held, that the holder of the note
might prove against R. M.'s separate
estate. Ex parte Christie, 3 M. D. &
D. 736.

See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 3-SET-
OFF-TRUST, 2, 3.

BANK POST BILL.
See BILL OF EXCHANGE, 4.

BANKRUPT.
See EXECUTION, 5.

(Last Examination of.)
See CERTIFICATE, 2.

(Service of Petition upon.)
See ADVERTISEMENT.

(Wife's Property.)
See HUSBAND and Wife,

BANKRUPTCY.

1. Bequest of a share in certain trust
funds in trust for A., his executors,
administrators and assigns, provided,
that if A, should, during the life of
B. or C. assign, charge, or otherwise
dispose of his share in the principal
or interest thereof, or attempt or
agree so to do, or do any act
whereby his share in the said mo-
nies, if payable to himself, or his
executors or administrators, would
become vested in some other person,
then and in such case all his estate,
right, title, and interest in such trust
monies should absolutely cease and
determine, and thereby and there-
upon become absolutely forfeited';

and the trustees should thencefor-
ward stand possessed of the shares
or share so forfeited, in trust to pay,
apply, and dispose of the annual
produce thereof, during the lives of
B. and C., for the support and main-
tenance of A. and of his wife and
family, or otherwise for his and their
benefit, in such manner as the trus-
tees should think proper, and after
the death of B. and C. should settle
and assure, or pay and apply, and
dispose of the share so forfeited, in
trust for, or for the benefit of A. and
his family, in such manner as they
should in their discretion think pro-
per. A. assigned all his property to
trustees for his creditors, and thereby
committed an act of bankruptcy, and
a fiat being issued against him, he
was declared a bankrupt. Held, that
upon the execution by or of the as-
signment, his share and interest in the
trust monies became subject to the
trust declared by the will for the be-
nefit of A. and his wife and family;
that A. was not of necessity entitled
to any part of the income of the
trust monies separately from his wife
and children, but that any interest of
A. in the trust monies not applicable
for the support and maintenance of
his wife and children, passed to his
assignees on his bankruptcy. Kears-
ley v. Woodcock, 3 Hare, 185.

2. After a demurrer had been put
in to a bill, the sole plaintiff became
bankrupt. Upon the motion of the
defendant, who had demurred, the
Court ordered that the assignee

should remedy the defect in the suit within a month, or that the bill should be dismissed without costs.

A party ordered to take a step within a fixed time, or that the bill should be dismissed, if desirous of an extension of the time, must give notice of motion so as to enable him to bring it on before expiration of the time fixed. Lord Huntingtower v. Sherborn, 5 Beav. 380.

See RELATION.

(Bankruptcy, Evidence of.) See ADVERTISEMENT.

BARON AND FEME. See HUSBAND and Wife.

BILLS AND NOTES.

1. A. and B., who are partners, and C., as their surety, give a joint and several promissory note to D., by which they "jointly and severally promise to pay" to D. the amount of a partnership debt due from A. and B. The note is signed by A. and B., not as individuals, but in their partnership firm, and by C. the surety. Held, that this note could not be treated as the several note of each one of the three, but as the several note only of the surety, and the joint note of A. and B.; and that on the bankruptcy of A., who had survived his partner B., the holder of the note could only rank as a creditor against the joint estate. Er parte Wilson, 3 M. D. & D. 57.

A. survives B., his partner, and

continues the business in the same firm of "A. and B.;" at the time of B.'s death a large balance was owing by them to their bankers, to whom A., some time after B.'s death, indorses several bills in the partnership firm of A. and B. : Held, that it could not be inferred from this circumstance alone that the bills were so indorsed upon a partnership transaction of A. and B., and that the bankers might prove the amount of the bills against the separate estate of A. Ibid.

2. B. S. and Co., of Calcutta, having consigned certain goods to G. B. in England, on which they had a lien for the price, write him word that they intend to draw in favour of G. K. and Co. for the balance of such shipments, and that they inclose bills of lading and policies of insurance for the goods in question; and they also draw a bill for the amount on G. B. in favour of G. K. and Co., which they direct G. B. " to place to account of shipments per Gardner." Before the goods reach England, G. B. becomes bankrupt, and the goods come to the possession of his assigHeld, that the above expressions in the bill and the letter amounted to a specific appropriation of the goods for the payment of the bill, and that the assignees were bound to account to G. K. and Co. for the proceeds. Ex parte Gledstanes, 3 M. D. & D. 109.

nees.

3. A person deposits a bill of exchange for 12,000l., payable to his

order, and also a warrant of attorney,
executed by the acceptor of the bill,
and expressed to be made to secure
(among other things) the payment of
the bill. The purpose of the deposit
is, and is by the accompanying me-
morandum expressed to be, to secure
the payment of another bill for 3000l.,
accepted by the depositor. The de-
posited bill is not indorsed. On the
bill for 3000. becoming due, it is
renewed, the deposited documents
remaining in the possession of the
holder of this bill, and a new memo-
randum of deposit being signed,
which states the deposit to have been
made on the day of the date of the
new bill. This bill is renewed in the
same way, and the transaction is re-
peated on several successive occa-
sions, each transaction taking place
through the agency of a person who
is the solicitor of the acceptor of the
deposited bill for 12,000l., and who,
as such solicitor, attested the execu-
tion of the warrant of attorney; but
no further notice of any of the trans-
actions is given. Held, on the depo-
sitor becoming bankrupt,

That the deposit must be consi-
dered to have been made at the time
of the first transaction, and not to
have been made afresh at every suc-
ceeding one.

That the interposition of the soli-
citor of the party who executed the
deposited warrant of attorney was
not notice to that party, so as to take
the security out of the reputed owner-
ship of the depositor.

