his death entered upon the record:
-Held, that the succeeding assig-
nee was entitled to proceed in a
Isuit which had been commenced
by his predecessor against the pro-
visional assignee for a penalty:-
Held, also, that as the assignment
to the provisional assignee was
recited in the assignment to the
second assignee, it was not incum-
bent on the plaintiff to produce it
in evidence. Bates v. Sturges,
1831. 5 Moore & P. 568.

2. Assignees, appointment and choice of.
Creditors having, subsequent to the
appointment, signed resolutions
authorizing the assignees to do
certain acts, as assignees, which
they could not have performed
without such authority, and to act
generally as assignees, are debarred
from questioning the validity of
the appointment at a subsequent
period, upon grounds of which
they were aware at the time of
signature.

Semble, also, that the appointment
is not complete till the declaration
of appointment is signed by the
Commissioner. Ex parte Nash, re
Wyatt, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 445.

The 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 56. s. 27. does
not require the certificate of the
appointment of assignees to be
registered, in order to protect them
against subsequent purchasers of
the bankrupt's freehold property
without notice, unless the property
is situate in a register county.
Anon. 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 349.

Where there is only one assignee sur-
viving, and he, from his advanced
age (72), is desirous of being re-
moved from the office, the proper
course is to procure a new choice
in the room of those who are dead,
and then to apply that he may be
removed. Ex parte Rapp, re Smith,
1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 461.

On application to remove one of
several assignees the proper course
is to petition for a new choice.
Ex parte Steel, re Steel, 1832. 1
Dea. & Chit. 488.
Semble, that a creditor who has

proved, is entitled to vote in the
choice of assignees, if he apply
before the Commissioner has signed
the declaration of appointment, al-
though the Commissioner had pre-
viously verbally declared the choice
complete. Ex parte Nash, re Wyatt,
1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 445.

Quare, Whether a creditor on a

voluntary bond is entitled to vote
in the choice of assignees? Ex
parte Venables, 1831. 1 Mont. 494.

3. Assignee, discharge, removal, and
retiring of.

Semble, that where one assignee had
obtained an order to discharge him-
self from the office (which was not
drawn up), but the Commissioners
had, by their memorandums, vir-
tually recognized such discharge
by excluding his name from them,
he cannot be made liable by any
subsequent memorandums. Ex
parte Learmouth, re Thompson; Ex

parte Cleaver, re Thompson, 1832.
1 Dea. & Chit. 491.

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

Where an assignee is removed, and
another appointed, there is no need
of any assigment under the 1 & 2
Will. 4. c. 56. Ex parte Falar, re
Andrews, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 32.
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.

Where there is only one assignee
surviving, and he, from his ad-
vanced age (72), is desirous of
being removed from the office, the
proper course is to procure a new
choice in the room of those who
are dead, and then to apply that
he may be removed. Ex parte
Rapp, re Smith, 1832. 1 Dea, &
Chit. 461.

On application to remove one of
several assignees, the proper course
is to petition for a new choice.
Ex parte Steel, re Steel, 1832. 1
Dea. & Chit. 488.

ASSIGNEE, OFFICIAL.

See also OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE.
Where the provisional assignee is

directed to carry on the business
of the bankrupt for the benefit of
the creditors, the official assignee
will be ordered to supply him with
funds for that purpose. Ex parte
Wyatt, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 229.

By 1 & 2 Will. 4. c. 56. s. 36. the

Court has power to remove an
official assignee, as well as any
other assignee.

By section 40, the Commissioner
has a discretion to appoint, or not
to appoint, an official assignee,
where a commission issued before
that act began to operate. But
where the Commissioner appointed
one, thinking he had no discretion,
the Court will not on this ground
alone remove the official assignee.
Ex parte Ellis, re Houghton and
Watts, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 209.

ASSIGNEE, PROVISIONAL.
Where the provisional assignee is di-

rected to carry on the business of
the bankrupt for the benefit of the
creditors, the official assignee will
be ordered to supply him with funds
for that purpose. Ex parte Wyatt,
1832. 1 Dea. & Chit. 229.

