Chit. 443.

Coldwell v. Gregory, 1 Pri. 129, over-

ruled by Enderby v. Gilpin, 2 B.
& C. 389. Ex parte Chuck, 1
Mont. 365.

DEEDS, REGISTRATION.
The want of registration of a convey-
ance invalidates the deed as to sub-
sequent purchasers only, not as to
assignees of the party conveying
property. Ex parte Coles, re Rucker,
1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 100.

DEEDS, INSPECTION OF.
In 1811 A. and B. entered into a part-
nership, which continued till 1818,
when it was dissolved, and the affairs
wound up, except as to some out-
standing debts. In 1820 a deed of
release was executed, from which
these debts were excluded. Partner-
ship books relating generally to these
and other debts were all along suf-
fered to remain in the hands of A.
All the outstanding debts were sub-
sequently settled. In 1830 B. was
declared bankrupt, till which time
the books were never called for by
B. :-Held, that A. and B. never-
theless continued tenants in com-
mon in respect of them, and
that the length of time did not
affect that relationship, and, there-
fore, although there was no charge
of fraud in the settled account, yet
the Commissioner had jurisdiction
to call A. before him, and examine
him and the books, relative to the
former dealings of the bankrupt.
Ex parte Trueman, re Martindale,
1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 464.

DELIVERY UP OF CHATTELS.

Order made on assignees, though they
did not distinctly repudiate the right
of property, for delivery of chattels
belonging to third party in hands
of bankrupt. Ex parte Eden, re
Jackson, 1832. 1 Mont. 506.

DEPOSITIONS.
Depositions taken before Commission-
ers of bankrupt are conclusive evi-
dence of the bankruptcy under 6
Geo. 4. c. 16. s. 92. though the
conversion for which the assignees
proved shall have taken place after
the act of bankruptcy; for the
bankrupt might have sustained an
action up to the time of issuing a
commission; and if after that
event the assignees should recover,
payments to them by the defendant
would be protected by sect. 94, in
case the commission should be af-
terwards superseded. For v. Ma-
honey, 1831. 2 Tyrwhitt, 285.
S. C. 2 Cromp. & J. 325.

DIVIDEND.

An official assignee having sent to the
petitioner (who was employed un-
der the commission to sell part of
the bankrupt's property) the usual
circular, that a dividend was due on
his debt, cannot afterwards refuse
to pay the same, upon the plea that
his accounts for such business done
by him are erroneous.
Ex parte
Alexander, re Elder, 1832. 1 Dea.
& Chit. 513. S. C. 1 Mont. 503.

Dividends.

If bills amounting to 13201. be de-
livered by the drawer to the credi-
tor as collateral security for a debt
of 4000l., and the drawer and ac-
ceptor become bankrupt, but the
estate of the acceptor prove solvent,
the creditor is entitled to receive
20s. in the pound on the bills
against the estate of the acceptor,
and also prove the debt of 40007.,
and receive dividends in liquidation
of the remaining portion of his
debt under the commission against
the drawer. Ex parte Sammon, re
Peirson, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit.
564.

B. and G. carry on business at Man-

chester as commission agents under
the firm of B. & Co. G. being
also a trader on his own separate
account at Stockport, under the
firm of G. & Co., and being like-
wise a partner with J. in London,
trading under the firm of J. & Co.,
and with S. R. at Stockport, trad-
ing under the firm of S. R.; B. &
Co. drew two bills upon J. & Co.,
payable to the order of B. & Co.,
which J. and Co. accept, and which
are afterwards indorsed by B. & Co.,
G. & Co. and S. R.; and of which
W. & Co. became the holders for a
valuable consideration, without any
knowledge that G. was a partner in
the house of B. & Co., or in that
of J. & Co. B. & G. and J. se-
verally became bankrupts. The
Judges were equally divided on the
question whether W. & Co. could
prove the amount of the bills both