Carpenters.] By this it should seem is meant such a person as purchases timber, and other materials, which he works up as a carpenter, and not a person who merely works at the trade (u).

Shipwrights.] These were holden to be subject to the bankrupt laws, previously to the statute (x): not, it should seem, a person who merely works at the trade, but one who also purchases and furnishes the materials.

Victuallers.] Previously to this statute, being a victualler did not subject a man to the bankrupt laws (y); unless he sold liquors out of the house to any person who sent for them (z).

Keepers of Inns, Taverns, Hotels, or Coffee-houses.] An innkeeper, before this statute, was not subject to the bankrupt laws (a), unless he sold to any person out of the house who sent to purchase of him (6). And the same of coffee-house-keepers. Hotel-keepers, of course, were not within the former statutes. The keeper of a private lodging-house, who also seeks a profit by finding and cooking provisions for her lodgers, would be liable as an hotel-keeper, although the provisions were set apart as the separate property of each lodger (c); but otherwise if she does not sell provisions (d).

Dyers.] It should rather seem that dyers, previously to this statute, were not subject to the bankrupt laws (e).

Printers.] These have now been subjected to the bankrupt laws for the first time.

Bleachers.] These also do not seem to have been liable to be made bankrupts before this statute (ƒ).

Fullers.] These also were not subject to the bankrupt laws previously to this statute.

Calenderers.] These also were not subject to the bankrupt laws previously to this statute.

Cattle or Sheep Salesmen.] It has been doubted whether these were not rendered subject to the bankrupt laws by stat. 5 Geo. 2, c. 30, s. 32, as coming within the meaning of the term "factor" in that statute (g). It was thought proper, therefore, in the present statute, to put the matter out of doubt, by mentioning them specifically. A farmer, accustomed to purchase more sheep than necessary to stock his farm, and to sell the surplus at a profit, is a trader within this section (h).

And all persons, using the trade af merchandize by way of bargaining, exchange, bartering, commission, consignment, or otherwise, in gross or by retail.] This needs no explanation. The trade of merchandize means merely the purchasing of articles of merchandize for the purpose of selling them again at a profit. Upon the trade of buying and selling with a view to profit, we shall have occasion to make some observations presently.

And all persons who, either for themselves, or as agents or factors for others, seek their living by buying and selling, or by buying and letting for hire, or by the workmanship of goods or commodities.] And this, although they cannot be classed under any particular denomination, in which case they may be called "dealer and chapman," (meaning a person who buys and sells mere personal goods with a view to profit),-a denomination which, if supported by evidence, will support a fiat, although coupled with one which of itself would not indicate a trader (i).

In the repealed statute, 21 Jac. 1, c. 19, s. 2, the words are "All and every person and persons using, or that shall use, the trade of merchandize, by way of bargaining, exchange, bartering, chevisance, or otherwise, in gross or by retail, or seeking his or her living by buying and selling." The cases, therefore, which have been decided upon these words, buying and selling," in the statute of James I., will furnish us with the construction which should be given to the same words in the present statute.

66

First, then, as to buying and selling goods or commodities; it must be a buying and selling, or at least an intent to sell; for a buying alone, without an intent to sell (k), or a selling alone without a buying (1), will not constitute a trading within the meaning of this clause of the statute; and the buying must be a purchase in the common and ordinary, and not merely in the legal acceptation of the term (m). So, a livery-stable-keeper, as such, is not a trader liable to become bankrupt; but a person keeping a livery-stable, and buying hay, straw, and oats, which he supplies to horses standing in the stables, and sells to any person generally (n); or an apothecary who does not confine his sale of drugs to his patients, but sells them to any person who applies (0), is a trader; but if a man purchase goods for his own use, that will not make him a trader within this branch of the statute, even although he afterwards sell such of them as he may not have occasion for; because he does not seek his living by the buying and selling (p). On the other hand, if a man sell the produce of his land, even although he buy some other article to mix with it, in order to sell the produce so mixed to a greater advantage, it will not make him a trader within this clause of the

(i) See Er p. Herbert, 2 Rose, 248: Hale v. Small, 2 B. & B. 25.

(k) 1 Com. Dig. Bankrupt A. (7) Ib.

(m) Per Lord Loughborough, in Parker v. Wells, Cooke, 58.

(n) Cannan v. Denew, 3 M. & Scott, 761; 10 Bing. 292: Ex p. Lewis, 2 Dea.

318.

(0) Ex p. Daubeny, 2 Dea. 72; 3 Mon. & A. 16.

