schedule, upon the trusts thereinafter eomate By the operative part the debtor, "for effens ng the said desire, and in pursuance ʼn aid agreement," assigned to the truste nd singular the several properties, chartek 2 ffects set forth in the said schedule bere 11 the estate, right, title, interest, clan, m mand of the debtor "in, to, and sprz Lid chattels, properties, and effects, asi her the estate (if any)" of the debtor s -btor was, under the trusts of a postEtlement, entitled to a life interest in ca operty. This life interest was not metha the schedule:-Held, that the general v the assignment were controlled by the ich showed that the deed was intended to y to the property specified in the schedule t the life interest did not pass to the ces, Ex parte, Moon, In re, 17 Q. B. D. 25 L. T. 114; 34 W. R. 752—C. A. reditors setting up adverse Claim—E - refused.]-Incumbrancers who had date -rity over a creditors' deed and failed in de cention, were not allowed afterwards t and take the benefit of the deed. e, Meredith v. Facey, 29 Ch. D. 745:3 -, Ch. 1106; 33 W. R. 778-Pearson, J. THE DISCHARGE AND RE-OPENE Discharge under the Bankruptcy do. under Prior Statutes. of Court where any Offences committe an application by a bankrupt fab re under s. 28 of the Bankruptcy here any of the offences specified in ) of that section are proved to have de ed, the court must either refuse t suspend its operation, or grant an ordr conditions; and the court cant ase grant an unconditional dischar Trade, Ex parte, Heap, In re, 4 X 2 Principles on which Court acts ring the question of a bankrupt's court is bound to have regard, not t s of the bankrupt, or of the cre lso to the interests of the public, and ial morality. Although facts lutely proved, which would, d 2, of the Bankruptcy Act, 19 court to refuse any discharge, misconduct within the section a part of the bankrupt, the court ified in declining to grant a onditions, and in making an order using to such bankrupt any d Badcock, Ez parte, Badcock, Is 138-D. of Bankrupt before Commence -Upon an application by a bank28 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1884 181 BANKRUPTCY-The Discharge and Re-opening. for an order of discharge, the court may take into consideration conduct of the bankrupt of the nature mentioned in sub-s. 3, though it took place before the commencement of the act, and in that sense s. 28 is retrospective. White, In re (33 L. J., Bk. 22), explained and distinguished. Salaman, Ex parte, Salaman, In re, 14 Q. B. D. 936; 54 L. J., Q. B. 238; 52 L. T. 378 ; 2 M. B. R. 61-C. A. Bash and Hazardous Speculations.]-A solicitor who had no capital of his own bought land in the city of London by means of money which he borrowed on the security of mortgages of the land, his intention being to sell it at an advanced price. He afterwards borrowed more money on a further mortgage for the purpose of building on the land. The land was valued by professional valuers at considerably more than the amount borrowed. He was unable to sell or to let the property, and he became a bankrupt :Held, that he had been guilty of "rash and hazardous speculations," and that the registrar was right in granting him an order of discharge subject to the condition that, after setting aside out of his earnings 300l. a year for the maintenance of himself and his family, he should pay over to the official receiver the balance of his earnings, until he should have paid 108. in the pound on all the debts which had been, or might be, proved in the bankruptcy. Ib. See also ante, col. 172. Contracting Debt without Expectation of Paying.]-Two partners, who had no capital of their own, commenced business by means of borrowed money, assigning to the lender as security their leasehold premises, the goodwill of their business, and all their existing and afteracquired stock-in-trade, fixtures, furniture, and book-debts, giving him the power to take possession at any time. They contracted debts in carrying on the business, and became bankrupts. The mortgagee took possession under his deed, and his security was insufficient. The registrar granted the bankrupts a discharge, on condition of their consenting to judgment being entered up against them by the trustee for the whole of the debts provable in the bankruptcy-Held, that the bankrupts had contracted debts without having at the time of contracting them any reasonable or probable ground of expectation of being able to pay them, and that the registrar's decision was right. White, Ex