Brassey et all vers dawson et all landtax money in the hand of the collector  be a debt due to the king where therefore the collector commit a act of  bankruptcy on the that and his good be seize under the warrant of the  commissioner for landtax money the that and a commission issue against he the  that the assignment be make the that and the good be sell under the warrant  the d trover for the good will not lie by the assignee without payment or  tender of the money due by he but such warrant bind the good not from the date  but from the time of the seizure barn b r Cun Kely S c in trover by the  plaintiff as assignee of the effect of Samuel fairclough a bankrupt a case be  make for the opinion of the court that the bankrupt be appoint collector of  the landtax for the precinct of Aldgate in the city of London during the year  that July he commit a act of bankruptcy have then l of the tax in his hand  that July the commissioner of the landtax issue their warrant upon which the  good in the declaration be seize the same day that July a commission of  bankruptcy issue that a assignment be make to the plaintiff on July and that  on July the defendant take away the good and sell they upon this state of the  case the general question be whether the plaintiff have a property in these  good for as to a conversion suppose there be a property the defendant do not  offer to dispute it this cause be twice argue at the bar and for the  understanding it I shall give my own argument for the plaintiff and the  opinion of the court for the defendant strange pro quer I shall consider this  case two way as if it be between private person and whether here be any  intervention of the prerogative as to the first to make these good seisable  they must be his I e the bankrupt at the time of such seizure the power in Geo  c be for the commissioner to seize the estate real and personal of such  collector to he belong and I shall insist that on July these good be not his  the act of bankruptcy be state to have be before and that though in the case  of the crown it have be hold that it be sufficient to strange come any time  before the assignment and there be no relation to bind the crown yet in the  case of a subject the good be in the assignee by relation from the act of  bankruptcy and all mesne act will be avoid salk and therefore it be constant  experience to overreach a complete execution at the suit of a subject by show  only a act of bankruptcy before and James c suppose so by provide that the  good shall be equal distribute between the creditor whereof no execution be  serve and execute before a act of bankruptcy so in Philips v Thompson lev  where the writ be deliver before but not execute until after a act of  bankruptcy it be not doubt but it will have be bad have the act of bankruptcy  be before both bankrupt be consider as offender who have forfeit their estate  and be not capable of convey any property and therefore where after a act of  bankruptcy and before any commission strange report er p the bankrupt sell  good it be in the election of the assignee to disavow it and bring trover he  may indeed avow it and sue for the money but then the bankrupt be not consider  as transfer any property of his own but as act as servant to the assignee this  show there be no sort of property remain in the bankrupt however it will be  sufficient for my purpose if we only suppose the property to be in abeyance as  in the common case of intestacy before administration for then the good be not  his and consequent not seisable if it will be thus in the case of the subject  let we see if there be any intervention of the prerogative to give it a  different turn this indeed be the main point between we for if he be consider  as the debtor of the crown and the warrant of the commissioner to be equal to  a extent I admit it will be against we and the crown must take the warrant  come before any assignment and on the other band if the crown be out of the  case I apprehend it will not be dispute but that the plaintiff be entitle and  I shall insist for the plaintiff that the collector be not to be consider as  the debtor of the crown but the receiver general be and so be the division and  there be a plain reason for this distinction the division be original charge  and can no way be discharge but by a payment to the receiver general the  collector be a middle man between they in who the crown repose no confidence  and therefore leaves he to be appoint by the division and at the same time the  crown reserve to itself the appointment of the receiver general as the person  by who act the crown may be affect have the Act intend to turn the brown round  to a remedy against the collector in the first place strange it will only have  provide that what remain after disposal of the collector effect shall be levy  on the division by a reassessment but lest such a construction shall be make  there be add a express declaration that payment to the collector be no  discharge to the division until the money be lodge in the receiver general  hand the plain import of which be let the division take care who they send the  money by for he shall be consider as their agent and not the crown be if the  crown be in any danger of lose the duty there may be some colour to set up the  prerogative but here the duty be secure to the crown in all event by  assessment and reassessments the receiver general be the crown be debtor  because the crown can resort to no one else when the money be in his hand but  it be be in the collector hand be a circumstance of no consequence to the  crown or that make the least alteration put the case that I be debtor to the  crown and send my servant to the exchequer with the money and he neglect to  pay it in can that servant be say to be the debtor on who the crown can levy  the money no the crown consider I