his children, the settlor's father at the Hillman, Ex parte, Pumfrey, Ir Settlement-Costs of Trustees of Br settlor of a post-nuptial settle an action to set it aside. The tr ettlement defended the action, which re ed with costs, but the costs were d Jettlor became bankrupt within two Je date of the settlement, which est came void unders. 47 of the Bankrup 3:-Held, that, as the settlement vo y valid, and as the costs of the art n incurred by the trustees in the p e of their duty as trustees, ther as against the official receiver, ta rust fund for such costs. Ib. pective Effect of Bankruptcy Art – of the Bankruptcy Act. 1883. rtain voluntary settlements executed it pt, is not retrospective (ie, does settlements executed before the o operation) so far as its proses m those of s. 91 of the Bankraper Therefore it does not apply executed by a non-trader before the into operation, and a provision that executed within ten years before the of the settlor shall be void as agains in the bankruptcy, unless the parts ader the settlement can prove th the settlor in the settled property e trustees of the settlement on the hereof, does not apply to any se ted before the Act came into oper ord Esher, M.R., and Lopes, L trospective so far as it is a re-enact 1 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1968Quære, whether s. 47 is retrospe Todd, Ex parte, Ashcroft, la rt, 19 Q. B. D. 186; 56 L. J., Q. B. 431; 57 L. T. | his petition, executed an assignment of the lea 835; 35 W. R. 676; 4 M. B. R. 209—C. A. goodwill, and stock of one of the premises to judgment creditor who was threatening to le execution in full satisfaction of the whole jud ment debt, the judgment creditor undertaki to redeem the lease which had been mortgage and to pay rent, &c. :-Held, that there was proof that the debtor's motive was to prefer t creditor; that at the time of the assignment t judgment creditor could seize and have his de paid out of the goods at both the places of bu ness of the debtor, and that the effect of t assignment was to relieve the debtor of liabili at one place of business, and could not be deem a fraudulent preference. Official Receiver, i parte, Wilkinson, In re, 1 M. B. R. 65—Cave, "Settlement" - What is - Voluntary. ]-In 1877 a trader executed a voluntary deed, which recited that he desired to settle certain shares in a company, upon the trusts therein declared, for the benefit of his wife, himself, and his children, and that he was about to transfer the shares into the names of two persons therein named as trustees. And it was agreed that the trustees should stand possessed of the shares, so soon as the same should be transferred to them, upon trust to pay the dividends to the wife during her life, for her separate use without power of anticipation, and after her death upon certain trusts for the benefit of the settlor, and the issue of the marriage. The deed did not contain any "Suffering Judicial Proceedings" — Non-a Covenant by the settlor to transfer the shares to pearance to Writ.]-A debtor failed to enter the trustees. At the date of the deed the shares appearance to a specially endorsed writ served were standing in his name. On its execution the him by his father-in-law. Judgment was sign certificates were handed over to the trustees, on the 15th of May (the earliest day possible who shortly after gave notice of the deed to the a writ of elegit was issued the same day, and company. The settlor continued to receive the the 16th of May the sheriff seized the defendan dividends as he had done before, and applied goods. The inquisition was held on the 19th them to his own use. In 1886 he transferred May, and the goods were delivered to the plai the shares into the names of the trustees, and tiff in part satisfaction of his debt. On the 221 was soon afterwards adjudicated a bankrupt ::- of May the defendant filed a liquidation petitio Held, by Lord Esher, M.R., and Lopes, L.J., that and his statement of affairs showed that his deb the deed of 1877, inasmuch as it imposed no were 6,5421. and his assets 6077. He had con legal obligation on the settlor with regard to mitted no act of bankruptcy before the filing the shares, was not a "settlement" within the the petition. He had before the writ was issu meaning of s. 47.