parte, White, In re, 14 Q. B. D. 600; 54 L. J., Q. B. 384; 33 W. R. 670; 2 M. B. R. 42—C. A. Judgment entered against Debtor for Debt.]A debtor at the time when the action was commenced in which final judgment was obtained against him, upon which the receiving order was subsequently made, carried on business in partnership with his father, and had a considerable income. During the pendency of the proceedings in the action, the debtor paid away the money belonging to him in the business, and also received notice from his father to quit the partnership. The county court judge granted the bankrupt his discharge on the terms that he should pay to the trustee in his bankruptcy the sum of 7007. out of his earnings or income or any after-acquired property :-Held, on appeal, that the order of the county court judge must be modified, and that there would be an order granting to the bankrupt his discharge on o senting to judgment being entered against in the terms of s. 28, sub-s. 6, of the Bankrup Act, 1883. Allestree, Ex parte, Clarkson, In 2 M. B. R. 219-D. An order was made by a county court jud directing that the discharge of the bankru should be allowed as soon as a sufficient s was paid to the trustee in the bankruptcy make up a dividend of 58. in the pound. appeal, the objection was taken that the or in question was wrong in form :-Held, that proper order to be made under the circumstan was that the discharge of the bankrupts sho be granted, subject to judgment being ente against them under s. 28, sub-s. 6, of the Ba ruptcy Act, 1883, for such amount and un such conditions as set out in the order. Sm Ex parte, Small, In re, 3 M. B. R. 296—D. Consent to Judgment, when Require -The court will not require a bankrupt, a condition of his discharge, to consent to ju ment being entered against him for the bala of his debts, unless there is some evidence t he is likely to acquire property sufficient satisfy such judgment. Arnaud, Er par Bullen, In re, 36 W. R. 836; 5 M. B. R. 243 C. A. Omission to keep "usual and proper Boof Account."]-By s. 28 of the Bankruptcy A 1883, it is provided that the court shall refus bankrupt an order of discharge, or suspend operation of the order, or grant a condition order, upon proof "that the bankrupt omitted to keep such books of account as usual and proper in the business carried on him, and as sufficiently disclose his busin transactions and financial position within three years immediately preceding his bar ruptcy." A bankrupt, who carried on busin as a hatter, bought some houses with the int tion of selling them at a profit for build purposes, and also incurred liabilities in p moting an hotel company. He had kept pro books of account in relation to his business as hatter, but he had kept no books in respect his purchases of houses, or of his transactio in relation to the hotel company :-Held, Lord Esher, M.R., and Lopes, L.J., that t bankrupt was not required to keep any bo relating to the building speculations, and th the omission to keep such books could not taken into account as a reason for refusing suspending his order of discharge :-By F L.J., that the building speculations were ness transactions, and that the bankrupt w bound to keep books in relation to them. Boa of Trade, Ex parte, Mutton, In re; or Mult Ex parte, Multon, In re, 19 Q. B. D. 102; L. J., Q. B. 395; 56 L. T. 802; 35 W. R. 561 M. B. R. 180-C. A. See Reed, Ex parte, Re In re, post, col. 187. bu Appeal from Discretion.]--Where all the fa have been brought before the registrar, and has exercised his discretion as to the terms which a bankrupt should obtain his dischar the Court of Appeal will not interfere with su decision on an allegation that the punishme imposed was too lenient, unless it is perfect clear that the decision was wrong. Cooper, parte, Chase, In re, 3 M. B. R. 228—C. Â. On an application by a bankrupt for his dis- | before his bankr charge, the official receiver reported that the examination for tl bankrupt had brought himself within the pro- on his interest, an visions of s. 28, sub-s. (3), of the Bankruptcy since then he ha Act, 1883, in that he had been guilty of rash and that he knew of n hazardous speculations by reason of certain submit to such an gambling transactions upon the Stock Exchange, FitzGerald dissenti and the county court judge refused to grant posed upon a banl any order of discharge :-Held, that under the ruptcy Act, 1883, to circumstances and taking into consideration the in relation to his pr facts that the bankrupt