time he paid the money, the transaction will be protected by the above sections. A trustee in bankruptcy does not, by sending in a bill of parcels or invoice of goods purchased, necessarily ratify a dealing between the bankrupt and a third person as a sale. It may amount only to a qualified offer on their part to adopt the transaction as a sale, provided the defendant will pay for the goods, so as to leave it open to them to maintain an action for the conversion of the property if the defendant will not pay the money demanded. (g) But if the trustee unreservedly adopts the transaction as a valid contract of sale, he cannot afterwards treat a refusal to redeliver the goods as a conversion. (r)

505. Transfer of property by bankrupts constituting an act of bankruptcy-Fraudulent preference. (s)—If there be a voluntary conveyance of property by a man who is indebted at the time, which conveyance would have the effect of delaying or defeating the payment of creditors, such conveyance is stamped with the character of fraud. (t) Every conveyance for an antecedent debt is a voluntary conveyance, and when it is made to the prejudice of other creditors, it becomes a fraudulent conveyance, and an act of bankruptcy, (u) and avoidable by the trustee in bankruptcy. (7) Again, if a man hands over property for payment of his creditors, except under pressure, he makes a voluntary preference, and that is an act of bankruptcy. (x) And the handing over property, even under pressure, may be an act of bankruptcy, for the 6th section (y) provides, that if an execution for a debt of more than 50l. be levied by seizure and sale of the goods of a trader, he is to be deemed to have committed an act of bankruptcy. But a bonâ fide transfer of all a person's property to secure a past debt and a future advance is not an act of bankruptcy, (z) although

(9) Valpy v. Sanders, 5 C. B. 893; 17 Law J., C. P. 249.

(r) Edwards v. Hooper, 11 M. & W. 363.

(s) See 33 & 34 Vict. c. 76.

() Young v. Fletcher, 34 Law J., Exch. 154. Marks v. Feldman, L. Ř., 4 Q. B. 481; 5 Ibid. 275.

(u) Jones v. Harber, L. R., 6 Q. B. 77; Ex parte Cohen, L. R., 7 Ch. App. 20. See Ex parte Hawker, L. R., 7 Ch. App. 214. But either in the case of a trader or non-trader, see Re Wood, L. R., 7 Ch. App. 302.

(2) Heilbut v. Nevill, L. R., 5 C. P. 478.

(x) Lacon v. Liffen, 32 Law J., Ch. 315. Addison on Contracts, 6th ed., p. 156. Bills v. Smith, 34 L. J., Q. B. 68.

(y) Which is a re-enactment of the 24 & 25 Vict. c. 134, s. 73. See Woodhouse v. Murray, L. R., 2 Q. B. 634; 4 Ibid. 27.

(*) Allen v. Bonnett, L. R. 5 Ch. App. 577. See Re Colemere, L. R., 1 Ch. App. 128. Ex parte Foxley, L. R., 3 Ch. App. 515. But under some circumstances it may be. Ex parte Fisher, L. R., 7 Ch. App. 636.

the advance is for the purpose of satisfying an existing debt,(a) and there be power to seize all after-acquired property. (b) Nor is a bona fide transfer of all the trader's property, under pressure, unless a fraudulent preference, voidable by the trustee, in cases where there is no relation back of his title. (c) An assignment by a debtor of his property to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors, is an act of bankruptcy. (d) And so is the filing of a petition for liquidation by arrangement under s. 125. (c)

The 6th section of the Act enacts that any fraudulent conveyance, gift, delivery, or transfer (í. e., a conveyance or transfer fraudulent in fact, e. g., without consideration), by a debtor of his property or any part thereof, shall be an act of bankruptcy; and the 92nd section enacts that every conveyance or transfer of property or charge thereon, &c., except to a purchaser, payee, or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration (f), made by any person unable to pay his debts as they become due from his own money, in favor of any creditor or in trust for him, with a view of giving such a creditor a preference over the other creditors, shall be deemed fraudulent and void as against the trustee in bankrupty, if the person making such conveyance transfer, &c., become bankrupt within three months afterwards. It has been held, however, that this section has not altered the law with respect to fraudulent preferences, and that it is still necessary, in order to constitute a fraudulent preference, that the conveyance or transfer be made voluntarily and in contemplation of bankruptcy, and that if made upon pressure, the intention of the bankrupt to prefer one creditor to another is not material (g); and further, that if the payment be made without any view of preferring one creditor to another, it is not a fraudulent preference, although made without pressure by a person unable to pay his debts as they became due. (h)

