Where there were two joint makers of a promissory note, the one a principal and the other a surety, and the principal had been discharged by the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and the surety was obliged to pay the note, the surety might sue the principal notwithstanding his dis- a charge (q). The debt must have been properly described in the schedule (r). CHAPTER Effect of dis- charge of one of note. the schedule. If the bill were substantially described in the schedule, Description of an unintentional mistake or defect in the description, either the bill or note in of the bill or of the parties to it, would not prejudice the insolvent (s). But if the insolvent had wilfully omitted the name of an indorsee or holder, known by the insolvent to be so, he was not discharged (t). If the debt only be mentioned in the schedule, the debtor was not discharged from the bill. The bill or note should have been mentioned, and the name of the holder also, or else it should have been stated that the holder was not known to the insolvent (u). But if the name were in fact not known, it was enough to mention the bill (x). And if by mistake the debt had been stated to be 37. when it should be 77., as the consequence was to deprive the creditor of the benefit of the notice to creditors for 5l. and upwards, the debtor was not discharged (y). A notice to the creditor of the filing of the insolvent's Notice to the (q) Powell v. Eason, 8 Bing. 23; 1 M. & Sco. 68, S. C. (r) 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, ss. 69 and 93; Franklin v. Beesley, 28 L. J., Q. B. 161. (8) Forman v. Drew, 4 B. & C. 15; 6 D. & R. 75, S. C.; Wood v. Jowett, 4 B. & C. 20, n.; Reeves v. Lambert, ibid. 214; Nias v. Nicholson, R & M. 322; 2 C. & P. 120, S. C.; Levy v. Dolbell, M. & M. 202; Boydell v. Champneys, 2 M. & W. 433; Eastwood v. Brown, R. & M. 312; Cox v. Read, ibid. 199; 1 C. & P. 602, S. C.; Sharp v. Gye, 4 C. & P. 311; Symons v. May, 6 Exch. 707; Romellio v. Halaghan, 30 L. J., Exch. 231; 1 E., B. & S. 279. But see Tinney v. Cecil, 26 L. J., C. P. 53; Reeves v. Mackay, C. P., Mich. 1861. (t) Pugh v. Hookham, 5 C. & P. 376; Lewis v. Mason, 4 C. & P. 322. (u) Beck v. Beverley, 11 M. & W. 845; Tyers v. Stunt, 7 Scott, 349; Leonard v. Baker, 15 M. & W. 202; Chambers v. Smith, 11 C. B. 358; Kemp v. Murry, 11 Exch. 47; Symonds v. May, 6 Exch. 707; Romellio v. Halaghan, 1 E., B. & S. 279. (a) Booth v. Coldman, 28 L. J., Q. B. 137; 1 E. & E. 414, S. C. (y) Hoyles v. Blore, 14 M. & W. 387. The expression "debts growing due," only applies to debts already ascertained, though payable at a future day; Skelton v. Watt, 2 Exch 231. creditor. CHAPTER Effect of the insolvent's discharge on the liability of other persons to the holder. Effect of a bill or note given for the debt from which been discharged. petition and schedule, was not a condition precedent to his discharge, for the notice was the act of the Court (z). A discharge by the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, though it discharged the person of the insolvent from liability, was no discharge of other parties to the bill, except to the amount of the sum received by the holder from the insolvent's estate. The act 1 & 2 Vict. c. 110, s. 91, avoided any new contract or security for payment of a debt from which the the insolvent has insolvent had been discharged under the act; therefore, a bill or note for a debt from which the insolvent had obtained his discharge, was as to that debt void, and void notwithstanding that the bill or note had been made on some additional and good consideration (a). Of a bill or note given to prevent opposition. Effect of vesting order. But it had been held that an innocent indorsee, for value without notice, before maturity of the instrument, could, notwithstanding, recover on such a note (b). And a bill accepted partly for a debt from which the acceptor had been discharged by the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and