case SPURRET v spiller November the that a be upon a agreement for a  composition give one of his creditor who will not consent to it otherwise a  bind for the residue over and above his composition such a contract though not  void by the express word of the that of George the second seem to be within  the reason and design of the act the plaintiff in this cause be upon a  agreement with his creditor in general for a composition of six shilling in  she pound the defendant one of the creditor atkins er p will not consent to it  unless the plaintiff will give he a bind for the residue of his debt over and  above his share of the composition the plaintiff in order to extricate himself  out of his difficulty do give a bind to a in trust for the defendant the  composition money have be pay to the rest of the creditor and likewise to the  defendant who have bring a action on his bind in the name of the trustee and  notice of trial be give for the that instant Mr Charles clarke move for a  injunction to stay proceed at law till the hear of the cause in this court  Lord chancellor take the injunction upon give judgement and a release of error  it be a case very proper to be consider for suppose a creditor upon a  commission of bank atkins ruptcy take out enter into a private agreement with  the bankrupt to sign his certificate upon his promise or contract to pay this  creditor whole debt in consideration of his sign the certificate there be no  doubt but such a contract will have be void by the express word of the statute  of the that of the present king the question be whether such a agreement as in  the present case though clear out of the act of parliament be not within the  reason and design of the act and the very mischief that be express condemned  by it and endeavour to be remedy for this be not only prejudicial to the  bankrupt but may be hurIful to the creditor in general because h person who  have a composition on foot may by enter into a contract to pay the whole debt  to one or more obstinate creditor as a consideration of their promise not to  appear or not to oppose the composition deceive the bulk of the creditor who  imagine the debt stand out against his estate be not so numerous as in fact  they be so Chesterfield v Jansen post smith v Bromley and Jones v Berkeley  dougl Cowp Cockshot v Bennet durn and Easts Rep Jackson v Duchaire durn and  Easts Rep Jackson v lomas durn and Easts Rep the case of sumner v Brady h  black term Rep contradict the authority of Lewis v chase p W in trueman v  Fenton Cowp the creditor receive no benefit or dividend under the commission  of bankruptcy against the debtor and the note there give be for a less sum  than though in satisfaction for what be real due see ex part Burton post