was not a trader, and of his property am that only one of the offences specified in the sub- reasonably required section had been reported against him, the proper to the utmost of his order was to suspend the order of discharge for his property and the three years. Rankin, Ex parte, Rankin, In re, among his creditors 5 M. B. R. 23-D. And see ante, col. 170. gation to submit to that the refusal to upon which the bar refused or suspende Trade v. Block, 13 A 113; 59 L. T. 734; Application for D Williams, Ex parte, W Ex parte, Rankin, Ir Wrong Conclusion of Fact.] Though the registrar has, under s. 28 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883, a judicial discretion as to granting, or refusing, or suspending a bankrupt's order of discharge, and the Court of Appeal will not-H. L. (E.). readily interfere with the exercise of his discretion, if he has taken a right view of the facts, yet if, in the opinion of that court, he has come to a wrong conclusion of fact with regard to the bankrupt's conduct, they will vary his decision by absolutely refusing an order of discharge when he has only suspended it. Castle Mail Packets Company, Er parte, Payne, In re, 18 Q. B. D. 154; 35 W. R. 89; 3 M. B. R. 270C. A. Report of Official Receiver Unfounded.] -Although the Divisional Court in Bankruptcy will not readily interfere with the exercise of the discretion of a county court judge refusing the discharge of a bankrupt, yet if the decision of such judge is founded solely on the report of the official receiver, and, on appeal, the statements contained in such report are proved to be unfounded and are capable of explanation, the Divisional Court will vary the order of the county court judge, and will grant to the bankrupt his order of discharge, subject to such conditions as in the nature of the case it may think fit. Sultzberger, Ex parte, Sultzberger, In re, 4 M. B. R. 82-D. Order made under a Mistake-Course to be pursued.]-After an order had been made suspending the discharge of a bankrupt for five years, certain facts were brought to the notice of the county court judge from which he came to the conclusion that the opinion he had formed of the debtor's conduct at the time of the application for discharge was a mistaken one. On appeal by the bankrupt from the order made on the application for his discharge :-Held, that the proper course was for the appeal to stand over in order that an application might be made to the county court judge to review his decision. Dowson, Ex parte, Dowson, In re, 4 M. B. R. 310-D. Duty of Debtor to aid in Realisation of Estate Medical Examination.]-The principal asset of a bankrupt was a contingent reversionary interest which was saleable if the bankrupt's life were insured. The trustee having requested the bankrupt to submit to a medical examination with a view to a policy being effected, the bankrupt refused to do so without giving any reason, although he had not long Registrar's Fee-C 501.-County Court.] grants a bankrupt hi consenting to judgme him by the trustee provable under the ba has jurisdiction under Rules, 1886, to enter u the amount exceeds silent as to fees, the any fee in respect of s re, 18 Q. B. D. 573; 56 R. 380; 4 M. B. R, 57 2. DISCHARGE UND Application for, befor of the creditors of a ba Meeting, how Summon ruptcy Act, 1869, is su (for the purpose, e.g., the creditors will assent bankrupt for an order necessary that it should of a notice sent by the in accordance with the is not necessary that adv in reference to the first ing should be published, Sect. 78 has not the effe Bankruptcy Rules into th construction. But even considered as, by virtue into the act, s. 21 does cable to meetings summ special provision for the meetings being made b parte, Cohen, In re, 13 Ch. 641; 50 L. T. 347; 3) Discharge by Composit Heintz, Ea parte, Heintz Certificate of Conformi ing Order.]-In July, 184 that the grant of a certific bankrupt be suspended for before his bankruptcy submitted to szi a Application for Discharge - Appeal - the period of suspension the Bankruptcy Act | and they tendered no proof in the liquidation Liability incurred by means of Fraud.]