( 234 ) 
[ April 
LAW ROE PO. Baas 
OPERATION OF THE BANKRUPT 
Laws ON Property ABROAD, BE- 
LONGING TO BANKRUPTS RESIDENT 
IN ENGLAND. : 
A Queftion which has been long de- 
pending, and frequently agitated in 
the different courts of Weftminfter Hall, 
of very material importance to the trading 
‘part of the community, has lately received 
the decifion of the court of Exchequer 
chamber, on a writ of error on a judg- 
_ment of the court of King’s Bench. 
Blanchard and Lewis, refident in Eng- 
land, previous to the year 1784, contract- 
ed a debt with the houfe of Philips and 
Crammond, carrying on trade and com- 
merce at Manchefter, under the firm of 
Philips and Co. Previous to the 23d of 
Gétober, 1784, Blanchard and Lewis be- 
came bankrupts; previous to the bank- 
ruptcy, William-Crammond, one of the 
partners in the houfe of Philips and Co. 
‘went to America, for the purpofe of tranf- 
acting in that country the commercial con- 
cerns of that houfe, and continued there 
till after the bankruptcy; on hearing of 
it, he commenced an aétion in the court 
of common pleas in Philadelphia, accord- 
ing to the laws and cuftoms of the com- 
monwealth of Pennfylvania, againft the 
bankrupts in England, for the recovery 
of the debt due to himfelf and partners ; 
and, onjthe 23d of Oétober, 1784, which 
was after the provifional affignment of the 
effects of the bankrupts, caufed to be at- 
_ tached, by procefs out of that court, pro- 
perty which had belonged to the bank- 
rupts, inthe hands of feveral perfons re- 
fident in Pennfylvania; and, on the 1ft of 
June, 1786, recovered judgment againtt 
the bankrupts, for the debt and damages 
demanded in the aétion, the fum of 2639. 
18s. 3d. currency; being equal to 1403), 
os. 6d. fterling, and alfo cofts of fuit; 
and by virtue of fuch attachment and 
judgment, received the fum recovered 
of the garnifhees, that is, of the per- 
fons in whofe hands the property was at- 
tached. 
Hunter and others, who were appvint- 
ed affignees of Blanchard and Lewis, 
brought an aétion in the court of King’s 
Bench, againft Philips and Co. to recover 
this money as fo much money had and re- 
ceived to their ufe. The jury found a 
{pecial verdiét, ftating the circumftances 
above mentioned. The fame queftion, 
on a fimilar ftate of faéts, having fome- 
vme before occurred in a cafe arifing out 
of the fame bankruptcy, and the court 
having in that cafe, after full confidera- 
tion, given judgment in favour of the 
affignees, decided in the fame manner 
now, without argument; on which @ writ 
of error was brought in the Exchequer 
chamber, where, after folemn argument, 
the judgment was affirmed, the chief 
juftice of the common pleas alone diffent- 
ing. ; 
Independently of the reference to deci- 
fions in former cafes, as authorities in the 
prefent, the reafoning of the judges, who 
thought the judgment right, was to the 
following effeét :— 
The general queftion, they faid, arifing 
on the faéts which appeared on the record, 
was, whether a perfon becoming in Eng- 
land a creditor of a bankrupt alfo in Eng- 
land, and having recovered, in a foreign 
country .by procefs of attachment, a debt 
due to the bankrupt there, was entitled 
to retain the money fo recovered to his 
own ufe, or whether he had not received 
it to the ufe of the aflignees? It was found 
by the {pecial verdiét, that the bankrupts 
were Englith traders, that the defendants 
were partners in an Englifh houfe; that 
the debt from the bankrupts to the de- 
fendants was contraéted in England; that 
the bankrupts, aswell as the defendants, 
were refident in England, and that Cram- 
mond, who on this verdict muft alfo be 
taken to be an Enelifh fubjeét, went from 
this kingdom to America for this fpecial 
and temporary purpofe of tranfaéting bufi- 
nefs for the Englifh houfe at Manchefter, 
in which he continued to be a partner.— 
The cafe, therefore, muft be confidered 
as arifing between Englifh fubjeéts upon 
Englifh property. When the debt was. 
contracted, all the parties were as much 
fubje&t to the bankrupt laws, as to the 
other laws of England under which they 
lived. It could not be difputed that pre- 
vious to the bankruptcy, the bankrupts 
themfelves might have transferred or 
affigned this property, though abroad, as 
adfolutely as if it had been in their own 
tangible poffeffion in this country; and it 
feemed that the aifignees under the com- 
miffion were entitled, by operation of law, | 
to. do with it after the bankruptcy, what 
the bankrupts themfelvcs might have done 
before.. The great principle of the bank- 
rupt laws was, that no creditor fhould be 
permitted to acquire an undue preferenee, 
and by fo doing prevent an equal diftribu- 
tion among all the crediters. It followed 
fron 
