Act, released from an action at the
suit of his surety, for money paid
after the discharge in respect of an
annuity granted by the insolvent be-
fore. Hookam v. Browne, 4 Bing.
N. C. 400.

Where the actual imprisonment of
a party within the four walls of a
prison follows upon his arrest as one
continuous act, within the usual time
allowed and required by law and the
course of practice, the arrest is, with-
in the 7 Geo. 4. c. 57. s. 34., to be
taken to be the "commencement of
the imprisonment;" but where, after
the arrest is made, any delay not
sanctioned by the due course of law
takes place, before the actual commit-
ment of the defendant to prison, the
commencement of his imprisonment
is the actual coming of the party
within the walls of the prison. Yapp
v. Harrington, 5 Scott, 105.

The clause in section 76 of the In-
solvent Debtors' Act, 7 Geo. 4. c. 57.,
by which copies of the assignments
to and from the provisional assignee,
purporting to be duly certified and
sealed, are made sufficient evidence
of such assignments, does not apply,
where the insolvent has petitioned,
and his effects have been assigned
under stat. 53 Geo. 3. c. 102. Doe
dem. Threlfall v. Sellers, 6 Adol, &
E. 328.

A prisoner petitioned the Insolvent
Debtors' Court for his discharge, and
assigned to the provisional assignee,
under stat. 1 Geo. 4. c. 119:- Held,
that the petition, schedule, and pro-

visional assignment, might be proved,
after the passing of the 7 Geo. 4. c.
57., according to the directions of
section 76 of that act; though it did

not appear, that the prisoner had been
adjudged to be entitled to his dis-
charge. Doe dem. Ellis v. Hardy,
6 Adol. & E. 335.

A declaration in debt for rent al-
leged a demise by plaintiff to defend-
ant for 70 years, by virtue of which
be entered and held till the rent be-
came due. Plea, that after the de-
mise plaintiff was discharged under
the Insolvent Debtors' Act, 53 Geo. 3.
c. 102., and his estate in the pre-
mises was assigned pursuant thereto;
and that after the discharge, and after
the making of the demise (plaintiff
having been authorized by the assig-
nee, after the discharge to remain in
possession of the premises, and to
make the said demise thereof to de-
fendant,) and before the said rent was
due, or the action commenced, de-
fendant received notice from the as-
signee to pay to him, as such assig-
nee, from thenceforth, all the rent that
should accrue from defendant for the
said demised premises, and under the
said demise in the declaration men-
tioned, in default of which legal pro-
ceedings would be adopted; and
that, by reason thereof, defendant
became liable to pay the rent to the
assignee, the reversion being no longer
in plaintiff; and his right to the rent
being determined. On special de-
murrer, it was objected that the de-
fence was ill pleaded, the assignee

not being entitled to the rent, as un-
der the old demise, and the plea not
showing any new tenancy commenced
between the defendant and the as-
signee. The Court gave leave to
amend, judgment for the plaintiff nisi.
Partington v. Woodcock, 6 Adol. &
E. 690.

A defendant, who is under terms
to plead issuably, cannot plead that
the plaintiff has been discharged un-
der the Insolvent Debtors' Act, and
that the cause of action has passed to
his assignees. Wettenhall v. Graham,
6 Scott, 603.

A prisoner in custody on a capias
utlagatum, for non-payment of da-
mages and costs, may be discharged
under the Insolvent Debtors' Act, 7
Geo. 4. c. 57., without previous re-
versal of the outlawry. The Queen
v. The Commissioners of the Insolvent
Debtors' Court, in the matter of Ham-
lin, 3 Nev. & P. 543.

The assignment of an insolvent
debtor's estate and effects to the cre-
ditors' assignee, under 7 Geo. 4. c.
57. s. 19., by the provisional assignee,
according to the form pointed out by
section 11 for the assignment by the
prisoner to the provisional assignee,
is valid. Doe d. Broughton v. Story,
3 Nev. & P. 106.