-But held, by all the court, been advised by a solicitor, who acted for t that the transfer of the shares to the trustees in father-in-law, and who issued the writ an 1886 was a "settlement" within s. 47, and that, signed the judgment on his behalf. The debt being voluntary and made after the Act came also consulted that solicitor after the issue of t into operation, and within two years before the elegit, and that solicitor filed the petition f adjudication of bankruptcy, it was void as against him. The trustee in the liquidation claimed the trustee in the bankruptcy. Ib. See also set aside the judgment and the subsequent pr Harvey, Ex parte, Player, In re, post, col. 167. ceedings under it as a fraudulent preference: Held, that though the circumstances were su Money advanced by Wife to Husband--Cove-picious, yet, having regard especially to the fa nant to Settle.]-H. was married to his wife in that, when the transactions took place, no crec 1864, and she subsequently became entitled to tor was in a position to take proceedings certain moneys under the wills of her father and bankruptcy against the debtor, he not havin grandfather. These moneys she lent to her hus- committed any act of bankruptcy, the trust band for the purposes of his business, upon the had failed to prove that the debtor had allow terms that he would execute a settlement of the judgment to go against him by default with t moneys upon her, which was done. Upon the view of preferring the father-in-law. Lancaste bankruptcy of H. a proof was tendered upon the Ex parte, Marsden, In re, 25 Ch. D. 311; 53 L. settlement, and rejected on the ground that it Ch.1123; 50 L. T. 223; 32 W. R. 483—C. A. was a voluntary settlement within the meaning of section 91 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869 :Held, that the settlement being a mere contract, and not a dealing with property, was not within section 91 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869. Home, Ex parte, Home, In re, 54 L. T. 301-Cave, J. Semble, that the transaction was upheld on the ground of bona fides, and that if the court had found that the intention of the parties had been that the settlement should make the husband absolute owner, and at the same time secure the moneys to the wife, it would have declared the settlement void as a fraud on the bankruptcy law. lb. A fraudulent preference is not per se an a of bankruptcy. But held, upon the evidenc that a certain transaction between a son and h father, upon the eve of the bankruptcy of t former, was not a fraudulent preference. Ex parte, Kemp, In re, 49 L. T. 809; 32 W. 296-C. J. B. Luc Pressure of Creditor on Bankrupt.]-Sectio 53 of the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Ac 1872 (35 & 36 Vict. c. 8), avoiding preferenc given within three months before bankruptc has not altered the old law, which permitte such transactions, if carried out at arm's lengt under coercion or pressure-e.g., a threat Fraudulent Conveyances-13 Eliz. c. 5.]-See prosecution; and a security granted under suc FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE. 4. FRAUDULENT PREFERENCES. circumstances is not invalid, as being based upo an agreement to stifle a prosecution if there no contract on the part of the creditor to pe manently abandon criminal proceedings. T Assignment of Lease, Goodwill and Stock.]—principle above stated :-Held, applicable to th The debtor, who carried on business at two case of a commercial traveller, who was also different premises, within a few days of filing customer, of a wholesale grocery firm, and wh G in the former capacity having in his hands moneys | clearly a fraudulen of the firm, as well as being indebted to them facts of the case, th for goods supplied, on the eve of bankruptcy de- time of the paymen livered to them, upon a threat of immediate independently of t prosecution, certain unopened chests of tea goods sold, such pay which he had received from them, and also gave Receiver, Ex parte them a mortgage security for the balance of his -Cave, J. debt. Boyd, In re, 15 L. R. Ir. 521-C. A. Alleged Purchase Where a creditor ha bankruptcy refused debtor, but subseque of the debt to a fri stated to be willing full value, and it a purchaser was altoge the money paid to th borrowed by the deb a few days prior to a against him :-Held, ruptcy was entitled Daniel, Ex parte, Ro Motive of Debtor-Payment to make good Breach of Trust.]