as the debtor still and as the person who be  to suffer by the other neglect will any body say the crown be bind to take the  collector for its paymaster the Act provide for the contrary now if the crown  have liberty to avow or disavow the payment to the collector then the division  have once pay the money and be bind to pay it again be a better the condition  of the crown and no ease but a load on the division there be one thing more to  be consider and that be suppose the crown have its election to resort to the  collector or the division and they be to be consider only as so many several  security to the crown yet whether this warrant of the commissioner which come  before the assignment be to be consider as equal to a extent which I admit  come in time if before the assignment and I apprehend there be a great  difference between they a extent be a matter of record a ancient commonlaw  process and bind from the testae notwithstanding the statute of fraud whereas  this warrant of the commissioner be a mere matter in pais the date whereof be  of no consequence and can it be imagine that if the parliament have intend to  make the collector debtor to the crown that they will not have leave to the  crown so noble a remedy as a extent or at least have provide that this warrant  shall be equal to a extent whereas have not do so but only empower the  commissioner to issue a warrant and continue the charge on the division it  must be take to be a provision in favour of the division and for their  reimbursement that whereas without such provision every man who be reassessed  will have no other remedy but a separate action for money have and receive to  his use which will certain strange lie against the collector who receive and  do not pay over strange report er p they shall now all have a more expeditious  and less expensive remedy this be find a proper use for the warrant of the  commissioner it fall in with the declaration in favour of the duty that the  division be not discharge until the receiver general have the money and it  fall in too with the different constitution of the two officer for one of  which the division be answerable and not for the other and therefore I hope  this action of trover be well bring Lord Hardwick contra deliver at another  day the resolution of the court this case have be proper divide at the bar  into two point first what the consequence will be if this be consider as  between two subject and second whether the prerogative of the crown make any  difference and as to the first of these we be all of opinion that if this be a  case between two subject the property of these good will be in the plaintiff  the commissioner of bankruptcy have neither by the Elizabeth nor the statute  of James any property vest in they but only a power to take order about they  by their discretion sir t Jones and when they have once execute that authority  by assignment the property be in the assignee by relation from the time of the  act of bankruptcy commit and a executor take after such act of bankruptcy and  before the assignment at the suit of a subject will certain be avoid vide  Cooper v Chittey burr black Rep SC Hitchin v Campbell black Rep that the  assignee under these circumstance may either bring trover for the good or  assumpsit for the produce of the sale but they can bring trespass against the  sheriff smith et all assignee of clarke v mill term Rep vide cook bank law ed  as be hold in coal v Davis hill W and so be lev for the execution be a mesne  act and as such will be avoid salk the property be not in abeyance until  assignment but remain in the bankrupt accord to salk but then second we think  here be such a intervention of the prerogative of the crown as will defeat the  plaintiff in this action for this purpose two thing be to be consider first  whether the money in the hand of the collector make he debtor to the crown for  so much and second what effect the warrant and seizure will have in the  present case and first we hold that notwithstanding the objection make at the  bar the collector be to be consider as the king servant and indebt to he it be  the king money that be collect and the allowance to the collector be not make  by the division but by the king and though the division be liable for his  imbezilments yet that be only as so many several security to the crown to what  purpose be power give to the strange commissioner to summon any person they  suspect of imbeziling if he be not consider as indebt to the crown and as to  the second thing to be consider videlicet what effect the warrant of the  commissioner will be of we do not think it be equal to a extent so as to bind  the good from the date but what we ground our judgement upon be that until a  assignment the property be in the bankrupt that the crown be hand be upon  these good and create a lie before the assignment the crown be not bind by the  act relate to bankrupt not be name sir W Jones and though the king be bind by  a actual assignment show yet that be because the property be then absolute  transfer to a three person Lechmere v Thoroughgood Mod comb SC Borke v dayrell  term Rep but relation which be but fiction of law can bind the crown hob and  though the actual sale be not until after the assignment yet the good be in  custodian law before cro car upon this seizure all the right which the  assignee have be to redeem the good on payment of the money which be in the  hand of the commissioner as a pledge for that purpose but they bring their  action without payment or tender of the money and consequent must fail in it  the postea must be deliver to the defendant and the plaintiff must pay the  cost of a nonsuit which upon affidavit of the defendant act as officer be  order to be Triple walker v sir Philip Egerton comb hunt v Robinson Cas prac c  p king v Poland ante strange report er p