(p) See dict. of Lord Mansfield in Parker v. Wells, 1 T. R. 34: and see Summersett v. Jarvis, 3 Brod. & Bing. 2; 6 Moore, 56.

present act (q). But otherwise, where the produce of the land is merely the raw material of a manufacture, and the manufacture is not the usual or necessary mode of enjoying the land (r). If a man buy horses to sell again, with a view to profit, he is liable to be a bankrupt (s): but if he sell only such as he bred and reared himself, he is not. If a butcher buy sheep or cattle, kill and sell them, with a view to profit, he is liable to be a bankrupt (t); but if he kill and sell only such as he bred and reared himself, he is not. If a fisherman be in the habit of purchasing fish from others to sell again, with a view to profit, he is liable to be a bankrupt (u); but if he sell only such fish as have been caught by him, he is not. Persons who purchase coals to sell again, with a view to profit, are liable to be made bankrupts (x); but if they sell only such as they procure from their own mines, they are not (y). So a person who owns or rents a mine, works it, and sells the ore, &c., is not thereby subject to the bankrupt laws; for although he sells, he does not buy (z); and the same of a person who sells stones taken from his own quarry (a). So if a man makes bricks from his own land, as a mode of enjoying the profits of it, even although he make the bricks entirely for sale, and purchase sand and fuel, &c., for the purpose of making them, he is not a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws (b); or if he purchases chalk for the purpose of burning with the clay to improve the bricks, and sells a portion of the chalk when converted into lime (c); and this, whether he was a freeholder or termor merely (d); or a devisee for life (e); but if he bought the earth, as earth, by the load or otherwise, and manufactured it into bricks for the purpose of sale, that would render him liable to be a bankrupt (f). Therefore, where a man made bricks for sale, of earth dug and taken from the waste, without the assent of the lord, but afterwards paid to the lord a consideration for it, this was holden to be tantamount to a purchase of the earth, as earth, by license from the lord; and that, consequently, the party was a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws (g); but where a man entered into a contract for purchase of land, and, as part of the purchase-money, was to pay to the vendor four shillings for every thousand bricks made upon the land, and he made bricks from clay dug from the land, he was not a trader within the statute (h). And if a man make bricks for his own use merely, from earth either taken from his own land, or purchased by him, although he should sell some of them that he has not occasion to use, he is not thereby a trader within this statute (i). So, if a man burn lime for sale, from chalk or limestone

(q) Patten v. Brown, 7 Taunt. 409. (r) Wells v. Parker, 1 T. R. 34: S. C., 1 T. R. 783.

(8) Er p. Gibbs, 2 Rose, 38: Wright v. Bird, 1 Price, 20.

(t) Dally v. Smith, 4 Bur. 2148.
(u) Heaney v. Birch, 3 Camp. 233.
(1) Cooke, 48, 73.

(y) Port v. Turton, 2 Wils. 169.
(2) lb.

(a) Ec p. Gardner, 1 Rose, 377; 1 V. & B. 45.

(b) Parker v. Wells, supra: Cooke,

52-63: Sutton v. Weely, 7 East, 442.
(c) Paul v Dowling, 3 Car. & P. 500;
Mood. & M. 263.

(d) Ex p. Gallimore, 2 Rose, 424.
(e) Ex p. Burgess, 2 Glyn. & J. 183.
(f) Per Lord Loughborough in Parker
v. Wells, supra: Cooke, 58.

(g) Ex p. Harrison, 1 Bro. C. C. 173. (h) Heane v. Rogers, 4 Moore & P. 486; 9 B. & C. 577.

(i) Per Lord Mansfield, in Parker v. Wells, 1 T. R. 34.

obtained upon his own farm, that would not make him a trader within the meaning of the bankrupt laws (7); but if he purchased the chalk or limestone, and burnt it for sale, it would be otherwise (m). If a man purchase timber (even standing timber) to sell again, with a view to profit, he is liable to be a bankrupt (n); but if he sell only such as he cuts down upon his own land, he is not. So, if the owner of an estate, with a view to its improvement, build houses, and after happen to sell or let them, he is not a builder within the act; but if a person take a lease of land with carcases of houses thereon, and finish the houses, with intent to dispose of them at a profit, he is (o). If a man buy milk to sell it again, with a view to profit, he is liable to be a bankrupt; but if he sell the milk only which he procures from his own cows, even although he occasionally also sells the cows when they are no longer fit for that purpose, he is not (p). So, if a man buy cheese or cider, to sell again, with a view to profit, he is liable to be a bankrupt; but if he sell only the cheese which he has made from the milk of his own cows, or the cider which he makes from the fruit of his own trees, he is not (q). So, if a man purchase the whole daily impression of a newspaper to sell again, with a view to profit, and risks the loss of such as may remain unsold, he is liable to be a bankrupt (r). But merely labouring for hire will not render a man liable to be made a bankrupt within this clause of the statute, (see post), because there is neither a buying nor a selling. So, buying and selling government stock, or other public stocks or securities, does not render a man liable to be made a bankrupt, because they are not "goods or commodities" within the meaning of this clause of the statute (8). Nor will the buying and selling land, or any interest therein, make a man liable to be a bankrupt, for the same reason (t).