partly for a new debt, was good as to the new debt (c). A bill or note given in consideration of not opposing an insolvent's discharge, or of withdrawing opposition to it, was void, except in the hands of an innocent indorsee for value (d). The effect of the vesting order was to vest in the provisional assignee all bills and notes belonging to the insolvent, and the insolvent could not indorse them, but if the petition (z) Reid v. Croft, 5 Bing. N. C. 68; 6 Scott, 770; 7 Dowl. 122, S. C. (a) Evans v. Williams, 1 C. & M. 30; 3 Tyr. 226, S. C.; Ashley v. Killick, 5 M. & W. 509; and see Kernot v. Pittis, 2 E. & B. 421. (b) Northam v. Latouche, 4 C. & P. 140; Lucas v. Winton, 2 Camp. 443; Simpson v. Pogson, 3 Dow. & R. 567. As to a warrant of attorney, see Philpot v. Aslett, 1 C., M. & R. 85; Best v. Barker, 8 Price, 533; 3 Doug. 188, S. C. (c) Sheerman v. Thompson, 11 Ad. & E. 1027; 3 Per. & Dav. 656, S. C.; Denne v. Knott, 7 M. & W. 143, where one of several defendants has been discharged under the act; and see Raynes v. Jones, 9 M. & W. 104. (d) Murray v. Reeres, 8 B. & C. 421; 2 M. & Ry. 423, S. C.; Rogers v. Kingston, 2 Bing. 441 ; 10 Moore, 97, S. C.; Horn v. Ion, 4 B. & Ad. 78; 1 N. & M. 627, S. C.; Hall v. Dyson, 21 L. J., Q. B. 224; 17 Q. B. 785, S. C.; Hills v. Mitson, 8 Exch. 751. were dismissed, or if the detaining creditor assented to the discharge of the insolvent before adjudication, it was held by the Court of Queen's Bench, that the property in such bills and notes in the hands of the insolvent revested at once in him, and his ability to indorse returned (e). But the Court of Exchequer Chamber afterwards held that the property did not so revest (ƒ). (e) Grange v. Trukett, 21 L. J., Q. B. 26; 2 E. & B. 395. (f) Kernot v. Pittis, 2 Ad. & E. 406 and 421. CHAPTER APPENDIX. SECTION I. NOTARY'S FEES OF OFFICE. As settled July 1st, 1799. At a meeting of several notaries of the City of London, held at the George and Vulture Tavern, in London aforesaid, on the 1st of July, A.D. 1797, the following resolutions were unanimously agreed to, and since approved and confirmed by the Governor and Company of the Bank of England:First. That, from and after the fifth day of the present month of July, the noting of all bills drawn upon or addressed at the house of any person or persons residing within the ancient walls of the said city of London shall be charged one shilling and sixpence; and without the said walls, and not exceeding the limits hereunder specified, the sum of two shillings and sixpence. Second. For all bills drawn upon, or addressed at, the house of any person or persons residing beyond Old or New Bond Street, Wimpole Street, New Cavendish Street, Upper Marylebone Street, Howland Street, Lower Gower Street, lower end of Gray's Inn Lane (and not off the pavement), Clerkenwell Church, Old Street, Shoreditch Church, Brick Lane, St. George's in the East, Execution Dock, Wapping, Dockhead, upper end of Bermondsey Street (as far as the church), end of Blackman Street, end of Great Surrey Street, Blackfriars Road (as far as the Circus), Cuper's Bridge, Bridge Street, Westminster, Arlington Street, Piccadilly, and the like distances, three shillings and sixpence; and, off the pavement, one shilling and sixpence per mile additional. Third. For protesting a bill drawn upon, or addressed at, the house of any person or persons residing within the ancient walls of the said city (including the stamp duty of four shillings, and exclusive of the charge of noting), the sum of six shillings and sixpence, and without the ancient walls of the said city, including the like stamp duty, and exclusive of the said charge of noting, the sum of eight shillings, agreeably to the second article. Fourth. That all acts of honour, within the ancient walls of the city of London, shall be charged the said sum of one shilling and sixpence upon each bill; and for all acts of honour without the ancient walls of the said city, to be regulated agreeably to the |