VOL. III.

That the circumstance of the war-
rant of attorney being expressed
or executed for the purpose of se-
curing the payment of a sum pri-
marily secured by a negotiable in-
strument, did not supersede the ne-
cessity of notice as to the warrant of
attorney.

That the deposit of the bill of
exchange, though not indorsed, was
good, without notice; and that the
depositee was entitled to have it in-
dorsed and to the common equitable
mortgagee's Order. Ex parte Price
re Gibbs, 3 M. D. & D. 586.

4. A bill of exchange remitted by a
customer to his bankers, and not due,
but remaining in specie at the time
of their bankruptcy, continues the
property of the customer, and the
same is the law as to a bank post
bill which the customer sends to the
bankers, with a letter desiring them
to place it to his credit, and to send
him a receipt. Ex parte Atkins, 3
M. D. & D. 103.

5. Assumpsit on a note alleged to
have been made by defendant, pay-
able to W. or bearer, and indorsed
by W. to plaintiff. Plea, that before
indorsing, W. became bankrupt,
whereupon a fiat issued and assig-
nees were appointed, &c., by reason
whereof all W.'s interest in the note
vested in the assignees; and that the
indorsement was not made, nor had
the plaintiff any interest in the note
before it was so vested.

Replication (under stat. 2 & 3 Vict.
c. 29. s. 1), that the note was in-
SF

dorsed by W. to plaintiff, and, being so indorsed, was bona fide received by plaintiff before the fiat; that plaintiff had not, at the times of indorsement and receipt, notice of any act of bankruptcy committed by W., and that the note was not indorsed or received by way of fraudulent preference. Rejoinder, that the note was not bona fide received by plaintiff before the fiat, in manner, &c. Issue thereon. W. had indorsed the note in blank, and delivered it, before the fiat, to his son, who delivered it to plaintiff, but this last delivery was not before the fiat. No mala fides appeared.

Held, that the issue, by its terms, raised the question whether plaintiff had personally received the note before the fiat, and that, he not proving such receipt, defendant was entitled to the verdict.

Also, that the issue was material, for that under the statute it is necessary to show an actual bond fide receipt of the note by some person before fiat; and, if the pleading avers such a receipt by A., it is not sufficient to show that A. received the note bona fide after fiat, but that before fiat it was indorsed in blank to B., from whom A. received it, and therefore that it was constructively indorsed to A. before fiat.

Green v.

BOND.

A. and B. enter into a joint and several bond to C., D. and E.; C. delivers the bond to A. (who was her son) for safe custody, and after for some time receiving the interest from A., she and D., another of the obligees, die. B., one of the obligors, also dies, when his executors and A. make an arrangement together, without the privity of E., the surviving obligee, and erase the name and seal of B. from the bond. Held, that this did not invalidate the bond as against A.; and that on his bankruptcy, the surviving obligee might prove for the amount of the principal and interest due upon the bond. Ex parte Smith, 3 M. D. & D. 378.

BOTTOMRY BOND. See SHIP.

CERTIFICATE.

1. Certificate ready for allowance, but not allowed before 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, came into operation: Held, sufficient under the new act, and allowed accordingly. Ex parte Vardy, 3 M. D. & D. 65.

2. The Court declined allowing the certificate of a bankrupt who had passed his last examination before the forty-second day, and ordered another day to be advertized for his examination. Ex parte East, 3 M. D. & D. 321.

3. In order to induce a creditor to sign the certificate of a bankrupt, A. gave him an understanding that,

4. Where the fiat and proceedings were, before the passing of the act 5 & 6 Vict. c. 122, left in the possession of the sole assignee, who was not to be found, the Court ordered that the Commissioner should be at liberty to proceed without them in allowing the certificate. Ex parte Baldwin, 3 M. D. & D. 326.

5. A bankrupt, after the issuing of the fiat against him, but before the granting of his certificate, promised in writing to pay a debt due by him before his bankruptcy: Held, that this promise did not revive the debt, so as to enable the creditor to sue the bankrupt thereon in an action of indebitatus assumpsit. Kirkpatrick v. Tattersall, 1 C. & K. 577.

See AFFIDAVIT, 5-FUTURE DEBTPETITION TO STAY CERTIFICATE.

CHEQUE.

See BANKER AND CUSTOMER.

CHOSE IN ACTION.

See HUSBAND AND WIFE-REPUTED

OWNERSHIP.

COGNOVIT.

See EXECUTION, 8.

COMMISSIONERS.

1. Semble, the Court of Review has jurisdiction to direct references to the Commissioners. Ex parte Gore, 3 M. D. & D. 77.

2. Quære, whether a Commissioner of the Court of Bankruptcy is bound to obey an Order of reference of the Court of Review. Ex parte Curlewis, 8 M. D. & D. 362.

3. The Commissioners are bound to execute Orders of reference made by the Court of Review; but neither that Court nor the Lord Chancellor can compel the Commissioners to execute such Orders. Ex parte Steward, 3 M. D. & D. 405.

4. Where an Order was made by a District Commissioner on a solicitor to pay a certain sum to the official assignee, without stating the special facts on which the Order was made, or that the party was a solicitor of the Court, or that he acquiesced in the Order: Held, that the Commissioner had no jurisdiction to make such an Order. Ex parte Collins, 3

M. D. & D. 604.

See COMMITMENT-MESSENGERPROTECTION FROM ARREST.

COMMITMENT.

A warrant of commitment of a bankrupt for not satisfactorily answering questions put to him need not set out an examination previous to that upon which he has been committed, unless such examination taken together with the subsequent one is unsatisfactory.