A Registrar under the Act of 1849, could, when acting for the §§ 99, 100. Commissioner, grant discharges in unopposed cases (kk). 100. A County Court shall, for the purposes of its Powers of County Court. bankruptcy jurisdiction, in addition to the ordinary Bankruptcy powers of the Court, have all the powers and jurisdiction Act, 1869, of the High Court, and the orders of the Court may be enforced accordingly in manner prescribed. See Sect. 92 conferring bankruptcy jurisdiction on the County Courts, and as to which County Courts may have such jurisdiction. It must be borne in mind that Sect. 93 unites and consolidates with the Supreme Court of Judicature and transfers to the High Court only the jurisdiction of the London Bankruptcy Court; and see Sub-s. 2 of Sect. 93. See also Sect. 97 as to transfer of proceedings from Court to Court. See Sect. 99 as to the powers and duties of the Registrars of local Bankruptcy Courts, and Sect. 103, Sub-s. 4, as to the new and special powers under the Debtors Act, 1869, formerly exercised by the High Court. See Sect. 104 as to appeals. See Sect. 105, Sub-s. 5, enabling County Courts to take evidence by interrogatories or on commission. s. 66. &c. The above enactment, like Sect. 66 of the 1869 Act, confers Transfer of upon the County Court, in conjunction with the powers con- proceedings, ferred by Sects. 9 and 10 of this Act, the right to restrain by injunction, an action or proceeding in the High Court, and notwithstanding the provisions of Sect. 24 of the Judicature Act, 1873, which abolishes prohibition in any cause pending in the High Court. And see also Sub-s. 3 of Sect. 102, limiting the right of any Court to restrain a Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy, and Sub-s. 4 of Sect. 102, enables the Bankruptcy Judge of the High Court to transfer to himself pending actions. But regard must also be had to the fact that "Any Court in which proceedings are pending against a debtor may, on proof that a bankruptcy petition has been presented by or against the debtor, either stay the proceedings, or allow them to continue on such terms as it may think just." (Sect. 10.) (kk) Ex parte Lees, 33 L. J. Bank. 25; but the Commissioner had also to sign the certificate, and the Regis trar could not order delivery up of 88 101, 102. Board of Trade to make payments in accordance. General power of bankruptcy courts. Bankruptcy Act, 1869, 6. 72. See also proviso in Sub-s. 1 of Sect. 102, limiting County Court jurisdiction. 101. Where any moneys or funds have been received by an official receiver or by the Board of Trade, and the Court makes an order declaring that any person is entitled to such moneys or funds, the Board of Trade shall make an order for the payment thereof to the person so entitled as aforesaid. 102. (1.) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy under this Act shall have full power to decide all questions of priorities, and all other questions whatsoever, whether of law or fact, which may arise in any case of bankruptcy coming within the cognizance of the Court, or which the Court may deem it expedient or necessary to decide for the purpose of doing complete justice or making a complete distribution of property in any such case. Provided that the jurisdiction hereby given shall not be exercised by the County Court for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim, not arising out of the bankruptcy, which might heretofore have been enforced by action in the High Court, unless all parties to the proceeding consent thereto, or the money, money's worth, or right in dispute does not in the opinion of the Judge exceed in value two hundred pounds. (2.) A Court having jurisdiction in bankruptcy under this Act shall not be subject to be restrained in the execution of its powers under this Act by the order of any other Court, nor shall any appeal lie from its decisions, except in manner directed by this Act. (3.) If in any proceeding in bankruptcy there arises any question of fact which either of the parties desire to be tried before a jury instead of by the Court itself, or which the Court thinks ought to be tried by a jury, the Court may if it thinks fit direct the trial to be had, with a jury, and the trial may be had accordingly, in the High Court in the same manner as if it were the trial of an issue of fact in an action, and in the County Court in the manner in which jury trials in ordinary cases are by law held in that Court. (4.) Where a receiving order has been made in the High Court under this Act, the Judge by whom such order was made shall have power, if he sees fit, without any further consent, to order the transfer to such Judge of any action pending in any other division, brought or continued by or against the bankrupt. (5.) Where default is made by a trustee, debtor, or other person in obeying any order or direction given by the Board of Trade or by an official receiver or any other officer of the Board of Trade under any power conferred by this Act, the Court may, on the application of the Board of Trade or an official receiver or other duly authorised person order such defaulting trustee, debtor, or person to comply with the order or direction so given; and the Court may also, if it shall think fit, upon any such application make an immediate order for the committal of such defaulting trustee, debtor, or other person; provided that the power given by this subsection shall be deemed to be in addition to and not in substitution for any other right or remedy in respect of such default. The above Sub-ss. 1, 2, and 3 are, with some slight verbal changes, a re-enactment in a subdivided form of Sect. 72 of the 1869 Act so frequently the cause of litigation, and the only change of