mence a trade, at five per cent. interest. After the loan, B. agrees to pay to A. one-eighth of the annual profits, by monthly payments, which offer A. accepts, and B. accordingly makes several monthly payments, for which A. gives B. receipts on account: Held, that the balance of the principal and interest due from B. to A. was a good petitioning creditor's debt, not arising out of a partnership.-Exp. Briggs, 367. PAUPER. A libellous hand-bill, published by the bankrupt, against the assignees and the solicitor to the commission, is not a sufficient ground for discharging an order which allowed the bankrupt to petition in formá pruperis.—Exp. Morland, 248. PETITIONING CREDITOR. A petitioning creditor having become bankrupt before the time for opening the fiat had elapsed, it was ordered, that another creditor might take new docket papers into the office; and if the first fiat was not prosecuted, that he might then issue a fresh fiat.— Exp. Smith, 309. PRACTICE. 1. (Excepting to Master's report.) A party objecting to the Master's report should either present a petition to except to it, or give notice to the other side of the nature of the objection.-Exp. Millard, 243. 2. (Service of notice of motion.) Before a motion is made that the petition of the bankrupt for a supersedeas shall be dismissed, on the ground of his being out of the jurisdiction of the Court, the respondent should serve the bankrupt's agent with notice of the motion, having previously obtained an order that service on the agent shall be good service.—Exp. Drake, 284, 3. (Recording proceedings.) Under the 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 96, the Court has a general power, upon petition, to direct the proceedings to be entered of record. Exp. Thomas, 292. 4. (Petition.) When a petition has been half heard it cannot be amended on payment merely of the common costs of the day, but it must be proceeded with.-Exp. Turrill, 346. 5. (Same.) Where the respondent did not appear, and the petitioner took such order as he could abide by, the Court refused to restore the petition. -In the matter of Wilks, 338. PRINCIPAL AND FACTOR. A. in France, employs B. in England to sell wines on commission, as well as to purchase other wines on A.'s account in London, for which purpose he furnishes him with letters of credit. The wines were generally bought and sold by B. in his own name. Part of the wines consigned by A. were in the dock warehouses, standing in B.'s name, and part formed one indiscriminate stock in B.'s cellar. A. closes the connection with B. and requires him to deliver up all the wines, but B. neglects to comply with this requisition, and shortly afterwards becomes bankrupt: Held, that the assignees should deliver up to A. all the wines; that A, should be allowed to sue the purchasers of the wines for the price in the names of the bankrupt and his assignees; but that no order could be made with regard to any monies, the produce of the wines, if mixed with the monies of the bankrupt,— Exp. Moldant, 351. PROOF. 1. (Exchange of acceptances.) A. and B. exchange their acceptances of bills drawn on them by a third party, and all become bankrupt before the bills become due. The acceptances of A. are negociated by the drawer, and proved by the holders under each commission, who receive dividends: Held, that A,'s assignees might prove the amount of B.'s acceptances under B.'s commission, subject to a retention of the dividends until it was ascertained what each estate would pay on the whole of their liabilities.Exp. Solarte, 419. 2. (Laches.) When the omission to prove a debt proceeds from the creditor's own laches, the Court will not order a dividend to be stayed until his petition to prove can be heard.—Exp. Brees, 283. 3. (Consideration.) F. and Co. sold goods to John W., for which a small part of the price was paid in cash, and the remainder by two bills at four months, but the goods were to remain in the hands of F. and Co. as a security for the payment of the bills. The bills not being paid when due John W. sent F. and Co. two other bills drawn by himself on Joshua W., for which no consideration was given to Joshua W., the acceptor. Before these bills fell due, both John W. and Joshua W. became bankrupts, and the price of the goods had fallen so much in the market, that F. and Co. afterwards sold them for not a third of the price at which John W. had bought, and they then proved for the deficiency under John W.'s commission: Held, that F. and Co. were entitled to prove for the amount of the two bills under Joshua W.'s commission, without deducting the proceeds of the sale of the goods.