The 45th sec. of the statute 6 Geo. 4.
c. 16. imposes a penalty on the pro-
visional assignee, if he does not
deliver up the bankrupt's estate to
the ultimate assignee. The 67th
section enacts, that the suit is not
to abate by the death of an assig-
nee, but that it may be prosecuted
in the name of the new assignee ;
and by the 100th sec. the sum re-

tors.

covered for a penalty under the act
is to be divided among the credi-
An assignee having died,
and a suggestion of his death en-
tered upon the record:-Held, that
the succeeding assignee was enti-
tled to proceed in a suit which had
been commenced by his predeces-
sor against the provisional assignee
for a penalty :-Held, also, that as
the assignment to the provisional
assignee was recited in the assign-
ment to the second assignee, it was
not incumbent on the plaintiff to
produce it in evidence. Bates v.
Sturges, 1831. 5 Moore & P. 568.

ASSIGNMENT, DEED OF.
Where an assignee is removed, and
another appointed, there is no need
of any assignment under the 1 & 2
Will. 4. c. 56. Ex parte Falar, re
Andrews, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit, 32.

ASSIGNMENT AND TRANSFER.
A letter to the secretary of an insu-
rance office, in which the writer
says, "I am holder of the under-
mentioned policies," and inquires
what the office would give for them,
is sufficient notice of an assignment.
Ex parte Stright, re Eyles, 1832.
1 Mont. 502.

ASSIGNMENT, WHAT PASSES.
A solvent partner is entitled to retain
the partnership books, when the
other becomes bankrupt. Ex parte
Finch, re Coverdale, 1832. 1 Dea.
& Chit. 274.

Where a company is formed by act
of parliament for the purchase of
lands to make a canal, and the act
declares that the shares" shall be
deemed personal estate, and shall
be transmissible as such:"-Held,
that though the profits arose out
of the land, the shares were per-
sonal property, passing as such to
the assignees on the bankruptcy of
a proprietor.

Where an act prescribes certain
forms in the transfer of such shares:
Held, unless they are strictly com-
plied with, the shares remain in the
order and disposition of the bank-
rupt proprietor, the ordinary mode
of transfer not constituting an equit-
able mortgage. And though the
act only expressly relates to trans-
fers between third parties, yet it
impliedly relates to where the com-
pany are the transferees. Ex parte
Lancaster Canal Company, re Dil-
worth, 1832. 1 Dea. & Chit, 411,

A. was in the habit of indorsing and

paying into his country banker,
B.'s hands, bills not due, which
were entered by B. in the pass-
book as bills to his credit to the
full amount. By the custom of the
bank the customers were at liberty
to draw for the amount of such
bills immediately, and the bank
was at liberty to pay away such
bills as they thought fit. There
was no evidence of 4.'s knowledge
of this custom, and A. swore that
he never gave authority to B. to
negotiate them, but deposited them

only that B. might receive the value
when at maturity; that he never
drew on account of any bill till
after it was due; that the balance
of accounts, independent of the
bills, was always in his favour;
and that he never received more
than one such bill (deposited by
another customer) in answer to his
cheques. B. having negotiated them
to C. as a security for a debt, and
B. becoming bankrupt before the
bills were due:-Held, that they
did not pass to B.'s assignees, and
therefore A. was entitled to be in-
demnified from the surplus secu-
rity in the hands of C. Ex parte
Benson, re Dilworth, 1832. 1 Dea.
& Chit, 435.

lease of lands contained a condition,
"that if the lessee should commit
an act of bankruptcy whereon a
commission should issue, and
be should be declared bank-
rupt, or if he should become in-
solvent, or incur any debt upon
which any judgment should be
signed, entered up, or given against
him, and on which any writ of fieri
facias, or any other writ of execu-
tion should issue," it should be law-
ful for the lessor to re-enter into
the demised premises; and the
same again to have, repossess, and
enjoy, as in his former estate.
The tenant gave a warrant of at-
torney, upon which judgment was
entered up, and his goods taken in
execution and sold, and a commis-
sion of bankrupt afterwards issued
against him. The lessor entered

for the forfeiture:-Held, that he
was entitled to the emblements.
Davis v. Eyton, 1830. 4 Moore
& P. 820.

