Brassey against dawson b r a collector of the landtax become a bankrupt but  before assignment his good be seize under a warrant from the commissioner of  landtax this create such a lie as can be defeat by the subsequent assignment  Barnard Str Cunn espin S c 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 I the land tax 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 distress  sergeant darnel for the plaintiff the assignee cite the case of sir Matthew  Decker try before Eyre chief justice Andrews and sir m Decker Cun pasch Geo  the action there be bring against the defendant as sheriff for a false return  for 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 be sergeant on the otherside this  must be consider as a debt due to the crown and the prerogative Ridgeway tempt  Hardwicke will prevail against common person keb Jones No property vest in the  assignee until assignment the bankrupt interest in his good continue after his  bankruptcy commit and be liable to be take in execution for his debt darnel  sergeant I agree 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 intestates good from the time of his  death and in the mean time they be in the custody of the law Lord Hardwicke  chief justice there be two point first consider this as the case of a private  person and 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 in the hand of the constable and  therefore the assignment in this case may prevail against the distress but  consider this as a execution at the suit of the crown it seem otherwise and  this a prerogative Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke 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 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 to be always avoid lee justice cite  holt opinion salk this case be now adjourn and argue again in hill Geo as  follow Mr strange for the plaintiff the collector of the landtax the that July  become a bankrupt on the I that 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 that the  assignment make the saint the good take away on the d sell on the that August  I shall consider this case in two different view first suppose it to be  between two private person second as it be in the case of the crown Ridgeway  tempt Hardwicke er p Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke it appear by Geo c be the  landtax 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 he have in his  custody but what he have a property in at that time the property be divest out  of the bankrupt in this case on the that July the day the bankruptcy be commit  with respect to all person except the crown and then not until the assignment  make this appear likewise by the word of James 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 leo in the case  of Hussey and Fiddell salk Mod holt W it be hold that the assignee may either  bring trover for good sell by person after a act of bankruptcy commit and  before commission or may bring a action for money allow sale to be good if the  bankrupt have any property in such case the sale to a honest purchaser must at  all event be good which by that authority a ear 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 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 Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke bankrupt they be not  subject to this execution within the act as to the second point if 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 to receive only and the division which be answerable to the  crown the receivergeneral be appoint by the crown the collector by the  division and no payment to the collector isa 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 the 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 part 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 not 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 Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke good any 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 adjourn in Trinity term Geo 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 the that  Elizabeth cap and the saint James cap 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 in the assignee  from the time of the bankruptcy commit coal and Davies raym hill W rule by  holt chief justice that where execution be execute and after the defendant  become bankrupt that the subsequent bankruptcy will not affect that execution  otherwise if it have be execute since the bankruptcy commit lev Ridgeway tempt  Hardwicke the delivery of the writ to the sheriff without a actual execution  thereon before the act of bankruptcy be no bar against the assignee note a  assignee may maintain trover against a sheriff who take the bankrupt good in  execution after the act of bankruptcy and before the assignment and sell they  after Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke er p the assignment the property of they be  after assignment in the assignee from the time of the act of bankruptcy by  relation Cooper v city burr this be better explain by holt chief justice in  the case of Higgit against player salk but yet until the assignment be make  the property be not in the commissioner assignment 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 though bankrupt in respect of the sum  which he have collect and he have in his hand be a debtor to the crown second  what be the effect of 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 debtor to the crown say likewise that the  division be the debtor and the collector a debtor to they only this question  depend on the landtax act of the Geo by that act the duty be grant to the king  and the subsequent clause relate only to the Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke manner  of the collection the collector appoint by the commissioner be pay his salary  out of the money collect and on payment to the receiver he be also express  discharge against the king and the division be only liable in the nature of a  surety for the collector second as to what be the effect of a seizure under  the warrant of the commissioner it must if this have be a extent 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 c but it be plain design by that act in imitation of that remedy  a extent be both a action and execution in the first instance ex part martial  atk 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 create 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 I  Jo 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 Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke  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 relate to extent in  aid extent in case of the crown before assignment be good Sho the  attorneygeneral v capel where it be also say extent have be hold good that  have be make upon good actual levy by virtue of a become facias and in the  sheriff custody the extent come before a bill of sale make so as the property  be not alter but it may be say why shall the king be any more bind by the  assignment than the bankruptcy because by the assignment there be a property  actual vest 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 Sheffield v ba and  this relation here be find upon the construction of the statute Matt to  bankrupt 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 he then can do no act injurious to his  creditor salk creditor 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  Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke assignment as to that from the time of the seizure  the good be in custodian law and not liable to any other until the money for  which they be so seize cro car Jo there hold that S extend before any act of  commit and no liberate sue out until after yet be not assign commissioner  which come up to the present case the act of bankruptcy be e thing among  private person who be creditor as the assignment in case of the crown  judgement for the defendant note it appear from sir John strange report of  this case that the defendant have act as officer the plaintiff be order to pay  Triple cost stram Ridgeway tempt Hardwicke er p