case billon v hide and Michael November the that ves pl S c the plaintiff and  one Michael have various transaction together principal negotiate bill of  exchange from to the that of June and on the that of April Michael commit a  private act of bankruptcy the sum pay by Michael for these transaction to the  plaintiff amount to pound Lord chancellor this bill be to have a allowance for  pound out of a sum of pound which have be recover in a action at law by the  defendant the assignee of Michael the bankrupt against the plaintiff the case  be that Mr Michael who be a merchant have long deal with the plaintiff before  the that April when he commit a act of bankruptcy which the atkins er p  plaintiff insist be a private act of bankruptcy and that for some time after  Mr Michael appear in public in all place where merchant resort without  suspicion of his be a bankrupt the deal between Mr Michael and the plaintiff  as it appear in the cause commence in and continue after the that of April up  to the that of June follow and the commission of bankruptcy be date the that  of November the transaction between they from the that of April to the that of  June follow be of various sort but appear to be fair one and be principal in  negotiate bill of exchange upon which the plaintiff advance to Mr Michael  money to a considerable amount several sum be also pay by the plaintiff to Mr  Michael during this space of time some pay to Mr michell own hand some to his  order some by way of loan and other sum by way of money lie out for his use  for prize on insurance for his benefit and for duty on good import by he which  sum amount to pound it appear that the sum of money pay at different time by  Mr Michael to the plaintiff for and on account of these several transaction  amount in the whole to pound atkins the assignee under the commission find  these sum be pay by Mr Michael after the act of bankruptcy commit by he they  bring their action against the plaintiff for such money have and receive to  their use and recover a verdict against he for that money Mr billon the  plaintiff here but defendant at law insist on the trial to have the sum of  pound allow he as pay to and for the bankrupt and it not be allow be the  reason of his bring this bill there be two consideration first whether the  plaintiff be entitle to this allowance second if he be entitle whether he have  pursue a proper remedy or whether this court be conclude by the verdict and  these question must depend upon the nature of the demand of the assignee  against he and the nature of the remedy he have pursue as to the nature of the  demand of the assignee which be find upon the relation of the act of  bankruptcy it be as hard a case as any in the law as this relation may go a  great way back and overreach all transaction without regard to their be fair  or fraudulent it hold in sale of mood and payment of money and it overturn not  only contract but act upon record and legal act as judgement and execution  execute where these act happen after the act of bankruptcy commit it be say  fiction of law shall not enure to the prejudice of any body but be invent to  support right and to be sure that be the rule but this case be take out of  another general rule which have be adhere to for the sake of public utility  videlicet that it be better a private mischief shall ensue than a general  inconvenience law quickly vult to bear private citizen damnum how public  officer malum Inst b but since trade have increase the mischief and  inconvenience have multiply and therefore the late act of the Geo be make and  this case be within the recital of that act and one of the principal case  provide for by it be the negotiation of bill of exchange and though the  plaintiff may not bring himself strict within the act yet he be within the  meaning of it and the court will go as far as it can in support of it second  as to the remedy pursue by the plaintiff it be insist by the assignee he ought  not to have a remedy here against they for that they recover at law by their  own strength and as he fail there he ought not to be assist here but it do not  appear in what shape the setoff be offer at the trial and I be apt to believe  it be only offer in mitigation of damage I think from the nature of the demand  against he he be entitle to have this allowance in some shape or other it  appear new to I to permit assignee to maintain a action of indebitatus  assumpsit for money pay by a bankrupt to another person after a secret act of  bankruptcy I always think assignee be oblige to bring a action of tort either  trover atkins or trespass and the Lord chief justice holt Parker and Raymond  be of that opinion but the assignee may now bring a action of assumpsit or  tort but not both kitchen v Campbell will black Hussey v fiddle Mod holt S c  Phillips v Thompson lev I remember Lord chief justice Parker declare in a  cause at guildhall the atkins er p Geo that he know no case where a man may  not maintain a assumpsit for money wrongful take from he except two videlicet  for money win at play and for money pay by a bankrupt good fide to a creditor  after a act of bankruptcy commit and in case where trover have be bring by  assignee under a commission of bankruptcy the court have lean`d against a  strict construction of the bankrupt act to the prejudice of a fair creditor  vide lev rider v fowl on a special verdict to raise a assumpsit the assignee  must maintain either in fact or by relation a contract and here the contract  upon which the assumpsit be maintain be by the interposition of the bankrupt  and therefore I think he ought to be consider as the factor of the assignee  and if they will take this method and affirm the contract do by the bankrupt  they must take he as their factor in all act do fair and without deceit Wilson  v bolter raym upon the authority of that case I think this be a favourable  action for the plaintiff to have such allowance because it make the assignee  affirm the contract of the bankrupt and be of opinion that the verdict at law  which have not allow it be not conclusive upon the plaintiff because it be a  matter of contract and of account and consequent a proper subject for the  jurisdiction of this court and the plaintiff ought to be all we f by the  interposition of this court so much as in justice he ought to have and I  recommend it to the assignee to allow the sum of pound to the plaintiff his  lordship adjourn the cause in order that the party may come to a accommodation  upon which Hanbury the survive assignee with the consent of all the creditor  enter into a agreement with billon who be thereby allow to deduct the whole of  the pound S out of the money recover under the verdict in pursuance of this  agreement his lordship with the consent of the party order that Hanbury shall  allow billon the pound S and dismiss the plaintiff bill Reg lib a f see ex  part Ockenden post rial v roll Ves post