case warrington versus Norton a commission of bankruptcy issue against h at  eleven oh clock in the morning at three in the afternoon the commissioner  declare he a bankrupt and execute a assignment at six and then have notice  that he die at one oh clock that day this a deal within the act of parliament  and the proceed shall stand a commission of bankruptcy be take out against one  Hugh and upon the that of February at eleven oh clock in the morning the  commissioner meet and proceed to declare he a bankrupt and the declaration be  sign by they between three case tempt Talbot er p and four oh clock in the  afternoon and the assignment of the bankrupt good execute at six at which  instant the commissioner have notice that the bankrupt die that day at one in  the afternoon which be the first notice they have of his death the bankrupt  have before his death devise all his real and personal estate for the payment  of his debt the plaintiff who be a creditor bring his bill against the  defendant as assignee under the commission for a account of such good of the  bankrupt as have come to his hand to which the defendant plead the commission  and the proceed under it the question be whether this be such a deal under the  commission as be within I cap sect the word whereof be that where after any  commission of bankruptcy be deal in by the commissioner the offender happen to  die before distribution that nevertheless they may in that case proceed in the  execution of the commission in such sort as they may have do if the offender  be live Mr attorneygeneral Mr fazakerley and Mr forester argue for the  defendant that the meeting in order to declare he a bankrupt be a sufficient  deal within the statute and that the assignment have a relation to the  bankruptcy that when the commissioner assign it be from the act of parliament  and not from themselves for they have no case tempt Talbot interest vest in  they but it be the operation of the act which give they right in the thing but  none at all in the person of the bankrupt so that his death can be material  and the law give no right over the person but only a power of call he a  bankrupt it must be in pursuance of the commission and therefore that  examination be a deal within the statute that by law there can be no split a  day as a lease make to commence from henceforth take in the day of the date  although execute at the very last moment and in Shelleys case   the recovery  be hold good although the party die the same day because it be a legal proceed  that the law against bankrupt be not at all to be consider as penal but as  remedial law and as such be entitle to the most favourable construction accord  to the rule lie down in Heydens case   and therefore if any construction can  be make more beneficial for the creditor than another that one be to be admit  as find upon natural justice and upon that best of rule law suum whoever it be  to assign that in these case the law itself bath provide how it shall be  construe for by I cap sect it be enact that all the statute which be  theretofore make against bankrupt and for the relief of creditor shall be in  all thing beneficial construe for the relief of the creditor of the bankrupt  so that the law itself direct a beneficial construction to be make for the  creditor and when a law do by express provision enact how construction shall  be make the clause so directive of construction be of the same force and  authority as any other part of that law Mr solicitor general and Mr brown  argue on the other band that these law be rather penal than remedial the party  be therein call a offender c which he do not appear to be until he be declare  a bankrupt and that declaration be the deal mean by the statute for till then  there can be no proceed upon the commission proper so call Shelleys case be  quite different for recovery be common assurance the law favour they and do  not enter into any inquiry about case tempt Talbot the particular minute of  the day the party die upon have this law not be make the commissioner can not  have proceed after the bankrupt death and the word of the statute seem to mean  that he shall be declare a bankrupt first Lord chancellor the plaintiff if  content to come in under the commission will be entitle to the benefit of it  but his intent seem to be to set aside all the word of this statute of I I it  look as if some doubt have be conceive whether the party death determine the  commission the former statute be that they shall seize his body which they can  not do when the party be dead but it be always clear that no commission can be  take out against a man after his death then whatever may occasion the doubt  come this statute which say that when the commission have be deal in c what be  a deal in it be the question indeed I know no particular act as distinct from  another which can be call a deal it have be say that the declare he a bankrupt  be the act mean but that declaration of the commissioner be only discretionary  and for caution and not at all bind to any body it be not probable that the  act shall intend that only to be a deal which it have not any where give the  commissioner power to do whatever be do in pursuance of the commission be a  deal in it if never so minute and thereafter for that these be remedial law be  to be beneficial construe in favour of the creditor I can therefore put a  narrow constrain case tempt Talbot er p construction upon the word deal in in  order to overthrow this commission and all the just right of the creditor  claim under it the plea be allow rea lib a fol