-Th directors of a bank passed resolutions for lo to be paid by the company to certain pers and the company afterwards sued anot director and recovered judgment against for some of the loans which were unpaid; in action by the director against his three directors, one of whom went into liquidat and obtained his discharge :- Held, that liability, being a "liability incurred by me of breach of trust" within the meaning of s of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, his discharge not release him. Ramskill v. Edwards, Ch. D. 100; 55 L. J., Ch. 81; 53 L. T. 9 34 W. R. 96-Pearson, J. A tenant in possession of premises under agreement for a lease for twenty-one years, f Michaelmas, 1861 (the lease to contain a co 3. RE-OPENING BANKRUPTCY. nant to repair and leave in repair) liquida by arrangement in 1872, and got his discha Fraud and Misrepresentation Burden of in 1880. The trustee took no steps with reg Proof.]—H. C. O. and E. having for some time to the premises which the tenant continued previous to 1879 carried on business in partner-occupy till Michaelmas, 1882 -Held, that ship, and the firm being at that time largely in- tenant was bound to leave the premises in debted, H. C. O., at that date, retired in favour state of repair required by the agreement. P of F. O., his son, leaving to him his share of the ford v. Abbott, 1 C. & E. 225-Lopes, J. debts and liabilities. H. C. O. retained a lien upon the partnership property. On the 12th July, 1879, H. C. O. died, having executed a codicil to his will authorising his executors to sell his share in the business. The executors allowed E. and F. O. to carry on the business subject to a lien upon the property, machinery, &c., retained by the executors. In May, 1880, F. O. and E. filed their petition, and a receiver was appointed, who carried on the business as tenant to the executors, and to whom E. and F. O. rendered a statement of affairs, from which it was alleged that a certain claim which the firm bad against J. was omitted, and in which a patent, which was afterwards sold for 8001., was said to have been mentioned as being of no value. On the 20th May a composition of 1s. 8d. was accepted, and the bankruptcy was closed. The trustee applied to the county court judge to reopen the bankruptcy, and appealed from his refusal to do so:-Held, that if it had been proved that the bankrupts were aware of their claims against J., and of the value of the patent at the time when the statement of affairs was made, the bankruptcy ought to be reopened, but that the trustee had failed to make out an affirmative case, and that the burden of proof lay upon him. Outram, In re, Marshall v. Edelston, 50 L. T. 592-Cave, J. CHARGE UNDER PRIOR STATUTEication for, before close of Bankruptryg, how Summoned.] — When a meal Preditors of a bankrupt under the Bati Act, 1869, is summoned by the tre purpose, e.g., of ascertaining whe tors will assent to an application by 2 for an order of discharge), it s 1 that it should be summoned by rec e sent by the trustee to each cred ance with the provisions of rule 574 essary that advertisements of the me be published, as provided by rale e to the first meeting of the creas s not the effect of incorporating Rules into the act for the purpos 1. But even if the rules are to be s, by virtue of s. 78, incorpente s. 21 does not make rule 89 app etings summoned by the trustee, i sion for the summoning of ng made by rule 95. Cohen, Er In re, 13 Q. B. D. 56; 53 L. J. T. 347; 32 W. R. 669—C. A y Composition Resolutions. rte, Heintz, In re, ante, col. 177. Conformity-Effect of Suspend July, 1848, an order was ma f a certificate of conformity to pended for three years. During 4. EFFECT OF DISCHARGE. Statute of Limitations.]-C., a bro sold without authority bonds left with him A., a customer, for safe custody, and misapp priated the proceeds. C. became bankrupt, the sale being then discovered, A. proved for value. The creditors passed a resolution un the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, s. 28, acceptin proposal that T., a friend of the bankr should pay a composition of 6d. in the po on all the debts in full discharge thereof, that on such payment the bankruptcy should annulled. A. received the composition, but not otherwise assent to the arrangement. August, 1880, the bankruptcy was annulled. May, 1886, an order in the Chancery Divis was made for administration of the estate of who had died in the interval:-Held, that debt due from C. to A. was incurred by fra within the meaning of s. 15 of the Debtors A 1869; that s. 15 applied not only to comp tions and arrangements under ss. 125 and 120 the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, but to arrangeme under s. 28, and that the debt, therefore, not discharged by the arrangement :- H also, that as the debt was incurred by fr which was not discovered till after the adju