case Brassey against dawson the collector of the landtax be a debtor to the  king for the money in his hand and therefore if he become bankrupt and the  commissioner of the landtax distrain the good take on distress can be recover  in trover by his assignee under the bankruptcy without tender the sum due to  the king although the warrant of distress issue subsequent to the act of  bankruptcy and the good be not sell under it until after the assignment SC  stram SC Cunn SC bar king b upon a trial before Lord Raymond the point reserve  be this the collector have receive the landtax commit a act of bankruptcy the  commissioner of the landtax issue out a warrant of distress against he for  such money after the time of a act of bankruptcy commit by he and before the  issue of the commission and the question be whether a assignment of the  bankrupt effect will by relation vest a property in the assignee from the time  of the act of bankruptcy commit and so overreach the intermediate distressThe  act of bankruptcy be commit on the that of July the commissioner of the  landtax issue the warrant of distress and the good be seize thereon on the  that of July the commission of bankruptcy issue the that of July the bankrupt  estate be assign to the assignee on the that of July and on the d of July the  defendant take away the good and sell they under the warrant of distress SC  stram a sergeant darnel for the plaintiff who be the assignee cite the case of  Andrews v sir Matthew Decker Cun Rep b try before Eyre chief justice easter  term in the three year of George the second the action there be bring against  the defendant as sheriff for a false return of no one good to a become facias  and the defendant in that case prove the person against who the become facias  issue have commit a act of bankruptcy the chief justice hold no one good be a  proper return the party after the bankruptcy not have any property in the good  Eyre sergeant on the other side this must be consider as a debt due to the  crown and the prerogative will prevail against common person keb Jones c No  property vest in the assignee until assignment for the bankrupt interest in  his good continue after the bankruptcy commit and they be liable to be take in  execution for his debt darnel sergeant I agree that no property vest in the  assignee until the assignment but still it be divest out of the bankrupt it be  like the case of administrator who by relation have a property in their  intestate good from the time of his death and in the mean time they be in the  custody of the law modern Lord Hardwicke chief justice there be two point  first consider this as the case of a private person and second as the case of  the crown as to the first though the property be not actual divest out of the  bankrupt until assignment yet when that be do it relate to the time of the  bankruptcy commit so as to avoid all intermediate act do by the bankrupt  themselves but not with respect to stranger when the execution c at the suit  of any other person be complete execute though where the good be in the  sheriff hand and the execution be not complete it may be otherwise as the  present case be the good be in the hand of the constable and therefore the  assignment in this case may prevail against the distress modern er p but  consider this as a execution at the suit of the crown it seem otherwise and  this be a prerogative case for it be a debt owe to the crown for the use of  the public suppose the Act have grant this money to the crown without give any  particular remedy for the recovery of it a extent from the exchequer may  certain have issue and the give a summary remedy for the recovery of it can  alter the nature of the debt in the case of a extent the good be bind from the  testae the king not be within the statute of fraud c the relation of a  property in the assignee to the time of the bankruptcy commit can prevail in  this case because the king can now come in as a creditor and so a wrong will  be do by relation which be always to be avoid lee justice cite holt opinion  salk this case be now adjourn and argue again in Hilary term in the seven year  of George the second as follow Mr strange for the plaintiff the collector of  the landtax on the seven of July become a bankrupt on the sixteenth the  commissioner of the landtax issue their warrant to levy the public money he  have in his hand accord to the direction of the landtax act in such case and  the same day the bankrupt good be seize upon such warrant a commission of  bankruptcy be take out on the seventeenth the assignment make the twentyfirst  the good take away on the twentysecond and sell on the six of August I shall  consider this case in two different view first suppose it to be between  private person second as it be in the case of the crown it appear by the Geo c  be the land tax Act for the year when this matter happen that the good of the  collector so to be seize by the warrant of the commissioner must be not what  be bag in big custody but what he have a property in at that time the property  be divest out of the bankrupt in this case on the seven of July the day the  bankruptcy be commit with respect to all person modern except the crown and  then not until the assignment make this appear likewise by the word of the  James c that the good of the bankrupt shall be distribute whereof no execution  be serve and execute before the act of bankruptcy commit this seem clear to be  admit to be law in lev in the case of Hussey v Fiddel will Mod holt salk a it  be hold that the assignee c may either bring trover for good sell by person  after a act of bankruptcy commit and before commission or may bring a action  for the money allow the sale good if the bankrupt have any property in such  case the sale to a honest purchaser may at all event be good which by that  authority appear to be otherwise for the assignee may either disallow the sale  or consider the bankrupt as their servant and so bring a action for the money  for the good sell by he act in that capacity under they it be sufficient  however for we if the property be in abeyance like the good of a intestate  when there be a contest administration for if they be not in the bankrupt they  be not subject to this execution within the Act as to the second point whether  this warrant be equivalent to a extent for the king debt it will be against we  it be before assignment but the collector here be not to be consider as a  debtor of the crown it be the receiver only which be answerable to the crown  the receivergeneral be appoint by the crown the collector