Boylestone versus Radcliffe debt on obligation Intr hill rot bankrupt Danv Abr  p lev keb the plaintiff declare upon the statute of bankrupt and on the plead  the case be that the defendant be indebt to one studder and the plaintiff in a  joint obligation studder become a bankrupt and this debt be assign to the  plaintiff by the commissioner to the use of the creditor finch solicitor  general for the plaintiff this be a good assignment and in this case we shall  inquire first what interest the oblige have second what power the commissioner  have three if the commissioner here have execute their power as to the first  the obligation can proper be the debt of they both because a interest can be  both joint and several as Slingsbys case in coke Rep a and therefore they be  both possess per my per tout and then one of they be a bankrupt the  commissioner have power to assign the whole debt due to the bankrupt and for  necessity because the statute of James say that the assignee shall have the  same remedy as the bankrupt objection the debt be not the debt of the bankrupt  only but the debt of another also answer it be also the debt of the bankrupt  if the husband be joint seize in the right of his wife and be Raymond sir t  attaint and die the wife die the issue be bar   Rep a Greenleys case and by  the franktenement of the wife that be intend that she have joint with her  husband by the statute of h cap so when the husband lose by default land which  be the right of his wife law wife be that which she have joint with her  husband within Westminster cap there and this debt be in some sort belong to  the estate of studder for he may discharge it second assignment ought to be  favour and therefore mich car baker against Edmonds style Rep a assignee bring  a indebitatus assumpsit for upon a assignment of a debt due by contract of and  upon non assumpsit and a special verdict resolve for the plaintiff for  although in strictness of law it be not good yet in favour of creditor it be  hold good three whatsoever a bankrupt may forfeit that may be assign and there  he may have forfeit the whole obligation and there be a difference betwixt a  personal chattel in action and in possession for of a joint personal chattel  in action the king shall have all but of a joint chattel personal in  possession the king shall have only the moiety e a Plowden a   Inst object  perhaps the other oblige have release resp that be not find in the verdict and  it may be as well surmise that it be in trust for the bankrupt Wyndham if  there be two oblige the one can release to the other because a thing in action  and the statute shall not go by the rule of what thing the bankrupt may do for  he can assign a thing in action Twisden the case of the forfeiture of felon de  see of a joint debt be by prerogative but he can assign the whole and if he  may then the other may release it second the statute say that the assignee  shall have the same action here the bankrupt can have a action without the  other foster the question be if the commissioner have power to take away the  power of the other obligee to release the debt and if the assignee die this  survive to the other obligee when the commonlaw and statutelaw concur the  commonlaw shall be prefer et adjournaturr