-In order that a payment or transfer of property, made by a bankrupt within three months before the presentation of the petition on which he was adjudicated a bankrupt, should amount to a fraudulent preference within s. 48 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, it is essential that it should have been made by him "with a view of giving a preference" to the creditor to whom it was made; it is not sufficient that the creditor was in fact preferred. The court must, therefore, in each case consider as a question of fact what was the real or dominant motive of the bankrupt in making the payment or trans--Cave, J. fer, and, if the court comes to the conclusion that the bankrupt's real motive was (e.g.) to save Assignment of Pro himself from exposure or from a criminal-G., a farmer, whose prosecution, the payment or transfer is not a in September, 1884, p fraudulent preference. It is also essential that stock in the hands of the relation of debtor and creditor should have and in order to prever existed between the parties at the time when for 1301. against him, the payment or transfer was made. Conse- for 387., from stoppir quently, a voluntary payment to make good a gave the following breach of trust committed by the bankrupt is auctioneer:-"I autho not within s. 48. Stubbins, Ex parte (17 Ch. D. to H. out of the first ]| 58), followed. Taylor, Ex parte, Goldsmid, In farming live and dead re, 18 Q. B. D. 295; 56 L. J., Q. B. 195; 35 W. landlord's claim for re R. 148-C. A. the amount due from Payments made previous to bankruptcy, in restitution of a breach of trust by a person "unable to pay his debts as they become due" cannot be recovered by the trustee on the ground of fraudulent preference, since the relation of debtor and creditor has been held not to be created between co-trustees, or between a trustee and his cestui que trust, within the meaning of s. 48 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. Stubbins, Ex parte (17 Ch. D. 58), and Taylor, Ex parte (18 Q. B. D. 295), followed. Ball, Ex parte, Hutchinson, In re, 35 W. R. 264-C. A. Payment to Creditor with object of benefiting Debtor's Surety.]-A payment that is made by a debtor on the eve of bankruptcy to a particular creditor, not with the object of preferring that creditor, but with the object of benefiting the debtor's surety, is not a payment "with a view of giving such creditor a preference over the other creditors" within the meaning of s. 48 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, and is therefore not void as against the trustee in bankruptcy. Official Receiver, Ex parte, Mills, In re, 58 L. T. 871; 5 M. B. R. 55-C. A. On an application by the trustee to declare void, on the ground of fraudulent preference, an assignment of certain patent rights, and also the payment of a sum of money made by the debtor within three months of a bankruptcy petition being presented against him, to his uncle, who had guaranteed the payment of a debt due from such debtor to another person, the objection was raised that the payment now sought to be set aside had been made in consequence of the guarantee and not "in favour of any creditor: "-Held, that the assignment was appropriate the sum of of such sale for the pu cordingly-Dated, Au owed other debts of ab sold by the auctioneer 2761. gross. The net p rent amounted to 142 made on October 22. sold or paid for by the 1481., and G.'s furnitu property. The trustee 1427.-Held, that H. and the transaction in lent preference. Jenk In re, 33 W. R. 523; 2 5. ASSIGNMENT Moneys due under building contract provi be made, as the work p account of the price o stated in the certifica certificates to be give cretion at the rate of contract value of the of such certificates, an per cent. should be ret of the work. The cont ing owners, in the ever mitting an act of bank from the further exe employ some other per deduct the amount pai completing the same The contractors assign clearly a fraudulent preference, and that t acts of the case, the uncle of the debtor at ime of the payment of the money to him ber ndependently of the guarantee a credite oods sold, such payment was also void. Of Receiver, Ex parte, Bear, In re, 3 M. B. RE -Cave, J. Alleged Purchase of Debt by Third Party here a creditor having knowledge of ma nkruptcy refused to accept money fai btor, but subsequently executed an assigne the debt to a friend of the debtor who ted to be willing to purchase the detri 1 value, and it appeared that such all chaser was altogether ignorant of the man money paid to the creditor being in nat Towed by the debtor himself for that purs w days prior to a receiving order being inst him :-Held, that the trustee in h tcy was entitled to the money so p iel, Ex parte, Roberts, In re, 5 M. &. L.. ave, J. ssignment of Proceeds of Sale of Property in the hands of an auctioneer to realn the following