-Exp. Fairlie, 285. REPUTED OWNERSHIP, A. was in the habit of sending skins to B., his son's, tan-yard to be dressed, with an account, as of a sale to B., who rendered an account, as of a sale of the dressed leather to A.: Held, that some of these skins which were mixed with B.'s general stock at the time of his bankruptcy passed to his assignees. Exp. Barton, 329. SCANDAL. Where an affidavit is reported to be scandalous, the agent in London, who files the affidavit, is responsible for the costs as between attorney and client, notwithstanding the country attorney may have himself drawn the affidavit, (Exp. Kirby, Mont. 68.)—Exp. Wake, 246. SERVANT. The guard of a stage coach hired at weekly wages is not a servant within the meaning of 6 G. 4, c. 16, s. 48.—Exp. Skinner, 332. SET-OFF. J. apprenticed his son to the bankrupt two years before his bankruptcy, and agreed to pay a premium of 2001. J. was in partnership with T., and the bankrupt owed them a joint debt exceeding the amount of the apprentice fee due from J. to the bankrupt. J. cannot set off the apprentice fee against the joint debt due from the bankrupt to J. and T.-Exp. Soames, 320. SUPERSEDEAS. On a petition by a creditor to supersede on the ground of concert, the Lord Chancellor had directed an issue, which was found in favour of the commission. The assignees and the creditor then presented a petition, the former for their costs, and the latter for a new trial. The Court of Review, being satisfied of the act of concert, superseded the commission at once.Exp. Harwood, 252. TAXATION. An order was refused to tax a messenger's bill, which had been paid five years ago, where there was no recent discovery of any fraudulent charge contained in it. Exp. Willment, 364. USURY. 1. A. employs B. as a calico printer, and before the accounts for printing become due, from time to time advances him various sums of money, charging him besides interest 17. 10s. per cent. as a trade premium, which it was customary for persons in the same trade to take under the like circumstances. A. was also in the habit of paying debts owing by B. to other persons before they became due, when A. deducted the usual discount, but charged B. with the full amount of the debt, besides interest and the trade premium above mentioned. Semble, that both those modes of dealing were usurious; they were, at least, of so suspicious a nature that the Court declined to make an order for the sale of property under a mortgage deed, but directed an action of ejectment to be brought by A. against the assignees.-Exp. Millington, 298. 2. Where sums of money advanced, and to be advanced, are secured by deed, and any of the dealings then contemplated are tainted with usury, the deed is wholly void as a security, although the legal debt is not impeached.-S. C. WAIVER. A formal objection to a notice of motion is waived by the party appearing and requesting further time to oppose it.-Exp. Morland, 248. Baker v. Gostling, 1 Bing. N. C. 19 Bishop v. Hatch, and Chuter v. Hatch, 1 Ad. & E. 171 Botcherley v. Lancaster, 1 Ad. & E. 77; 3 N. & M. 383 Brown v. Lord Granville, 4 Moo. & S. 333 Burn v. Morris, 4 Tyr. 485 Campbell v. Fleming, 1 Ad. & E. 40 Dibbin v. Wilson, 3 N. & M. 260 d. Harries v. Morse, 2 C. & M. 247 Landlord and Tenant, 4 Money had and received, 3 Pleading, 3 Pleading, 2 Ejectment, 2 Lease, 1 Executor and Administrator, 2 Fraser v. Swansea Canal Navigation Company, 3 N. & M. 391 Freeman v. Paganini, 4 Moo. & S. 165 Governors of the Poor of Bristol v. Wait, 3 N. & M. 359 Ejectment, 3 Insurance, 2 Bankruptcy, 5 Illegal Contract Bankruptcy, 2; Action; Trover, 1 Limitations, Statute of, 1 Husband and Wife, 6 Money had and received, 4 Heydon v. Thompson, 1 Ad. & E. 210; 3 N. & M. 319 Horne v. Took, 4 Moo. & S. 183 In the matter of the London and Westminster Bank, 1 Bing. N. C. 197. Practice, 3 |