case collet versus de gol and ware Feb a bankrupt who estate be in mortgage  convey the equity of redemption to a three person after a act of bankruptcy  but before the commission and assignment this shall not defeat the assignee  but where a good fide purchaser for a valuable consideration and without  notice have a contest with the assignee this court will not take any advantage  from he therefore not compel a discovery a commission issue be notice of the  bankruptcy the plaintiff as assignee under a commission of bankruptcy against  Tyssen file his bill against ware and other to set aside several conveyance  which ware and the other defendant in trust for he have obtain of Tyssen after  his bankruptcy and also without any consideration the defendant ware plead  himself a purchaser for a valuable consideration of all the estate in question  and also that he have no notice of Tyssens be a trader or of his have commit  any act of bankruptcy whereupon a issue be direct and the jury find Tyssen a  bankrupt and fix the day of the bankruptcy to the case tempt Talbot that of  December Tyssen be seize of a considerable real and personal estate some part  of which real estate be in mortgage to Bradley for pound and another part to  Harkshaw for pound which latter mortgage and some other be by assignment vest  in the defendant ware and great part of Tyssens personal estate be convey in  trust for ware subsequent to Tyssens bankruptcy ware get several mortgage and  also release of equity of redemption of all the aforesaid estate which he now  insist upon against the plaintiff and the creditor under the commission it be  argue for the plaintiff that all thing do by Tyssen subsequent to his  bankruptcy be as so many void act and that ware can have no advantage from  they the act of bankruptcy be in itself of such force as to put Tyssen from  that very time under a incapacity of dispose of or affect any of his real or  personal estate to the prejudice of his creditor under the commission that the  legal effect of the assignment avoid all intermediate act between the  bankruptcy and the assignment so as to give the whole to the assignee accord  to the case of Kidivell versus Pla er which case be this assignee of  commissioner of bankrupt bring trover on their own possession ut de bons nest  not common with others and that they come into the hand of the defendant and  he convert they and upon evidence it appear the conversion be by execute a  become facias on the good in the declaration after the bankruptcy and before  the assignment and it be not prove that the plaintiff have demand they and  this be make a case it be agree that by assignment the assignee have a  property by relation from the very time of the bankruptcy and there be no  mesne interval of time as where one take out letter of administration he have  a property from the death of the intestate and may declare general ut de good  not common with others even before administration sue out but holt deny this  and say he ought to declare special and so the plaintiff may have do in the  principal case and he rely upon the case of very v bowyer and say the assignee  be in by relation from the time of bankruptcy so as to avoid all mesne act but  not so as to be actual invest with the property Adjournatur N B in Salkeld  this case be call Kiggill v player see also rial v roll Ves ex part gulston  atk Worsley v Demattos burr salk and the case of Phillips versus Thomson lev  where a act of bankruptcy be commit after a be made fa deliver to the sheriff  and before seizure of the good by he and hold that the execution be of no  effect against the assignee and the law be the same with regard to the  bankrupt disability over his real estate by the statute Elizabeth cap and  James cap the plaintiff there will be entitle to avoid a execution by elegit  if the act of bankruptcy be commit before the liberate and the plaintiff will  in such case be Accountable for the profit intermediate to the bankruptcy and  the assignment it be further argue that by case tempt Talbot er p the stat  Elizabeth a purchaser will be defeat although there shall be forty year after  a act of bankruptcy and before a commission and although the purchaser have no  notice for the word of the statute be general after bankruptcy and the proviso  in the end of the statute make it case tempt Talbot still plain videlicet that  assurance make by a bankrupt before bankruptcy and good fide shall not be  defeat this be hard doctrine against fair purchaser without notice but so the  law be and there be therefore a proviso in the end of James that no purchaser  for a good and valuable consideration shall be impeach unless the commission  be sue out within five year after the bankruptcy and here the commission be  sue out within three year wherefore they insist that the encumbrance shall be  redeem and that the plaintiff shall have the residue of the real and personal  estate and that ware shall not come in as a creditor for any money lend after  the bankruptcy it be also further urge that the equity of the redemption of  the mortgage premise be a interest transfer by the statute to the plaintiff  and that the defendant have no notice of the bankruptcy when he lend his money  will therefore make no alteration beside all the conveyance after the that of  December be fraudulent for want of a consideration and therefore ware have not  the usual equity of a purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice  