but have none to bring property within the estate. We possess the jurisdiction formerly exercised by the Lord Chancellor, and no more, and it would have been of course before the Lord Chancellor to dismiss this petition. A state of circumstances might be supposed which would give us jurisdiction over Rushworth, to refuse him his dividends or to expunge the debts proved, but we have none to set aside the purchase. Suppose he resisted our order, and we committed him, might he not bring an action, or perhaps obtain a prohibition? Ex parte Gould, 1 Gl. & J. 231, was decided on the familiar law, that when a Court makes an order for sale it can enforce that order. Feeling how confined is the jurisdiction of this Court, and desiring it to be enlarged, I yet cannot find we have jurisdiction in cases of this kind. The petition, as to Rushworth, dismissed, with (a) That the Court have no jurisdiction over strangers to the fiat, see ex parte Pease, 1 Rose, 242, S. C., 19 Ves. 47; ex parte Bennett, 10 Ves. 382; ex parte 1834. Ex parte In the matter of HOLDER. C. of R. June 2, 1834. Where the last Ex parte PERKINS.-In the matter of PERKINS. THIS was a petition by the bankrupt, that the comexamination of missioners might be ordered to appoint a time for his passing his last examination, which had been adjourned sine die. the bankrupt has been adjourned sine die, the Court will not order the commissioners to appoint a time, unless miscon duct be charged against them, accrue. When there is no charge against commissioners they need not ap There had been five adjournments; the two first were on the application of the bankrupt; at the third examination it appeared that he had made a bill of sale, and that the subsequent examinations were adjourned on account of the commissioners not being satisfied concerning the bill of sale. The immediate reason for the last adjournment was, that the bankrupt stated he could not give a satisfactory account without further investigation of his books and papers. Mr. Stewart for the petitioner. Mr. Swanston and Mr. Rolfe for the commissioners. The assignees were served, but did not appear. Per Curiam:-The Court presume that there is good reason for the adjournment until the contrary is proved. This is a matter proper to be left to the discretion of the commissioners, and the Court will not interfere, unless some improper conduct be proved against them, or unless the bankrupt can prove that very serious injury will be done by his not passing his last examination. This petition must be dismissed with costs. Mr. Swanston and Mr. Rolfe asked, that if the bankrupt could not pay the costs, the commissioners might take them out of the estate. pear. Per Curiam: We will not make that part of the order. As there was no charge made against the commissioners, they need not have appeared. It is to be wished commissioners would not appear in such cases. The assignees were served, and the commissioners might have directed them to appear with the proceedings. 1834. Ex parte PERKINS. In the matter of PERKINS. Costs of appearance of commissioners. Ex parte LOMAS. In the matter of LOMAS and COOKE. THIS was a petition by the bankrupt for his allowance. C. of R. May 30, & June 12, 1834. Under a joint and separate fiat the bankrupt's allowance is to be calcu lated on the amount of his separate estate, together with his share of the joint estate, not on the gross amount of the not more than one moiety of such could be deemed to have been the estate of the petitioner within the meaning joint estate. of the words "his estate," contained in the 128th section of 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, he had given the petitioner credit for the sum of 3651. 138. 8d., as the net produce of part of his estate; and that, it being admitted before him that the separate estate of the petitioner amounted to 137. 9s., and that, there being no separate creditors of the petitioner, such sum was carried over to the credit of the joint estate, he had given the petitioner credit for the further sum of 137. 9s., as the net produce of his estate. And Mr. Commissioner Fane did thereby ascertain the statutable allowance of the petitioner at the sum of 371. 188. 3d., being 107. per cent. upon 3791. 2s. 8d., the amount of the sums of 3657, 13s. 8d. and 137. 9s. 1834. Ex parte In the matter of LOMAS and another. The petition prayed that it might be declared, that the statutable allowance to which the petitioner was entitled ought to be calculated on the whole amount of the net proceeds of the joint estate of the petitioner and Cooke, and of the separate estate of the petitioner. Mr. Ching, with whom was Mr. Hetherington, for the petition: The decision of the commissioner is erroneous, as it goes on the supposition that the petitioner is entitled to an allowance of 101. per cent. on one moiety only of the net proceeds of the joint assets of the petitioner and Cooke, whereas he ought to have made such allowance on the full amount of the net proceeds of the joint estate, as well as of the separate estate of the petitioner. The allowance then would have amounted to 74l. 9s. 6d., instead of the sum of 371. 188. 3d. The sections of 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, applicable to the present question are the 128th and 129th. The 128th enacts, "that every bankrupt who shall have obtained his certificate, if the net produce of his estate shall pay the creditors who have proved under the commission 10s. in the pound, shall be allowed five per cent. out of such produce, to be paid him by the assignees; provided," &c. And the 129th enacts, "that in all joint commissions under which any partner shall have obtained his certificate, if a sufficient dividend shall have been paid upon the joint estate and upon the separate estate of such partner, he shall be entitled to his allowance, although his other partner or partners may not be entitled to any allowance." It is submitted, that this case is governed by ex parte Minchin, Mont. & Mac. 138, ex parte Gibbs, Mont. 105, and ex parte Morris, Mont. 505. Ex parte Minchin decided, that each partner was entitled to a full allowance, if a sufficient amount of dividend were paid; this 1834. Ex parte LOMAS. of LOMAS and another. was followed by Lord Lyndhurst in ex parte Gibbs, who at first was inclined to differ from the Vice-Chancellor's decision in ex parte Minchin, but after consideration his Lordship concurred, saying, "When this case was last In the matter before me, I thought that there was but one allowance among all the bankrupts; but I have looked at the words of the act, and they are so precise and strong, that whatever may be my opinion of what was the intention of the legislature, still I think each party entitled to his allowance. The consequence is, that were there a partnership of forty persons, the amount of allowance would be enormous. But the words are so strong, I cannot get over them." And in ex parte Morris this Court said, "Each bankrupt is entitled to his allowance, proIvided there be a sufficient dividend on both estates, without regard to the estate from which the funds are supplied." Mr. Swanston, contrà : This question never before arose. It certainly did not in the cases cited. In ex parte Gibbs, Mont. 105, the joint estate paid 20s. in the pound; 20s. in the pound was also paid on each separate estate, so that the full per-centage on both joint and separate estates toge ther would not exceed that to which they would have been entitled under each of their separate estates. It is most material to notice the distinction between the wording of the 5 Geo. 3, c. 30, s. 7, and the 6 Geo. 4, c. 16, s. 128. The 5 Geo. 3. enacts, "that all and every person and persons so become or to become bankrupts, &c. shall be allowed the sum of 57. per centum out of the net produce of all the estate that shall be recovered in," &c. The 6 Geo. 4. enacts," that every bankrupt who shall have obtained his certificate, if the net produce of his estate shall pay the creditors who |