by the division and  no payment to the collector be a discharge of the division by the express word  of the Act which be a very strong proof that he be not look upon as a servant  of the crown and there be no danger in this case that the crown can suffer  there be a provision in the Act for reassessments on the division in such case  suppose the crown have a power of proceed against the collector in this case  as its servant yet this remedy by warrant be not equivalent or entitle to the  same privilege as a extent a extent be a commonlaw process a matter of record  and in the case of the crown bind from the testae the king not be within the  statute of fraud c the warrant here be a matter in pais and can it be imagine  if the Act have intend the crown shall have a remedy in this case against the  collector as their servant the method of proceed by extent will modern er p  not have be mention or at least in give this remedy by warrant declare that it  shall be equal advantageous to the crown this method therefore seem to be  design mere for the advantage of the division who be liable to make good any  such deficiency that they may get what they can from the collector in this  summary way and not that every inhabitant shall be under a necessity of bring  a action to recover their several sum so pay to the collector the court  conceive this to be a case of importance take time to consider it until  Trinity term in the seven and eight year of George the second when modern Lord  Hardwicke chief justice give the resolution of the court to this purpose the  general question be whether by the assignment the property in the bankrupt  good pass to the assignee at the time of the bankruptcy commit and we be all  of opinion it do not two point have be make in the argument of this case first  suppose this to be a execution at the suit of a private person the assignee  will have be entitle this depend on the construction which the statute of  Elizabeth c and James c have receive the construction have be that no interest  in the bankrupt effect be vest in the commissioner but a power only of make a  assignment Jones and that where the commissioner have once execute that  authority the property be by relation vest it the assignee from the time of  the bankruptcy commit it be rule by holt chief justice in the case of coal v  Davies Hilary term will ld ray a that where execution be execute and afterward  the defendant become a bankrupt that the subsequent bankruptcy will not affect  the execution otherwise if it be execute after the bankruptcy commit the  delivery of the writ to the sheriff without a actual execution thereon before  the act of bankruptcy be no bar against the assignee lev b this be better  explain by holt chief justice in the case of Kiggil v player salk c but yet  until the assignment be make the property be not in the commissioner nor be it  in abeyance but it be in the bankrupt himself the second point be most  material in this case and first it be to be consider whether the bankrupt in  respect of the sum which he bad collect and bad in his hand be a debtor to the  crown second what be the effect of the seizure under the warrant of the  commissioner as to the first several objection be make first that the  collector be not a officer of the crown that the receiver be the only debtor  to the king it be say likewise that the division be the debtor and the  collector a debtor to they only this question depend on the land tax Act of  Geo by that Act the duty be grant to the king and the subsequent clause relate  only to the manner of its collection the collector appoint by the commissioner  be pay his salary out of the money collect on payment to the receiver who be  express discharge against the king c and the division be only in the nature of  a surety for the collector second as to what be the effect of the seizure  under the warrant of the commissioner it must be agree if this have be a  extent it will prevail against the assignee but this warrant it be say be a  mere act in pais and not to be compare to a extent to be sure it be not of  equal force so as to bind from the date modern c but it be plain design by  that Act in imitation of that remedy the point we go upon be that before the  assignment here be a actual seizure for a debt incur to the crown before the  bankruptcy and thereby such a lie on the bankrupt good as can not be defeat by  the subsequent assignment and that for three reason the first because these  good be proper seisable be the good of the bankrupt at that time as appear by  salk the second the king be not bind by the statute concern bankrupt not be  mention therein Jones a it be certain that in the case of the king the extent  bind from the date which will not be so if the king be include in those act as  appear by lev the word extent in those act relate only to private person and  this be far illustrate by the clause in James c S relate to extent in aid  extent in case of the crown before assignment be good show b but it may be say  why shall the king be any more bind by the assignment than the bankruptcy  because by the assignment modern er p there be a property actual invest in  other which can be divest even in the case of the crown the three reason be  that the king be never affect by relation hob c this relation here be find  upon the construction of the statute relate to bankruptcy in which the king be  not include but it be say if this shall prevail the king by a debt contract  since the bankruptcy may defeat the creditor of all their just debt but in  answer to this in the first place fraud be not to be presume in the crown  second this will be the act of the bankrupt himself after the bankruptcy  commit and be then can do no act injurious to his creditor salk creditor be  not hurt by the bankrupt outlawry another objection be that no sale be make of  the good in pursuance of the seizure until after the assignment as to that  from the time of the seizure the good be in custodian law and not liable to  any other demand until the money for which they be so seize be pay but it have  be hold cro car Jones d that good extend before any act of bankruptcy commit  and no liberate sue out until after yet be not assignable by the commissioner  which come up to the present case the act of bankruptcy be the same thing  among private person who be creditor as the assignment in case of the crown  judgement for the defendant see the attorneygeneral v capel show Audley v  Halsey W Jones king v Pixley bunb Upham v sumner black Rep Lechmere v  Thorogood show Mod Rorke v Dangrell term Rep e