case Lord Lanesborough et at versus jones a be a goldsmith and there be mutual  credit betwixt a and b and a become a bankrupt only the balance shall be  liable to the bankruptcy not material whether the mutual credit be by open  account or mutual state debt Samuel Jones Esq borrow pound of clog the  goldsmith on mortgage and clog owe about pound to Jones upon his the say  Coggss note the note be Payable to the bishop of London Hatton Compton and the  say Samuel Jones or order but this be in trust for the say Samuel Jones and  the bishop Hatton Compton and Samuel Jones have all endorse the not S which be  in the custody or power of Jones and Jones go to demand the money of clog who  agree to allow Jones per cent for the money on the note till payment clog fail  afterward and a act of parliament be make for the vest the effect and estate  of clog in trustee the plaintiff Lord Lanesborough and other who be to act in  nature of commissioner and trustee for the creditor of clog and they insist  that Jones the mortgagor shall peer William pay all the mortgage money but  that as to the money due on Coggss note Jones shall come in under the  commission only pro rata with the rest of the creditor peer William er p but  decree by Lord chancellor Cowper with great clearness that in regard by the  late statute of Ann cap sect it be enact that where there be mutual credit  between a bankrupt and another only the balance shall be pay so in this case  here be a plain mutual credit videlicet clog give credit to Jones on the  mortgage and Jones give credit to clog on his note and therefore the balance  shall only be pay and this clause in the statute be not to be construe of deal  in trade only or in case of mutual run account but that it be natural justice  and equity that in all case of mutual credit only the balance shall be pay and  that the commissioner or trustee in this act of parliament shall not be in a  better condition than clog himself will have be in that if instead of the  present bill which be to foreclose the mortgage clog himself before his  bankruptcy have bring such a bill sure no more than the balance shall have be  allow he and there be no reason that Jones shall suffer by the accident of  Coggss bankruptcy neither can the commissioner or if clog have be in the case  of a common bankrupt can the assignee be in a better condition than clog  himself will have be in but it seem if a and b be joint trader and I S owe a  and b on their joint account and a owe the say I S pound on his separate  account I S can deduct so much as a s proportion of the pound come to out of  the joint debt for that the copartnership debt of a and b be to be first pay  vide vern before any of the separate debt but if there be a surplus beyond  what will pay the partnership debt peer William then out of a s share of the  surplus I S may deduct the separate debt of a vide ex part Edward atk this  subject have receive further regulation by statute g c and by saint g c S vide  rial v bowl Ves as to the general construction of the clause respect mutual  credit vide ex part Deeze atk ex part Prescot ib ex part Ockenden ib French v  Fenn cook bank law that edit grove v dubois t r Bize v Dickson ib hankey v  smith t r Whitehead v Vaughan cook bank law smith v Hodson t r ex part  Stephens Ves ex part Huckey mad morris v Cleasby m S Gowen v Tritton holt n p  ex part flint swan peel v Northcote I b more Taun ex part Blagden rise Graham  v Russell marsh price ex part Ross buck ex part Whitehead g I Curson v African  company vern