and then as he have not pay a consideration his not know of the bankruptcy  will not avail he it appear likewise that he have notice of Tyssens abscond  and be often deny to his creditor and though ware may be ignorant of the legal  consequence yet ignorance law non excuse accord to the case of Hitchcock  versus Sedgwick vern on the other hand it be insist for the defendant that as  he have the law on his side and equal equity at least with the plaintiff if  not a superior one in regard he pay a valuable consideration for all the deed  after Tyssens bankruptcy and beside have no notice of it that the court walker  v bodington vern will not interpose to his prejudice and the case of Hitchcock  and Sedgwick vern be cite to show how far purchaser without notice be favour  in court of equity as also Chan Cas perrat v Ballard anon brown v William case  tempt Talbot Wagstaff v read vern Abery Jones v William vern walker v  bodington sup these be all case in which the court declare that equity will  not compel a defendant to discover what good he real buy of a bankrupt after  the bankruptcy and before the commission sue out where the party have no  notice of the bankruptcy N B there be no proof of a valuable consideration but  only some few scatter sum which ware let Tyssen have at different time Lord  chancellor the first consideration will be as to that part of the estate which  be in mortgage to Bradley and the question be as to that whether the plaintiff  the assignee of Tyssen be to redeem it or the defendant ware the release of  the equity of redemption which ware have obtain appear to be a gross  imposition for the consideration be mention to be pound yet not a farthing  appear to be pay the statute that have be mention concern bankruptcy bind  equitable as well as legal right and court of equity as well as law these  statute be find on suppose fraud of the bankrupt and therefore intend to put  they under disability to prejudice and defraud their creditor in the present  case the equity of redemption of this estate be make over by Tyssen after his  bankruptcy though before the assignment nothing therefore pass by this  conveyance and if bradley mortgage have be out of the case and the plaintiff  will then have purchase of he after a act of bankruptcy and then a commission  have issue within five year the assignee under that commission must have  prevail creditor after bankruptcy be in the nature of purchaser and have a  prior equity to any other person and here ware be be a prior conveyance but  from a person who have nothing to convoy ware can not come in at law as a  creditor for this sum of pound beside it be a imposition the money never have  be advance yet if it have be actual pay as the legal estate be in Bradley it  will not have be any benefit to ware but he must have lose the money case  tempt Talbot decree therefore as to this estate that Bradley shall reconvey to  the plaintiff upon payment of principal and interest the next question be as  to those estate which be encumber by Tyssen before his bankruptcy those  encumbrance be since by mesne assignment vest in ware and here it appear that  ware have after the bankruptcy and before the plaintiff case tempt Talbot er p  assignment get a release of the equity of redemption of those estate from  Tyssen for pound here the legal estate be in ware and the question be whether  in a court of equity it shall be take away without ware be be pay all the  money he advance though the rule be the same here as at law upon construction  of statute yet where a act be to be carry into execution here there be certain  rule to be observe which will bind equal in case of a act of parliament as of  the commonlaw one of those rule be that a purchaser for a valuable  consideration without notice have as good title to equity as any other person  this court will never take any advantage from he and consequent will not grant  a discovery against he of the only equity he have to defend himself by which  if he shall be oblige to discover the other party will immediate take  advantage of and there certain may be case where a purchaser for a valuable  consideration without notice of a act of bankruptcy shall not be oblige in  this court to discover any thing whether encumbrance that he have get in or  any other thing but all advantage shall be leave he to defend himself suppose  two purchaser without notice and the second by chance get hold of a old term  he shall defend himself thereby against the first who still be as much a  purchaser for a valuable consideration as himself I do not therefore think a  purchaser for a valuable consideration without notice of the bankruptcy to be  relieve against in this court case tempt Talbot within James the case of  Hitchcock versus Sedgwick vern be very different from this for a commission be  a public act of which all be bind to take notice but a act of bankruptcy may  be so secret as to be impossible to be know and therefore I think that ware  have the legal estate in he shall by that be protect for so much as he real  and good fide pay Tyssens bankruptcy and therefore direct a issue upon the  point of notice to try whether ware have notice of Tyssens bankruptcy and when  and as to the other part of the estate which though not in ware himself be in  other who be trustee for ware that must be consider as one and the same thing  case tempt Talbot de term paschae geo two in curian porter