letter addressed to 2 oneer:-"I authorise and request you top out of the first proceeds of the sale of ng live and dead stock (after satisfying ord's claim for rent) the sum of 1631, b mount due from me to him, and I herer priate the sum of 1681. out of the process h sale for the purpose of such payment gly-Dated, August 18, 1881. G. the other debts of about 150%. The goods ver y the auctioneer on August 21, and reali Cross. The net proceeds after paymen mounted to 1421. A receiving order The crops on the fam on October 22. paid for by the incoming tenant realise nd G.'s furniture 121. G. had no other y. The trustee in bankruptcy claimed the -Held, that H. was entitled to the 1 e transaction in question was not afrai Jenkins, Ex parte, Glas eference. 3 W. R. 523; 2 M. B. R. 71—Cave, J. ASSIGNMENTS OF PROPERTY. The contract empowered the build- 1 tion moneys, i.e., the price of work done under See also Official Receiver, Ex parte, Richar the contract retained under the before-mentioned In re, 32 W. R. 1001; 1 M. B. R. 242-Wills, provision, by way of mortgage to secure a debt, A trader assigned substantially the wh and notice of the assignment was given to the of his property to a creditor in considerat building owners. After making such assignment of a release by the creditor of the debt. Th the contractors filed a petition for liquidation, was a secret verbal agreement that the assign the works then remaining incomplete. A trustee should pay the assignor's debts, and in p in liquidation and a committee of inspection suance of this the assignee paid out seve were appointed. The trustee, in pursuance of a executions and also paid some arrears of r resolution of the committee, completed the work, due to the landlord of the assignor. On it be himself advancing money for that purpose, of decided that the deed was void as against which an amount exceeding that of the retention assignor's trustee in bankruptcy :-Held, t moneys assigned as aforesaid was still unpaid, the assignee was not entitled to payment in f there being no other assets from which he could out of the bankrupt's estate of the sums wh be recouped in respect thereof. The trustee he had paid under the agreement, but that and the mortgagees both claimed the amount of could only prove for them in the bankrupt the retention moneys assigned as aforesaid from Chaplin, Ex parte, Sinclair, In re, 26 Ch. D. 31 the building owners. On an interpleader issue 53 L. J., Ch. 732; 51 L. T. 345-C. A. to try the title to such moneys :-Held, that, in the absence of anything to show that the building owners had exercised the power of taking the work out of the contractor's hands, the trustee must be taken to have completed the work under the original contract as trustee of the contractors' estate, and not as a person employed to complete the work in substitution for the contractors; that the assignment of the retention moneys held good as against the trustee; and that the mortgagees were therefore entitled to succeed. Tooth v. Hallett (4 L. R., Ch. 242) distinguished. Drew v. Josolyne, 18 Q. B. D. 590; 56 L. J., Q. B. 490; 57 L. T. 5; 35 W. R. 570-C. A. A shipbuilder agreed to build a vessel, the price to be paid in specified instalments. Part of the work having been done, but less than the value of such part having been paid to the builder, he charged in favour of a creditor the instalment due to him on the delivery of the vessel. Before the ship was completed he became bankrupt. The trustee in the bankruptcy completed the vessel, and in so doing expended less than the amount which remained to be paid by the purchaser :-Held, that the charge, being upon money which had been already earned by the builder, was valid as against the trustee. Nicholls, Ex parte (22 Ch. D. 782) and Tooth v. Hallett (4 L. R., Ch. 242) distinguished. Moss, Ex parte, Toward, In re, 14 Q. B. D. 310-C. A. Affirming 54 L. J., Q. B. 126; 52 L. T. 188-D. Materials Used by Bankrupt in Execution of Contracts.]-See Barter, Ex parte, Walker, In re, ante, col. 134. Benefit of Creditors-Rights of Trustee under Deed and Official Receiver.]