|
|
|
|
|
|
|
HALL v. McPHERSON. 535
an interest in the further prosecution of the suit, the plaintiff can
only have entered upon the docket the common rule further pro-
ceedings, so as thereby to lay a foundation for obtaining leave to
dismiss his bill at the next term, (d)
In England any trader may, under certain circumstances, be
subjected by his creditors to the operation of the bankrupt law so
as thereby to have his property taken from him and transferred to
assignees for the benefit of his creditors; and consequently, so long
as the commission of bankruptcy, sued out against him, remains in
force, as he has been thereby totally divested of all property then
held by him, not as trustee or in right of another, and which might
be made liable to the payment of his debts, he cannot nor ought
not to be allowed to sue or be made a party to any suit at law or
in equity in regard to any such property; unless under peculiar
circumstances, (e)
Here, to enable a debtor to obtain the benefit of the insolvent
law he must be then, at the time of his application, in actual con-
finement, (f) or he must give two months notice of his application
in the manner prescribed, (g) And it is declared, that, on the ap-
plicant having taken the prescribed oath, the court, upon the recom-
mendation of the creditors, if they make any, shall appoint a trustee
for their benefit; which appointment shall operate as an assign-
ment of all the insolvent's property so as to rest the title to the same
in such trustee, who shall manage, sell, and distribute the same in
the manner prescribed, and under the control of the court to which
the application has been made, (h) And after the trustee has
given bond, and the applicant has conveyed to him all his estate
for the benefit of his creditors, and the trustee has certified, that he
is in possession of all the estate of the applicant mentioned in his
schedule, (f) the court may order that such applicant shall be dis-
charged, as well from all debts, covenants, promises, and agree-
(d) Skip v. Warner, 3 Atk. 558; Carrington v. Holly, Dick. 280; Anonymous,
11 Ves. 169; Lashley v. Hogg, 11 Ves. 602; 1 Harr. Pra. Cha. 605. —(e) Cope-
man v. Gallant, 1 P, Will. 314; Bennet v. Davis, 2 P. Will. 316; Griffin v. Archer,
2 Anst 478; Benfield v. Solomons, 9 Ves. 83; Whitworth v. Davis, 1 Ves. & B. 545;
Wilkins v. Fry, 1 Meriv. 245; Hammond v. Attwood, 3 Mad. 158; Bailey v. Vin-
cent, 5 Mad, 48; Lloyd v. Lander, 5 Mad. 282; Piercy v. Roberts, 6 Cond. Cha.
Rep. 469; Casborne v. Barsham, 9 Cond. Cha. Rep. 289; Winch v. Keeley, 1 T.
R. 619; Worthington v. Lee, 2 Bland, 682. —(f) 1805, ch. 110, s. 2; 1803, ch. 71. —
(f) 1805 ch 110, s. 21; 1834, ch, 309. —(h) 1805, ch. 110, s. 2, 4, 7 and 10; 1812,
ch. 77, s. 6; 1820, ch. 194; 1827, ch. 70, s. 3; 1832, ch. 203, s. 3; 1835, ch, 235. -
(i) 1805, ch. 110, s. 5 1827, ch. 70, s. 1; 1829, ch. 208, s. 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