The 11 Geo. 4. & 1 Will. 4. c. 38.
s. 7. recites, that doubts had existed
as to the validity of the assignment
from the provisional assignee to the
creditors' assignee, and enacts, that
such assignment, if made in obedience
to the order of Court, shall be deemed

valid. At a trial, where the validity
of the assignment from the provi-
sional assignee was a question, a
copy of the counterpart of the as-
signment from the provisional as-
signee, filed of record, was pro-
duced, sealed with the seal of the
Insolvent Debtors' Court, which as-
signment recited that it was made by
the order of the Court; and two or-
ders of the Court were also produced,
removing the assignees, to whom the
provisional assignee had assigned, and
appointing others. Held, upon this
evidence, per Coleridge J., that there
was sufficient evidence to assume that
the provisional assignee had made the
assignment, in obedience to the order
of the Court-sed quære, per Lord
Denman C. J., Littledale and Williams
Js. Ibid.

Under the Insolvent Act, 1 Geo. 4.
c. 119. s. 14. (unrepealed as to as-
signments made in pursuance of it)
if the Commissioners, on the death
of an insolvent's assignee, do not ap-
point another, the insolvent's estate
vests in the executor of the deceased
assignee. Abercrombie v. Hickman,

3 Nev. & P. 676.

A deed of assignment by an insol-
vent of all his effects, for the benefit
of his creditors, executed during his
imprisonment, without consideration
and without pressure from any cre-
ditor, is voluntary, and void under
the 7 Geo. 4. c. 57. s. 32. Binns v.
Towsey, 3 Nev. & P. 88.

In an action of indebitatus assump.
sit in 1007. for goods sold and deli

vered, the defendant pleaded his discharge from the cause of action under the Insolvent Act; to which the plaintiff replied, that although he, the plaintiff, was named and inserted by the defendant in his schedule, yet he had not any notice of the filing of the petition, or of the time appointed for the hearing upon it. Held, on demurrer, that the replication was bad; as it did not allege that the plaintiff was a creditor to the amount of 51., so as to be entitled to notice under the 42d section of the 7 Geo. 4. c. 57. Troup v. Boffi, 3 Mees. & W.

615.

Declarations of a person in insolvent circumstances, to show that he knew of his insolvency, are admissible in evidence, to prove such knowledge, provided the fact of his insolvency be proved aliunde. Thomas v. Connell, 4 Mees. & W. 267.

Semble, that the fact of the insolvency should be proved, before the declarations are offered in evidence. Ibid.

Where an insolvent debtor was discharged, except as to two of the creditors named in his schedule; but it was ordered, that as to those two debts he should not be discharged, until he had been in custody for sixteen months; and one of these creditors (who had not previously commenced an action against him) immediately on his discharge lodged a detainer against him:--Held, that the case was within the 15th section of

the Insolvent Act, 7 Geo. 4. c. 57., and therefore that the defendant was not supersedable, on the ground of the plaintiff's not proceeding to declare within two terms. Buzzard v. Bousfield, 4 Mees. & W. 368.

Quare, whether the plaintiff was bound to proceed further in the action at all. Ibid.

A bill was filed by an insolvent debtor against A. (who was in possession of an estate claimed by him) and his assignees, alleging that the assignees had refused to sue for the estate, because they were apprehensive of incurring personal expenses; but that they were willing to concur in a sale of it for the benefit of the plaintiff and his creditors,-and that, if the estate were sold, the proceeds would be sufficient to pay the creditors, and to leave a considerable surplus; and praying, that A. might be declared to be a trustee of the estate for the plaintiff and his creditors, and that it might be sold and the proceeds paid to the assignees, and that A. might be restrained from proceeding with an action which he had brought against the plaintiff. A demurrer to the bill was allowed. Kaye v. Fosbrooke, 8 Sim. 28.