-When a debtor executes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, and the trustee carries on the business under the deed, receiving and making payments until a receiving order is made in bankruptcy on the petition of certain creditors who have not signed the deed, and whose petition is founded on the general assignment as an act of bankruptcy, the official receiver is entitled to delivery up of the property in the possession of the trustee under the deed, and an account from him of the value of the property of the debtor, of which he took possession and which he has converted, i.e., an account treating him as a trespasser, or he may adopt his actions and have an account treating the trustee as his agent. Vaughan, Ex parte, Riddeough, In re, 14 Q. B. D. 25; 33 W. B. 151; 1 M. B. R. 258-D. On 20th August, 1885, in pursuance of a reso tion passed at a meeting of creditors, the deb executed a deed of assignment vesting the est in a trustee for their benefit. On 28th Octob 1885, a petition was presented against the debt the act of bankruptcy alleged being the exe tion of the deed; and on 31st October t trustee under the deed paid out of moneys c lected by him from the assets, the sum of 201. a firm of solicitors, being the amount of th bill of costs incurred in connexion with t meeting of creditors, and collecting certain bod debts and in preparing the deed of assignme On the 20th January, 1886, a receiving order w made against the debtor, and subsequently t trustee under the deed sent to the official receiv a cheque for the balance in his hands after ducting the amount paid to his solicitors, togeth with an account of receipts and payments connexion with the estate :-Held, that t trustee under the deed must refund the mon so paid to the solicitors. Rawlings, Ex par Forster, In re, 58 L. T. 114; 36 W. R. 144 M. B. R. 292-Cave, J. Application for re-payment of Mon paid at Creditors' request before Receivi Order.]-In June, 1886, the debtor executed assignment for the benefit of his creditors, und which the applicant was employed to prepare statement of affairs, and, it appearing that t landlord was threatening a distress for rent, t applicant, upon the instructions of the credito paid the amount due. In July, 1886, a receivi order was made against the debtor, and t official receiver declined to repay the money advanced by the applicant for the benefit of t creditors without an order of the court :-Hel that under the circumstances and looking the fact that a majority of the creditors number and value were of opinion that t payment made by the applicant was benefici and should be refunded, repayment ought to allowed, but that the official receiver was e titled to deduct his costs of the hearing fro the amount. Lovering, Ex parte, Ayshfor In re, 35 W. R. 652; 4 M. B. R. 164-Cave, J. 6. OTHER DEALINGS BY BANKRUPT. Advance to Son to Start in Business.]-T bankrupt, in or about 1882, more than two yea before bankruptcy, advanced to his son E. t sum of 650l. to purchase building stock and s up in business. E. found 1501. for capital, an G 2 carried on the business, and at the date of the | shire Banking Com bankruptcy was possessed of stock and capital In re, 14 Q. B. D. 32 to the value of about 500l. :-Held, that, this 261-D. was not a voluntary settlement under s. 47 as interpreted by sub-s. 3 of that section. Harvey, Ex parte, Player, In re, 15 Q. B. D. 682; 54 L. J., Q. B. 554-D. Gift of Chattels.]-In 1866 A., soon after the birth of his son T., purchased a pipe of wine for his son, and had it bottled and laid down in his cellar, and from that time it remained intact in the cellar and was known in the family and amongst their friends as T.'s wine. In 1885 A. became bankrupt :-Held, that there was not sufficient evidence of an intention to make an immediate present gift of the wine to T., and that it passed to the trustee in bankruptcy. Ridgway, Ex parte, Ridgway, In re, 15 Q. B. D. 447; 54 L. J., Q. B. 570; 34 W. R. 80; 2 M. B. R. 248-Cave, J. Transfer of Shares to Son.]-The bankrupt, in 1880, handed to his son a sum of money to be invested in shares in a ship, which was so invested by the son. The shares were afterwards sold by the son for 4501., which sum he handed over to his sister upon a sort of implied trust for the benefit of their father and mother:-Held, that handing the sum for investment was a conveyance or transfer of property within the meaning of 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 47, sub-s. 3. Harvey, Ex parte, Player, In re, 54 L. J., Q. B. 553; 53 L. T. 768-D. Money paid to Av rupt, after the mak pays money out of under an order of c the date of the re in payment of an debt, the money so the trustee in bankr Ryley, In re, 15 Q. 420; 33 W. R. 656; Compare Manning, W. R. 111-C. A. Money paid by Deb Petition.]