case ex part belchier ex part parson in the matter of parson bankrupt Lincoln  inn hall march see in re speight speight v gaunt Ch d fry v Tapson Ch d magnus  v Queensland national bank Ch d assignee of bankrupt employ a broker to sell a  quantity of tobacco the broker receive the money and at the end of ten day  fail before he pay it over the assignee not bind to make it good order book  Vol foe S c ken on cross petition and exception to the assignment of  commissioner of bankrupt the case appear to be mrs parson be choose assignee  of the effect of her son John parson a bank ambler er p rupt and there be a  large quantity of tobacco to be sell she employ one Wiggan a broker to sell  the same by auction the money be pay to the broker and after remain in his  hand for about ten day he die insolvent and the commissioner be of opinion the  assignee ought to bear the loss it be prove by several person deposition that  it be the common method of business to sell mercantile good by auction and to  employ a broker and for he to receive the money note the exception be for that  the commissioner have charge the say Sarah parson with the sum of pound S d  receive for tobacco sell by Wiggan the broker whereas she receive only pound S  on that account and that therefore she ought to be charge therewith and no  more the exception be allow the above be all that appear in the order book  ambler Lord Hardwicke chancellor after argument at bar if mrs parson be  Chargeable in this case no man in his sense will act as assignee under  commission of bankrupt this court have lie down a rule with regard to the  transaction of assignee and more so of trustee so as not to strike a terror  into mankind act for the benefit of other and not for their own court of law  and equity too be more strict as to executor and administrator but where  trustee act by other hand either from necessity or conformable to the common  usage of mankind they be not answerable for loss there be two sort of  necessity saint legal necessity d moral necessity as to saint a distinction  prevail where two executor join in give a discharge for money and one of they  only receive it they be both answerable for it because there be no necessity  for both to join in the discharge the receipt of either be sufficient but if  trustee join in give a discharge and one only receive the other be not  answerable because his join in the discharge be necessary d moral necessity  from the usage of mankind if trustee act as prudent for the trust as for  herself and accord to the usage of business if trustee appoint rend to be pay  to a banker at that time in credit and the banker afterward break the trustee  be not answerable so in the employment of steward and agent the receiver of  Lord plymouth estate take bill in the country of person who at the time be  repute of credit and substance in order to return the rend to London the bill  be protest and the money lose and yet the steward be excuse nun of these case  be on account of necessity but because the person act in the usual method of  business ambler objection the good be in a warehouse but it do not appear the  broker have the key of the warehouse if he have he will then be in the  possession of the good and if he have in such case embezzle any of they mrs  parson will not be liable for such loss if she will not in such case of  embezzlement no more reason that she shall in this case objection mrs parson  herself may have receive the money it be not usual to receive the money one  self a question frequent happen by reason of bankruptcy as to good which be  ship but not import to who they belong in those case this court general order  the good to be sell and the money pay into the bank for the benefit of the  party who shall be entitle in the event but yet the broker be the hand to  receive the money first objection she may have appoint another person to  receive it the answer to that be Nit stir about exemplum quod lawsuit light to  untie objection she may have take security but to do that upon every occasion  will tend great to the hindrance of business therefore of opinion mrs parson  ought not to be charge with the value of the good leigh v Barry atk sadler v  Hobbs bro c c Ves in walker v Symonds Swanst fellow v Mitchell p wms Churchill  v Hobson p wms salk for case in which executor have be hold responsible by  have join in act with their coexecutors though they have not receive any of  the fund see Hovey v Blackman Ves chamber v Murchin Ves Brice v Stokes Ves  Lord shipbroke v Hintchinbroke ib and Ves Langford v gascoigne Ves ivy v  Campbell Scho ambler er p lef Sch Lef Doyle v black ib Underwood v Stevens  mere see Westley v clark Eden read v truelove post murrel v Cox vern harden v  clarke p wms Churchill v Hobson p wms fellow v Mitchell p wms aplin v brew pre  Ch anon mrs leigh v Barry atk read v truelove post Scurfield v how be bro c c  Littlehalls v gascoigne bro Brice v Stokes Ves Bradwell v catchpole swan saint  it be hold by Lord Kenyon that one assignee may receive money of the bankrupt  estate and give a valid discharge smith v Jameson Esp n p peak Bristol v  Eastman Esp see swain v Crammond t r but in the case of can v read atk Lord  Hardwicke the point come express under his consideration hold the contrary in  primrose v Bromley atk the same judge declare that assignee be to be consider  as mere trustee and each separate answerable only for what he receive and see  atk in ex part Singleton p W in note by Mr Cox the Lord chancellor refuse to  charge a survive assignee of a bankrupt with money receive by his coassignee  although they have join in the receipt in ex part griffin Glyn jam S one of  two assignee sign joint check of himself and b the other assignee upon the  banker for payment of dividend and deliver the check to his coassignee to  distribute afterward b sign they and deposit they in a desk from whence they  be steal and the money receive on they hold that S be not liable for the loss  sustain see the earl of Litchfield atk anon mrs but if by the act of one  assignee out of the course of his duty the property of the bankrupt be put  into the single power of the other assignee both be it seem liable for any  loss sustain by the act of the latter see ex part griffin g I see lingard v  Bromley v b Beauchamp v Silverlock Charles Rep rider v Bickerston Bac Abr pl  in Lord plymouth case mention in the text a receiver pay the amount of rend  receive by he to a tradesman in good credit and take bill for the sum in order  to transmit the amount and the tradesman fail it be hold that the receiver be  not bind to make good the loss knight v Lord Plymouth atk see I W see wren v  Kirton Ves so if a assignee pay money into his banker hand as money belong to  the estate and the banker fail the assignee will be clear from loss see in  Massey v banner I W see Rowth v Howell Ves Adam v Claxton Ves but where a  person employ by a assignee to receive the bankrupt effect fail the assignee  be compel to make good the loss re earl of Litchfield atk