1834. Ex parte GREENWOOD. of BAILLIE and another. the Court might have allowed the petition to stand over till the proper parties were before the Court; but the assignees may have been misled into the belief that In the matter the grounds relied on in the respondent's affidavit were the only question to be agitated in argument. I think, however, that it is too late now to amend; and, on full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I am of opinion that the petition ought to be dismissed, but, upon the grounds alluded to, and in deference to the opinion of my colleagues, upon whose judgment, in coincidence with my own, the original order was made, and especially in deference to the opinion already expressed by the learned Judge on my right, I think it ought to be dismissed without costs. The original order was rescinded, and the petition of the assignees dismissed. C. R. June 5, 1833. Where the petitioning creditor becomes bank. rupt before the fourteen days for opening the fiat have elapsed, the Court will not supersede on the petition of another creditor who is prepared to issue a new fiat. Ex parte SMITH.-In the matter of STRANGMAN. IN this case a fiat was issued against A. on the petition of B., which was not opened. Soon after a fiat issued against B. himself. An official assignee had been appointed under B.'s fiat. This was the application of a creditor of A. that the existing fiat against A. should be annulled, and a new fiat issue on his petition. Mr. Montagu for the petition. Mr. Ayrton, for the official assignee under B.'s fiat, submitted to any order the Court might make. Per Curiam:-The fourteen days allowed for opening A's fiat have not yet elapsed. The assignees of B., when elected, may proceed with the fiat against A. It is, therefore, doubtful, to say the least, whether we have authority to make the order prayed. All we can order is Let Smith be at liberty forthwith to take new docket papers into the office; and, if the present fiat against A. is not prosecuted, let Smith be at liberty to take out a new fiat. Ex parte MEDLEY.—In the matter of HAYDAY. THE petition stated, that, shortly after issuing the fiat, C. R. Dec. 9, 1833. creditor left the That it was the petitioning creditor quitted the country, and that it The petitioning a fiat. that a fiat should be immediately prosecuted against Mr. Montagu, in support of the petition, stated that it was apprehended that the bankrupt might follow the petitioning creditor; and that it was usual to make the order prayed, without prejudice to the rights of the present petitioning creditor. Per Curiam:-The time for proceeding with the fiat has not yet elapsed. In a few days it will, and then the petitioners may take out a new fiat as of course. Application refused. (a) (a) In ex parte Segrè, Court of Review, 11th December 1833, the petitioning creditor was too poor to go on with the fiat, and it was annulled, and a new fiat issued before the expiration of country; and hended the bankrupt would follow him. The fourteen creditor peti- taking to issue a new fiat. But the Court would not in terfere. H H C. R. In the Matter of BRECKNELL. Dec. 9, A PETITION to supersede, with consent of all the 1833. All the creditors assented to a supersedeas but one, for 21. 14s. 2d., who was abroad. Ordered, on creditors, was presented. They had all signed but one, who was a creditor for £2 14s. 4d, and was at Malta. Her solicitor had signed, but without authority. The supersedeas was allowed, on depositing with the depositing that registrar the £2 14s. 4d., with interest at 5l. per cent., together with a sum to cover the creditor's expences on taking the money out of Court. sum with the registrar, and a sum to meet the expence of taking it out of Court. C. R. Dec. 9. 1833. Ex parte TULL.-In the matter of DAVIS. THIS was a petition by a creditor residing in America. The application The prayer was for the payment of a dividend. for security for costs is strictissimi juris. Examining a witness before the commissioner as to the matter of the petition, and an applica tion to the Court that the registrar may attend at the hearing with such examination, is a waiver of the right. Mr. Montagu, on behalf of the assignees, applied for security for costs. He stated the order of 12th August 1809, requiring signature to the petition by the petitioner, except in cases of partnership, or absence from the kingdom; in the former of which cases the signature of one of the parties is to be deemed sufficient, and in the latter case the petition is to be signed by the person presenting the same on behalf of the person so abroad. In the present case the petition had been signed by the agent on behalf of the petitioner. With respect, however, to the responsibility of the solicitor signing, doubt was entertained, as it had been decided, in ex parte Titley, 2 Rose, 83, and ex parte Cadley, 1 Mont. 352, that no responsibility for costs attached upon the attesting solicitor, but that it was confined to the propriety of the petition. Mr. Montagu added, that this application was made within the rule of practice in similar cases in the courts of common law and of equity, Mr. Stewart, for the petitioner, admitted the rule to be as stated by Mr. Montagu, but said that, in the present case, there had been a proceeding, the assignees having examined, before the commissioner, a witness with respect to the petition, and had this day made an application to the Court to compel the registrar to attend at the hearing with the examination. And of this opinion was the Court, who said that requiring a security for costs was strictissimi juris; and that the examination, and the application this day as to the registrar's attendance, were to be considered as a proceeding. Dismissed with costs. 1833. Ex parte the matter of DAVIS. In the matter of SKINNER. THIS Mr. Swanston, for the assignees, stated they were desirous of being allowed to fix a reserved bidding. Mr. Montagu for the petitioner:-Applications by assignees for reserved biddings are often made, but constantly refused, as was the case in Sir George Duckett's VOL. I. G C. R. July 3, 1833. On the sale of property pledged, the assignees cannot have a reserved bidding. 1833. In the matter of SKINNER. bankruptcy, where the property to be sold was of very great value. Allowing a reserved bidding would enable the assignees to prevent a sale by fixing an unreasonable sum. Moreover, assignees have no right to interfere with a mortgagee or pledgee, except to redeem. PER CURIAM-We cannot permit assignees to have a mere reserved bidding. If they desire actually to bid for this property, they may have permission; but then they must recollect that the property may be knocked down to them like any other bidder. Reserved bidding refused. C. R. 1833. The Court will Ex parte ASHLEY. In the matter of BELL. Dec. 9, 10, THIS was a petition by the assignees to rescind a sale of mortgaged property sold under the fiat, for which the mortgagee had bid and become the purchaser, without previous leave of the Court. not rescind a purchase by the mortgagee, be cause he bid without leave of the Court. The facts of the case are as follow: Part of the bankrupt's real property was mortgaged to Dixon for a term of one thousand years to secure 5,000l., which the commissioners, upon the application of Dixon, ordered to be put up to sale in the usual manner. Whereupon the assignees agreed with Dixon that the fee simple of the premises should be sold instead of the term only. The assignees wished to have a reserved bidding, but Dixon refused to agree thereto. At the sale the premises were knocked down to the agent of Dixon for 4,4007. The assignees refused to confirm the sale, and gave notice to Dixon that they would pay |