importance appears to be in Sub-s. 3, where the Court when it directs a question of fact to be tried by a jury may direct such trial to be had in the High Court (in lieu of the London Bankruptcy Court as in Sect. 72 of the 1869 Act). But most important new provisions are to be found in Sect. 1, which found no place in the 1869 Act. § 102. Sect. 1 imposes a limit upon the County Court jurisdiction in Limit of County Court respect to claims not arising out of the bankruptcy, which might jurisdiction. heretofore have been enforced by action in the High Court unless all parties to the proceedings consent thereto, or the money money's worth or right in dispute does not, in the opinion of the Judge, § 102. As to suits in Ellis v. Silber. exceed in value two hundred pounds, and which appears to have been introduced so as to obviate some of the difficulties which formerly arose as to exercise of jurisdiction by the local Courts and which will elsewhere be referred to. And see Ex parte Price, and notes, post, pp. 433 and 436. General Jurisdiction. Subject to the special enactment above, it is proposed to refer to some of the principal cases affecting the jurisdiction of the Court. And first, as to when the Court may exercise jurisdiction. In Ellis v. Silber (kk), it was held that where a suit would, but for the fact of a bankruptcy, be fit to be entertained by the Court of Chancery, the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery was not taken away by the Bankruptcy Act of 1869, and therefore in that case, where a trustee in bankruptcy had, in respect of the estate, a claim against a third person, it was held (reversing the decision of the Master of the Rolls) that such claim might be prosecuted at law or in equity, and was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Court of Bankruptcy (1). So in Ex parte Pannell (m), where an action was commenced in the Chancery Division by an equitable mortgagee by deposit of deeds against the trustee in the bankruptcy for an account and foreclosure in default of payment, and the trustee alleged that nothing was due, but that it had been concocted to defeat the creditors, and examined the mortgagee and other witnesses in the Court of Bankruptcy, and applied to the Court (after the action was begun) for an order for delivery up of the title-deeds, it was held that an order made by the registrar dismissing the application (with liberty to either party to apply after the conclusion of the proceedings in the action) was right. James, L.J., said (n): "It was not the intention of the Act that the Court of Bankruptcy should draw within its jurisdiction all property that may be claimed as against the trustee of a bankrupt by a third party there are proper tribunals for the determination of such questions. Where there is a question like this, which (kk) L. R. 8 Ch. 83. (2) And distinguishing Stone v. Thomas, L. R. 5 Ch. 219; and Phillips v. Furber, L. R. 5 Ch. 746; and Ex parte Anderson, L. R. 5 Ch. 473; but see Ex parte Baggs re White, 21 W. R. 132; Hutchinson v. Baslam, 35 L. T. 467. (m) 6 Ch. D. 335. (n) Quoting the words of Selborne, L.C. in Re Motion, L. R. 9 Ch. 192, 210. goes to the very root of the title of a man who claims to be the owner of property under a mortgage from a bankrupt, and which he, in the exercise of his legal right, has brought before the Chancery Division of the High Court, we have no power to withdraw it from the jurisdiction of that Court." So in Ex parte North Western Bank re Slee (nn), it was held that the Court could not try the right of a principal to securities pledged by a factor on account of advances. § 102. So in Ex parte Harrison (0), where a mortgage had been Ex parte Harrison. given by a bankrupt more than twelve months prior to the bankruptcy, was impeached by the trustee, on the ground of its having been executed with intent to defeat and delay creditors, and trial of issues was ordered by the County Court in an action in which the trustee was plaintiff and the mortgagee defendant, and the jury, having found for the plaintiff, and the registrar having made an order for the delivery up of the instruments to be cancelled, it was held on appeal that the trustee had no right to have the question tried in bankruptcy, and that the whole proceeding had been irregular. Price re Roberts. So, again, in Ex parte Price re Roberts (p), it was held by the Ex parte Court of Appeal that, when a trustee in bankruptcy which is proceeding in the County Court impeaches a deed executed by the bankrupt (such as a settlement under Sect. 91 of 1869 Act), as fraudulent under the Statute of Elizabeth, if the amount at stake is beyond the ordinary jurisdiction of the Where amount County Court, and serious questions of character are involved, beyond the County Court and the person interested under the deed desires that the ques- limit of juristion should not be tried in the County Court, the Judge ought diction. to decline to exercise the jurisdiction conferred by Sect. 72 of the Act of 1869, and ought, under such circumstances, to leave the matter to be tried in an action in the High Court in the ordinary way (q). Jessell, M.R., said, referring to the powers conferred by Sect. 72: "But a discretion is given to the Court whether it will or will not try the case, and the mode in which that discretion ought to be exercised is clearly pointed out in Ex parte Armitage." (His Lordship refers to the facts of the case), and proceeds: "The father is not a bankrupt, and he is (nn) 41 L. J. Bank. 72. See also Ex parte Smith re Collie, 2 Ch. D. 51; 45 L. J. Bank. 116; and see Ex parte Hide re Turner, 20 W. R., where bankrupt sole defendant in a FF suit not restrained. (0) 13 Ch. D. 603. (q) Following and approving Ex |