Opinion.

"I think the Trustees will not besafe in paying the Money in question to H. A. S. with respect to the Creditor of whose Judgment they have notice; but will be safe, in respect to any Creditor by Judgment of which they have

no notice.

AstotheJudgment of which the Trustees had notice, if the Purchasers have not paid the Purchase-money, I think it is incumbent on them to see the Judgment is discharged; but if they had paid it before notice, they would not have been liable, because, by the Contract, and payment of the Money, the Vendor would have only been a Trustee for the Purchaser, and then the Land would, by the Statute of Frauds, 29 Car. 2, c. 3, 10, have been subject to the Judgments of the Purchaser, who, in that. Case, would have been the Cestui que Trust, and therefore the Land would not have been subject to the Judgment entered against the Vendor; and so was the Opinion of the Court, 1 Wms. 278, 279.

But though to many purposes the Estate agreed to be sold is, from the time of the Contract, the Estate of the Purchaser, yet, I think, the Vendor is not, before payment of the Money, to be considered as a Trustee within the above 10th Section of the Statute of Frauds, for the Estate continues his at Law; and even in

Equity he has a right to detain it until payment of the Purchase-money; and therefore, till that time, I think it continues subject to the Judgments of the Vendors. And in the Case, 1 Wms. 278, (on which the Opinion of the Court was given,) it is stated, that the Judgment was after payment of the Purchasemoney by the Person who contracted for the Purchase, though before the conveyance to him, and the Opinion is founded on its being so stated; therefore, I think, the Judgment Creditor hath a right to so much of the Purchasemoney as is sufficient to satisfy his Judgment; and the Trustees, having notice of his right, ought to pay it, if the Money is in their hands.

As to the Judgments (if any) of which the Trustees have no notice, if any such are prior to the Deed of Trust,

they may be extended on the Estate, notwithstanding the Sale by the Trustees; and though they should appear to be subsequent to the Deed of Trust, yet as the Surplus of the Estate is to be vested in the Three per Cents. for the benefit of the Vendor, he has still an equitable Interest in the Land, which I think will be bound by the Judgment; but if the Trustees have no notice of Judgments subsequent to the Deed of Trust, I think a Court of Equity will not make them pay the Money over again, if they apply it according to the Deed of Trust; because I think Equity, in the Case of a Judgment Creditor, and a bona fide Purchaser, or a Trustee, without notice, will not interpose on either side, but leave the law to take its course; and therefore, as to such Judgments (if any) as are subsequent to the Deed of Trust, and of which there is no notice, I think neither the Purchasers nor the Trustees are

Lincoln's-Inn, 11th June, 1793

to the Deed of Trust, for the Trustees to insist on H.A.S.'s consent to the payment of them out of the Surplus Money; or else, if the Creditors by Judgment insist upon a right to be paid, not to part with it, without the Directions of the Court; and if the Creditors and H. A. S. will not agree, nor file a Bill against the Trustees and proper Parties, I think the Trustees should file a Bill of Interpleader, stating the Case, and pay the Money into Court; and pray, by the Bill, that they may be allowed their Costs thereout, and the Residue to be disposed of as the Court shall direct.

Geo. Hill."

1.

Query, Whether an insurance
broker can be made a bankrupt.
[Ex parte Stevens]
256
2. Affidavits, filed in support of a pe
tition to supersede a commission
and stay a certificate, need not be
answered if founded only on infor
mation and belief, unless it is stated
in the affidavit from whom the in-
formation was received, and that
such person refuses to make an
affidavit. [Ibid.]

3. When a petition is to supersede a
commission for collusion, and stay
a certificate, and there are suspi-
cious circumstances, costs will not
be given though the petition fails.
[Ibid.]
4. Commission cannot be superseded,

with the consent of the petitioning
creditor, before the first meeting
for the proof of debts. [Ex parte
Law]
273
5. Bankrupt may petition to super
sede his commission on the ground
that he was no trader, though he
has obtained his certificate under
it; if upon an action by the assig
nees against a creditor, their title
is successfully resisted, and the
commission becomes inoperative.
[Ex parte Bass]

270

6. On a petition to expunge a proof,
founded on an affidavit of a cre-
ditor, who died before the proof
was made, the commissioners were
directed to review the proof, al-
though two dividends had been
paid. [Ex parte Bridges, in re Moor-
house]
269
7. If a commission be obtained by
collusion with the bankrupt, but
assignees are chosen, who are not
under the control of the bank-

rupt, and the commission is fairly
proceeding for the benefit of the
creditors, it will not be superseded.
[Ex parte Warwick, in re Cooper]
262

8. Bankrupt obtaining leave to sur-
render after the proper time for
surrendering is expired, pays the
costs. [Ex parte Carter]

394
9. It is not of course to refer to the
Master a bill of costs, up to the
choice of assignees, already taxed
by the commissioners. Particular
objections must be stated. [Ex
parte Satton, in re Brereton]
395
10. On a separate commission against
one partner, the assignees took pos-
session of the partnership property,
and were about to sell it. Injunc-
tion, on filing of bill and affidavit,
granted to restrain the sale. [Allen
v. Kilbre
464
11. A solvent partner, winding up the
partnership concerns, is entitled to
prove under the commission against
the bankrupt partners, the share of
the loss or deficiency which each
partner ought to have borne as a

1. In a suit by the Attorney General,
respecting a breach of trust as to
property belonging to a charity,
the court will permit a reference
if the Attorney General consents;
but not if the question is upon the
construction of a will. [Attorney
General v. Fea]

274
2. Where, in respect of the increased
rents of a charity estate, it is re-
ferred to a Master to approve of a
scheme for their future application,
and he recommends an augmenta-
tion of a salary given by the will
of the founder, he is not, with re-
spect to the augmentation, strictly
confined to the provisions of the