Where a person has twice taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act, a chose in action, to which he became entitled between his first and second insolvencies, passes to the assignees under the second insolvency. Curtis v. Sheffield, 8 Sim. 176.

Where the same person is secre-
tary to two insurance companies,
quare, whether his knowledge of a
deposit of shares, acquired by him
as secretary to one of the companies,
amounts to notice to the other, so as
to prevent the operation of the clause
of reputed ownership. Ex parte
Bignold, re Theobald, 3 Dea. 151.

The bankrupt agreed with A., the
managing director of a railway com-
pany, that certain shares belonging
to the bankrupt should be a security
for the payment of a bill accepted by
A., for the accommodation of the
bankrupt, and which the bankrupt
discounted with B., with whom the
certificates of the shares were depo-
sited; but no formal notice to the
company was given of the transac-
tion, until four days before the fiat
issued; nor was any transfer made of
the shares in the books of the com-
pany, which were still standing in
the bankrupt's name at the time of
his bankruptcy. By the rules of the
company, no shares could be trans-
ferred, without the consent of the
director; and A., as managing direc-
tor, received all applications for the
transfer of shares.-Held, that the
shares were not in the order and dis-
position, or reputed ownership, of
the bankrupt. Ex parte Harrison,
re Medley, 3 Dea. 185.

A Joint Stock Banking Company
made advances to a bankrupt's firm,
on the security of shares in the bank,
which stood in the separate names of
the two partners, in compliance with

the rule of the company, that no shares should be held jointly,-but which the partners, nevertheless, agreed should be considered partnership property.-Held, that the company could not prove the amount of their debt, without deducting the value of the shares; dissentiente Sir J. Cross. Ex parte Connell, re Clarke, 3 Dea. 201.

To assumpsit by the assignees of a bankrupt, J., for the non-acceptance of shares in the Great Western Railway, which the bankrupt, before his bankruptcy, had contracted to sell to the defendant, and to convey to him on a day subsequent to the bankruptcy, the declaration averring that the plaintiffs were the proprietors of the shares, and that they tendered certificates of them to the defendant; the defendant (among other pleas) pleaded that the plaintiffs were not proprietors of the shares, and that they did not tender certificates of them to the defendant. In order to prove their proprietor. ship of the shares, the plaintiffs put in the transfer book kept by the company, under the Railway Act, 6 & 7 Will. 4. c. 107. s. 158., in which the plaintiffs were entered as transferees.-Held, that this was not sufficient evidence of their title. Hare v. Waring, 3 Mees. & W. 362.

The certificates, tendered by the plaintiffs to the defendant, did not contain the names of the plaintiffs, as original proprietors, nor had they any indorsement of transfer to them. Held, that such certificates were in

sufficient, inasmuch as they did not show a title in the plaintiffs to convey the shares under the act; (sections 147, 158). Ibid.

The 7 Geo. 4. c. 46., which authorizes the establishment of joint stock banking companies, by sect. 9, enables one of the public officers of any such company, nominated pursuant to the provisions of the act, to sue and be sued, and to prosecute commissions of bankruptcy on behalf of the company, against any persons, whether members of the copartnership or otherwise. The 1 & 2 Vict. c. 96., which professes to amend this enactment, declares, that any such public officer may in his own name "commence and prosecute any action, suit, or other proceeding at law, or in equity" against any member of the copartnership, and that such member shall be liable to be proceeded against by such public officer "by such proceedings, and with the same legal consequences, as if such person had not been a member of the said copartnership; " but the last section omits to specify commissions or fiats of bankruptcy, eo nomine. Held, that the two acts were to be taken together, and that the public officer was authorized to sue out a fiat in bankruptcy against one of the members of the company. Ex parte Hall, re Hall, 3 Dea. 405.

The affidavit of the public officer stated, stated, "that he was a registered

officer, duly authorized to sue on behalf of the company, united for the