Secondly, as to buying and letting for hire: this did not constitute a trader, within the meaning of any of the repealed statutes. In this respect the law is altered by this statute; and now buying "goods and commodities," and letting them for hire, or buying them with intent to let them for hire, will constitute a man a trader, and render him liable to be made a bankrupt. So, a liverystable-keeper buying horses for the purpose of letting out, and occasionally letting them out without a horse-dealer's license, may become a bankrupt (u). But a person who buys furniture for the purpose of furnishing apartments, and lets the apartments so furnished (v), or the shareholders of a steam-packet, are not traders within this clause (x).

Thirdly, as to the workmanship of "goods and commodities:" it is necessary to remark, that purchasing the raw material, and

(1) Er p. Ridge, 1 Rose, 316.

(m) Paul v. Dowling, 3 Car. & P. 500.

(n) Holroyd v. Gwynne, 2 Taunt. 178. (0) Er p. Nerincka, 2 Mon. & A. 384; 1 Dea. 78.

(p) Carter v. Dean, 1 Swan. 64. (q) Per Lord Mansfield, in Parker v. Wells, 1 T. R. 34.

(r) Gimmingham v. Laing, 2 Marsh, 236; 6 Taunt. 532.

(8) Colt v. Netterville 2 P. Wms. 308. (t) See Port v. Turton, 2 Wils. 169. (u) Martin v. Nightingale, 11 Moore, 305.

(v) Ex p. Bowers, 2 Dea. 99; 3 Mon. & A. 33.

(1) Ex p. Wiswould, Mont. 263.

manufacturing it into a vendible article for the purpose of sale, and with a view to profit, was always holden to be a buying and selling within the former statutes of bankrupts, although part of the gain was to be derived from bodily labour (y). A butcher, who purchased sheep or cattle, and killed them for the purpose of sale, was holden liable to be a bankrupt (z). So a baker, who bought the flour of which he made his bread, &c. (a); a shoemaker, who purchased the leather, &c., of which he made his shoes (b); a tailor, who bought the cloth of which he made the clothes (c); a milliner, who bought the articles she used in making ladies' dresses, &c. (d); a clothier, who bought the wool or yarn of which he made his clothes (e); a tanner, who purchased the hides he tanned (ƒ); a goldsmith (g); locksmith (h); nailer (i); smith (k); plumber(7); paper-maker (m); painter (n); who purchased the raw material which they respectively manufactured and sold; the sugar-baker, who purchased the raw sugar he refined (o); the distiller, who purchased the corn or wash of which he made his spirits (p); the ironmanufacturer, who purchased the bar or rod iron he manufactured into wares, &c. (q), and the like, have respectively been holden subject to the bankrupt laws, under the former acts, as buying and selling with a view to profit. But if the manufacturer did not buy the raw material-as, for instance, in the case of the brick-maker who made bricks from the earth of his own lands, (ante, p. 41), the alum-maker who manufactured alum from his own lands, the cider-maker who manufactured his cider from the apples of his own orchard, (ante, p. 42), &c.-he was holden not to be a trader within the former statutes. In the present statute, however, where the words are "all persons who seek their living by the workmanship of goods or commodities," which do not certainly imply a buying to be necessary, but, on the contrary, are put in contradistinction to the words "buying and selling" in a preceding part of the clause, it should seem that all persons who manufactured goods for sale, with a view to profit, are within it, whether they purchase the raw material, or have it from their own land, &c., without purchase (s).

it

In order to make a man liable to be a bankrupt, "by buying and selling, or by the workmanship of goods or commodities," is necessary that there should have been a repeated practice of it, or a commencement of it coupled with an intention to continue it; for a single act of buying and selling, unaccompanied with such intention, will not be sufficient (s). But if this intention exist,