-On the pr petition against a deb appointment of an int made, such debtor in oppose the petition, a interim order, and the his request 251. on acc fees and other expense application to rescind t missed, and the debtor cated bankrupt. The t thereupon claimed the as money received by h knowledge of the act the receiving order was application of the trust it was right that a de assistance and advice petition; and that a tically defenceless if m for services rendered or afterwards be recovered Ex parte, Sinclair, In 53 L. T. 767; 2 M. B. R 7. DEALINGS WIT AGE With regard to dealin perty after an act of bar mitted, an agent is on th persons. Gibson, Ex pa T. 817-D. Money paid to procure Withdrawal of Prosecution.]-A banking company commenced a prosecution against a customer for having obtained credit from them under false pretences, which is, by s. 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869, made a misdemeanor. At this time the bank had notice of an act of bankruptcy committed by the customer. On the day on which the summons was to be heard by the magistrate, H. (whose wife was an aunt of the customer's wife) signed an undertaking that, if the magistrate would allow the summons to be withdrawn, he would pay the bank the sum which the customer had obtained from them by the false pretences. An application was made to the magistrate by the customer's solicitor to allow the summons to be withdrawn. The application was assented to by the bank's solicitor, and was granted by the magistrate. H. then paid the money to the bank. The bank manager believed that H. was paying the money out of his own pocket. The customer was soon afterwards adjudicated a bankrupt, upon the act of bankruptcy of which the bank had notice. The trustee in the bankruptcy discovered that the money which H. had paid to the bank had been previously handed to him by the bankrupt's wife, she having, with the bankrupt's knowledge, taken it for the purpose of paying the bank out of a bag of money belonging to the bankrupt :Held, that, the consideration for the payment to the bank being the stifling of a prosecution, there was no legal consideration, and that, though H., being in pari delicto, could not have recovered the money from the bank, the trustee, to whom by virtue of the relation back of his title to the act of bankruptcy, the money really belonged, hands. Helder, Ex pa could recover it. Caldecott, Ex parte (4 Ch. D. Ch. D. 339; 53 L. J., 150) distinguished. Wolverhampton and Stafford--C. A. Payment by AgentPrincipal-Liability to agent, who, in obedience tion of his principal, pa principal which is in his he makes the payment (t when he received the mo will when completed com ruptcy on the part of the to the trustee in the sub the principal for the mor trustee could recover the only on the ground that money of the trustee, an money would become th on the completion of t to which his title would until after the money shire Banking Company, Ez parte, Comple In re, 14 Q. B. D. 32; 33 W. R. 642;1 M2 261-D. Money paid to Avoid Arrest.]-Where a haz upt, after the making of the receiving r ays money out of his estate to avoid an nder an order of commitment made pri he date of the receiving order for d payment of an instalment of a judg bt, the money so paid can be recovered e trustee in bankruptcy. Stewart, Expert yley, In re, 15 Q. B. D. 329; 54 LJ 0; 33 W. R. 656; 2 M. B. R. 171-Car mpare Manning, In re, 30 Ch. D. 48) R. 111-C. A. Money paid by Debtor to Solicitor to opp DEALINGS WITH PROPERTY BY regard to dealing with a debtor's pr ter an act of bankruptcy has been cuman agent is on the same footing as other Gibson, Ex parte, Lamb, In re, L D. ent by Agent-Act of Bankruptcy d 1-Liability to Repay to Trustee.]ho, in obedience to the previous dire is principal, pays away money of the which is in his hands, knowing before the payment (though he did not know eceived the money) that the payment completed constitute an act of bank the part of the principal, is not liable tee in the subsequent bankrupted al for the money so paid away. The d recover the money from the agent ground that he had paid away the he trustee, and in such a case the 1 become the trustee's money only pletion of the act of bankruptcy title would relate back, ie, not he money had left the agent's er, Er parte, Lewis, In re, 24 53 L. J., Ch. 106; 49 L. T. 612 169 BANKRUPTCY-Composition, Liquidation, &c. Payment by Bankrupt to Creditor's AgentLiability of Agent.]