cation, and an action could not be brou while the bankruptcy was in force, the Stat of Limitations did not begin to run till the therefore, bound to bankruptcy was annulled, and as an order for bearing debts beyo administration was made within six years from parte, Sneyd, In re that time, A. was entitled to prove in the 545; 50 L. T. 109 administration for the unpaid part of his debt. Crosley, In re, Munns v. Burn, 35 Ch. D. 266; 57 L. T. 298; 35 W. R. 790-C. A. Estoppel.] sale on his furniture an advance. Befor instalment due und petition in bankrup affairs returned the ditors. The defend furniture, and the p pay their debt they composition of 2s. 6d and on the report sanctioned by the co including the defend "Obtaining credit "-Undischarged Bankrupt -Jurisdiction.-In order to convict an undischarged bankrupt under 46 & 47 Vict. c. 52, s. 31, of the offence of "obtaining credit to the amount of twenty pounds or upwards from any person without informing such person that he is an undischarged bankrupt," it is not necessary that there should be a stipulation to grant credit quently brought an in the contract between the parties; it is suffi-seizure of his goods, a cient if a credit in fact is obtained. The was invalid:-Held, prisoner, an undischarged bankrupt, living in the bankruptcy proce Newcastle-on-Tyne, bought a horse from the sale as valid, and obta prosecutor, a farmer in Ireland, for 221., free of to himself, could not expenses to the vendor, who by the prisoner's bill of sale was inval direction delivered the horse on board a steamer recover in this actio at Larne; no stipulation was made as to the Fund, 19 Q. B. D. 347 time or mode of payment, and the prisoner did W. R. 723-C. A. not disclose the fact that he was an undischarged bankrupt. The prisoner paid for the carriage of the horse on its delivery to him at Newcastle, and immediately sold it, and refused to pay the price to the prosecutor :- Held (Manisty, J., dissenting), that there was evidence to go to the jury of an obtaining of credit by the prisoner within the meaning of s. 31 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883-Held, also, that the offence was committed in Newcastle-under. on-Tyne. Reg. v. Peters, 16 Q. B. D. 636; 55 L. J., M. C. 173; 54 L. T. 545; 34 W. R. 399; 50 J. P. 631; 16 Cox, C. C. 36-C. C. R. Order for Goods less than £20, delivery of Goods over £20.]-The offence of obtaining credit to the extent of 207. or upwards by an undischarged bankrupt is committed where the bankrupt receives and keeps goods of the value of 201. or upwards without paying for them, or informing the creditor of the fact of his being an undischarged bankrupt, or repudiating the contract, although the goods were sent in execution of an order for goods of a less value than 201. Reg. v. Juby, 55 L. T. 788; 35 W. R. 168; 51 J. P. 310; 16 Cox, C. C. 160-C. C. R. Husband-Bankruptcy Ch. D. 24; 54 L. J., Ch. Order against, to pay jurisdiction to order an to pay costs. Castle Mai Payne, In re, 18 Q. B. I M. B. R. 270-C. A. Action for maliciously -A bankrupt whose adju has not been set aside can for maliciously procuring such an action may be upon summons as frivolous worth v. Hall (2 B. & Metropolitan Bank v. Po 54 L. J., Q. B. 449; 53 L. 49 J. P. 756-H. L. (E.). Action for Maintenance. maintain an action for ground that the defendant bankruptcy proceedings i common interest, since the any) passed to the trustee such an action may be sum summons as frivolous and v culate interest te The plaintiff gave a di proved for the resize osts-Action by Executrix u and obtained his discharge L. J., Ch. 844; 52 L. T. ¡¡4. ä nst, to pay Costs.]-The court be fo order an undischarged banku Castle Mail Packets Co., Ez per fe, 18 Q. B. D. 154; 35 W. RS -C. A. maliciously procuring Bankrupt? pt whose adjudication in bankrapo h set aside cannot maintain ana sly procuring the bankruptcy; etion may be summarily disse ons as frivolous and vexatious. Whe Hall (2 B. & Ad. 695) appro Jan Bank v. Pooley, 10 App. Cas, 220 B. 449; 53 L. T. 163; 33 W, E. 19. 6-H. L. (E.). for Maintenance.]—A bankrupt an action for maintenance on the at the defendant incited and supported y proceedings in which he had m nterest, since the cause of action (f d to the trustee in bankruptcy, and tion may be summarily dismissed upo s frivolous and vexatious. I Security for Costs When required.]