506. Exccutions levied on the property of bankrupts.—The 6th section of the Act further provides, that any execution, for 50%. and upwards, levied by seizure and sale on the pro

(a) Lomax v. Buxton, L. R., 6 C.P. 107. (b) Hutton v. Cruttwell, 1 E. & B. 15. (c) Jones v. Harber, L. R., 6 Q. B. 77. (d) Sect. 6. And see Ponsford v. Walton, L. R., 3 C. P. 167. Ex parte Squire, L. R., 4 Ch. App. 47.

(e) Ex parte Duignan, L. R., 11 Eq. Ca.

604; 6 Ch. App. 605.

(f) Ex parte Blackburn, L. R., 12 Eq. Ca. 358.

(g) Ex parte Craven, L. R., 10 Eq. Ca 648; L. R., 6 Ch. App. 70.

24.

(h) E parte Bolland, L R., 7 Ch. App.

perty of a trader, shall be an act of bankruptcy; and the 87th section provides that the sheriff or baliff of the County Court shall in such cases retain the proceeds of the sale in their hands for a period of fourteen days, in trust to pay them over to the trustee in bankruptcy, if a petition for adjudication or liquidation by arrangement () be presented within that time; but if no petition be presented, then to the execution creditor. If the goods remain unsold in the hands of the sheriff at the time of the appointment of the trustee in bankruptcy, he is entitled to them against the execution creditor. (j) Subject, however, to the above provisions, any execution. against the bankrupt's land or goods, executed in good faith by seizure in case of land, and by seizure and sale in case of goods before the adjudication, and without notice of any previous act of bankruptcy, is valid (s. 94.)

Where an execution has been levied, but between the time of the seizure and sale a trustee in bankruptcy or in liquidation has been appointed, the title of the latter will prevail by relation over that of the execution creditor, if the act of bankruptcy preceded the seizure, although the sale has been delayed by an injunction, under s. 13; (k) a fortiori, therefore, if the seizure has been completed by sale, it will not be defeated by notice of an act of bankruptcy committed subsequently to the seizure. But the goods must have been seized before the act of bankruptcy, for the mere delivery of a writ of fi. fa. to the sheriff before the act of bankruptcy is not sufficient as against a trustee in bankruptcy subsequently appointed. (7) If the creditors of the debtor prefer to accept a composition. under s. 126, the execution creditor will be entitled to the proceeds of the execution. (m)

The notice, which the execution creditor must have, must be of an act of bankruptcy committed previous to the seizure, () and it must convey specific information as to the acts constituting the act of bankruptcy. A notice, stating circum

(i) Ex parte Key, L. R., 10 Eq. Ca.

432.

(j) Ex parte Raynor, L. R., 7 Ch. App. 325.

(k) Ex parte Veness, L. R., 10 Eq. Ca. 419. Slater v. Pinder, L. R., 6 Exch. 228; 7 id. 95. Ex parte Duignan, L. R., 1. Ca. 604; 6 Ch. App. 605. Ex

parte Rocke, L. R., 6 Ch. App., 795.

(1) Ex parte Todhunter, L. R., 10 Eq. Ca. 425. Ex parte Williams, L. R., 7 Ch. App. 314.

(m) Ex parte Sheriff of Middlesex, L. R., 12 Eq. Ca. 207.