A testator bequeathed the dividends of
certain stocks to his nephew, solely
for the maintenance of himself and
his family, declaring that such divi-
dends should not be capable of
being charged with his debts or
engagements, and that he should
have no power to charge, assign,
anticipate, or encumber them; but
that if he should attempt so to do,
or if the dividends, by bankruptcy,
insolvency, or otherwise, should be
assigned or become payable to any
other person, or be or become ap-
plicable to any other purpose than
for the maintenance of the nephew
and his family, his interest therein
should cease, and the stock be held
upon trusts for his children. Long
subsequently to the date of the will,
and a few week's prior to a codicil
confirming it, the nephew took the
benefit of the Lords' Act, (1 Geo. IV.
c. 119.) in the usual way, and some

years
afterwards the testator died:--
Held, that this insolvency operated
as a forfeiture of the life-interest
given to the nephew by the will,
Yarnold v. Moorhouse, 1830. 1 Russ.
& M. 364.

The sheriff sold goods under a fieri
facias after a secret act of bank-
ruptcy committed by the debtor,
and, after notice of the act of bank-
ruptcy, paid over the proceeds to the
execution creditor, under an indem-

nity-Held, that the assignee
might recover the amount from the
sheriff in an action for money had
and received. Young v. Marshall
& Poland, 1831. 6 Moore & P. 110.
S. C. 8 Bing. 43.

Where stock was given upon trust for
A. for life, and after his decease for
his children, with a proviso that
A.'s life-interest should not be sub-
ject to any alienation or disposition,
by sale, mortgage, or otherwise, in
any manner whatsover; and in case
he should charge or affect to charge,
affect, or incumber the same, such
mortgage, sale, or other disposition,
so made by him, should operate as
a complete forfeiture thereof, and
the same should devolve upon the
persons next entitled :-Held, that
on A.'s bankruptcy, his life-interest
passed to his assignees to the ex-
clusion of his children. Lear v.
Leggett, 1830. 1 Russ. & M. 690.

A lessee of a mill and steam-engine
covenanted to repair, reasonable
wear and tear excepted. During
the lease he added both to the
height and extent of the mill, and
removed all the works of the en-
gine, except the fly-wheel, fly-wheel
shaft, and boiler, and attached to
them a new engine of greater
power. Injunction granted to re-
strain the assignees of the lessee,
who had become bankrupt, from re-
moving the parts of the new build-
ing, and the new parts of the en-
gine, subject to an action to be

brought by the lessors to try the
right. Sunderland v. Newton, 1830.
3 Sim. 450.

Goods were seized and sold under a
fi. fa. by a chief bailiff of a fran-
chise, having sole execution of writs
therein, after an act of bankruptcy
committed by the defendant, but
without knowledge thereof, and be-
fore the commission issued: -Held
that trover would not lie by the
assignees against the chief bailiff,
though the property in the goods
vested in them by relation to the
act of bankruptcy. Secus as to the
deputy bailiff, who had taken in-
demnity from the judgment credi-
tors. Balm v. Hutton, 1831.
2 Tyrwhitt, 17. S. C. 2 Cromp.
& J. 19.

ATTACHMENT.
Whatever ground there may be for
the discharge of a party who is ar-
rested on an attachment for not
paying costs pursuant to an order,
previous notice of the application
must be given to the other side.
Ex parte White, re Scrivenor, 1832.
1 Dea. & Chit. 39. S. C. 1 Mont.
517.

ATTESTATION.

See PETITION, Form, &c.

ATTORNEY.
See SOLICITOR.