—Judg-| after the annulment of bankruptcy proceedi An order was made dismissing the appeal That a receiving order in bankruptcy has been made against a plaintiff is no ground for requiring him to give security for costs. Rhodes v. Dawson, 16 Q. B. D. 548; 55 L. J., Q. B. 134; 34 W. R. 240-C. A. Notwithstanding a receiving order, the debtor can sue for the recovery of what belongs to him, and he cannot be regarded as the mere instrument of the official receiver or the creditors so that security for costs can be required of him. Malcolm v. Hodgkinson (8 L. R., Q. B. 209) commented on. Ib. Medical Examination of, to effect Life Insurance.]-A bankrupt cannot be compelled to answer questions or submit to a medical examination of which the sole object is to enable an insurance to be effected on the bankrupt's life, with a view to the better or more profitable realisation of the bankrupt's life interest in certain property. Bullock, Ex parte, Garnett, Ia re, 16 Q. B. D. 698; 55 L. J., Q. B. 77; 53 L. T. 769; 34 W. R. 79-Cave, J. The principal asset of a bankrupt was a contingent reversionary interest, which was saleable if the bankrupt's life were insured. The trustee having requested the bankrupt to submit to a medical examination with a view to a policy being effected, the bankrupt refused to do so without giving any reason, although he had not long before his bankruptcy submitted to such an examination for the purpose of raising money on his interest, and although he admitted that since then he had contracted no disease, and that he knew of no reason why he should not submit to such an examination :-Held (Lord FitzGerald dissenting), that the obligation imposed upon a bankrupt by s. 24 of the Bank ruptcy Act, 1883, to "do all such acts and things in relation to his property, and the distribution of his property among his creditors, as may be reasonably required by the trustee " and to "aid to the utmost of his power in the realisation of his property and the distribution of the proceeds among his creditors," did not include an obligation to submit to a medical examination, and that the refusal to submit was not a ground upon which the bankrupt's discharge could be refused or suspended under s. 28. Board of Trade v. Block, 13 App. Cas. 570; 58 L. J., Q. B. 113; 59 L. T. 734; 37 W. R. 259; 53 J. P. 164 -H. L. (E.). Application by Bankrupt for delivery of Documents-Pending Criminal Proceedings.]-Where | Disqualification of-Refusal of Certificat "Misfortune without any Misconduct."]— the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & 47 Vict. c. 52 32, sub-s. 1, bankruptcy disqualifies a person f exercising certain offices, but by (2) this qualification is removed if the bankrupt "obt from the court his discharge with a certificat the effect that his bankruptcy was caused misfortune without any misconduct on his pa A. was convicted for libel, and sentenced three months' imprisonment with hard lab and ordered to pay the costs of the prosecut A. had borrowed on a bill of sale to pay the c of his defence, and on conviction borrowed o second bill of sale to pay off the former one, to meet the newly accrued costs. The pros tion caused his bankruptcy, and he was ther disqualified from exercising the office of ves The county court judge granted him discharge, but refused a certificate under s. 32 Held, that the county court judge was right, that the bankruptcy was not caused by "mis tune without any misconduct":-Held, a that the "misconduct " in s. 32 is not limited the cases referred to in ss. 24, 28. Burgess, parte, Burgess, In re, 57 L. T. 200; 35 W 702; 4 M. B. R. 186-D. man. By s. 32 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1883 (46 & Vict. c. 52), certain disqualifications are imp upon a bankrupt, which are to be removed if obtains from the court his discharge, wit certificate that his bankruptcy was "caused misfortune without any misconduct on his pa The debtor instituted a suit for a divorce aga his wife and co-respondents on the ground of adultery. At the trial the jury found that wife had not committed adultery, and the I tion was dismissed, and the debtor was ord to pay the costs of his wife and of the respondents. The means of the debtor 1 before and after the commencement of the ceedings were wholly insufficient to pay t costs, and he was adjudged a bankrupt on petition of one of the co-respondents :-E that the bankruptcy of the debtor had not 1 "caused by misfortune without any miscon on his part " within the meaning of s. 32, that he was not entitled to the certifi described in the section. Campbell, Lord C In re, 20 Q. B. D. 816; 59 L. T. 194; 36 W 582; 5 M. B. R. 94-C. A. |