(n) Ex parte Todhunter, L. R., 10 Eq. Ca. 425.

stances which may or may not amount to an act of bank. ruptcy, is insufficient. (0)

507. Title of trust in bankruptcy to property settled or transferred by bankrupt.-By s. 91 of the Act, (p) it is further provided that any settlement, conveyance, or transfer of property, made by a trader, shall be void against the trustee, if the settlor becomes bankrupt within two years from the date of the settlement or transfer, and shall also be void if the settlor becomes bankrupt within ten years, unless at the date of the settlement the settlor was able to pay all his debts without the aid of the property comprised in it. But this section does not apply to settlements or transfers made before and in consideration of marriage, nor to a purchaser or incumbrancer in good faith and for valuable consideration, nor to settlements, &c., made on the settlor's wife or children of property which has accrued to him in right of his wife after marriage. Any covenant or contract made by a trader in consideration of marriage for the future settlement of property in which he had not at the time of the marriage any interest vested or contingent, is also void against the trustee, if the property has not been transferred, or money, &c., paid before the bankruptcy; but this does not apply to property to which the bankrupt becomes entitled in right of his wife.

508. Title to chattels of which a bankrupt was reputed owner at the time of his bankruptcy.-By s. 15 of the Act (q) it is further enacted, that the property of the bankrupt, divisible amongst his creditors, shall comprise all goods and chattels being at the commencement of the bankruptcy in the possession, order, or disposition of the bankrupt, with the consent and permission of the true owner, of which goods and chattels the bankrupt is reputed owner, or of which he has taken upon himself the sale, or disposition as owner; () but no chose in action, other than debts due to the bankrupt in his trade or business, are to be deemed goods and chattels within the section. This section probably extends to chattels which were in the order and disposition of the bankrupt at the time of his committing any act of bank

(0) Evans v. Hallam, L. R., 6 Q. B. 713.

(p) This section is in substitution of s. 126 of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 15.

(4) Which is substantially a re-enact ment of 12 & 13 Vict. c. 106, s. 125. (r) See Hornsby v. Miller, 28 L. J., Q. B. 99.

ruptcy capable of supporting the adjudication, though such act be prior to the act on which the adjudication is founded. (s) But it would not, semble, oust the jurisdiction of the courts of common law or Chancery to decide what goods were in the reputed ownership of the bankrupt or not. (t)

509. Recovery of possession of the goods by the true owner before notice of the act of bankruptcy.—If, before the adjudication and without notice of an act of bankruptcy, the true owner has actually taken the goods out of the possession, order, and disposition of the bankrupt, his title will prevail over that of the trustee. (u) If, before the adjudication, and after the act of bankruptcy, the owner has, bonâ fide and without notice of the act of bankruptcy, done anything which before an act of bankruptcy would have been sufficient to determine his permission and consent to the goods remaining in the possession, order, and disposition of the bankrupt, so that a subsequent act of bankruptcy would not have subjected the goods to be dealt with under the clause respecting reputed ownership, his title will prevail, although he had not, before notice, succeeded in obtaining the actual possession of the goods. If, before the date of the adjudication, and before notice of an act of bankruptcy, he has bonâ fide demanded the goods, and, communicating with the bankrupt, has done thất which shows that the goods did no longer, with his consent and permission, remain in the possession, order, and disposition of the bankrupt, his title will not be defeated by a prior secret act of bankruptcy. But a But a mere intention to demand the goods, and to get possession of them, is not a "dealing" within the meaning of the statute. (x) And if his consent has not been withdrawn, and it appears that, at the time he got back his goods, he was cognizant of an act of bankruptcy having been committed by the bankrupt, the title of the trustee will prevail, and will relate back to the period of the commission of such act of bankruptcy. (y)

510. What things are comprehended under the words "goods and chattels."-These words extend only to chattels personal,

(s) See Stansfield v. Cubitt, 2 De G. & J. 222.

(1) See Mather v. Lay, 2 J. & H. 374. Graham v. Furber, 14 C. B. 157; Law J., C. P. 10.

(u) Graham v. Furber, 14 C. B. 134.

23

(x) Brewin v. Short, 5 Ell. & Bl. 237. Young v. Hope, 2 Exch. 109. Pariente v. Pennell, 2 Mood. & Rob. 578.

(y) Fawcett v. Fearne, 6 Q. B. 28, Heslop v. Baker, 8 Exch. 423; 20 Law J., Exch. 350.