-Pending the hearing of a bankruptcy petition, and with notice of the act of bankruptcy on which it was founded, the solicitor of the petitioning creditor, as his agent, received from the debtor various sums of money as consideration for successive adjournments of the hearing of the petition, and these sums he paid over, or accounted for to his client (the petitioning creditor). Afterwards an adjudication was made on the petition :-Held, that the solicitor having received the money with notice of the act of bankruptcy to which the title of the trustee related back, the payment by him was a wrongful act, and he was liable to repay the money to the trustee, and was not discharged by the payment to his own principal. Edwards, Ex parte, Chapman, In re, 13 Q. B. D. 747; 51 L. T. 881; 33 W. R. 268; 1 M. B. R. 238-C. A. XII. COMPOSITION, LIQUIDATION, AND 1. Under the Bankruptcy Act, 1883. 1. UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY ACT, 1883. 17 bound to refuse to approve of it because t debtor has been guilty of offences under s. sub-s. 3, of the act. Kearsley, Ex parte, Gene In re, 18 Q. B. D. 168; 56 L. J., Q. B. 22 56 L. T. 79; 3 M. B. R. 274-C. A. In determining whether a composition accept by creditors under the provisions of s. 18 reasonable, the court must exercise its own jud ment, though it will take into account the fa that the creditors are mainly interested in t question. The court must have regard to t debtor's assets and liabilities, and if, for a lar proportion of the debts set down in his stateme of affairs, proofs have not been tendered, or the court considers that the proofs which ha been tendered require to be investigated by trustee, the court ought to decline to approve the composition. Rogers, Ex parte, Rogers, re, 13 Q. B. D. 438; 33 W. R. 354; 1 M. B. 159-D. The county court judge, before giving approval to a composition or scheme, which been accepted by the majority of credito should consider not only whether or not creditors are likely to be benefited by it, also the requirements of commercial morality examining into the conduct of the debtor w reference to trading. A. carried on busin and became bankrupt. After two years started in business again without capital, but t into partnership a man who had some capi The firm failed, and paid their creditors 38. 3 in the pound. Both partners applied for th discharge, but the court refused to discharge as he had committed certain offences under Bankruptcy Act. Two years afterwards, offered his creditors a composition of 1s. in pound, all the estate to be handed over to h and the bankruptcy annulled; the majority the creditors accepted the offer, but the cou court judge refused his approval:-Held, t the decision was correct, and that the appro must be refused. McTear, Ex parte, McT In re, 59 L. T. 150; 5 M. B. R. 182—D. By s. 18, sub-s. 6 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, -C. A. The registrar, in deciding whether he will or will not approve a composition or scheme of arrangement accepted by the creditors of a bankrupt, is exercising, a judicial discretion, and the Court of Appeal will not readily set aside his order. It is the duty of the registrar to form his own judgment, and not to be influenced by the wishes of the creditors. Campbell, Ex parte, Wallace, In re, 15 Q. B. D. 213; 54 L. J., Q. B. 382; 53 L. T. 208; 2 M. B. R. 167-C. A. In the exercise of his discretion as to the approval of a composition or scheme, the registrar ought to consider both the interest of the creditors and the conduct of the debtor, and if it is manifest that the composition or scheme is the best thing for the creditors, the registrar is not exercise of the discretion of the judge of f instance as to the approval of a composition scheme unless clearly satisfied that he was wro Rogers, Ex parte, Rogers, In re, supra; R Ex parte, Reed, In re, supra; Kearsley, parte, Genese, In re, supra, and cp. cases, p cols. 182, 182. "Injustice to Creditors."]-A schem arrangement confirmed by the creditors on exaggerated, but not fraudulent, valuation certain property of the debtor by which twe shillings in the pound was to be paid out of s property, and it was assigned to trustees for purpose:-Held, on its appearing that the perty did not realise enough to pay the comp tion, that the scheme could not "proceed with injustice to the creditors" within the mean of s. 18, sub-s. 11, of the Bankruptcy Act, the debtor was adjudicated bankrupt. M Ex parte, Moon, In re, 19 Q. B. D. 669; 56 L Q. B. 496; 35 W. R. 743; 4 M. B. R. 263-C Sale of Assets without the Jurisdicti -The debtors were merchants having a h in England and a house in South Amer Assets of large amount, forming the princ |