case de gol versus ware whether a act of bankruptcy may be purge by length of  time and whether creditor after a act of bankruptcy shall come in under the  commission or only have their remedy against the person of the bankrupt on who  petition a commission shall issue the defendant ware become indebt to the  plaintiff in and afterward commit a act of bankruptcy upon which the plaintiff  be the petition creditor take out a commission of bankruptcy against the  defendant and in order to overreach and make void as many of his conveyance  and settlement c as possible the creditor on a bill file endeavour to prove he  a bankrupt as far backward as they can and do actual prove to the satisfaction  of the court that be commit a act of bankruptcy in the year then it become a  question whether the commission of bankruptcy and all that be do under it be  not wrong in regard that the debt of the petition creditor on which it be  ground be contract subsequent in time to the first act of bankruptcy after  this matter have be argue and time take to consider of it Lord chancellor  declare it be clear that no body but a creditor can take out a commission of  bankruptcy against another for that the act of parliament be all make for the  relief of creditor and likewise that such commission must issue on the  petition of some creditor who can be relieve under it now if the debt be  subsequent to the act of bankruptcy the creditor can come in under the  commission against the effect of the bankrupt though the person of the  bankrupt himself will be liable the general rule be not to determine the time  of the bankruptcy but only that the person be a bankrupt antecedent to the  commission for then all the creditor before that time will have a case tempt  Talbot right to come in but when that matter be minutely enter into it must be  distinguish which creditor be precedent and which be subsequent to the act of  bankruptcy if the defendant become a bankrupt case tempt Talbot er p in then  the petition creditor be out of the case but if not till when the plaintiff  debt be subsist then all be right what puzzle the case be that the assignee  have be over diligent and in order to rescind as many of the defendant act as  they can have endeavour to prove he a bankrupt as far backward as possible by  which they have cut up their own foundation by prove a act of bankruptcy in  then the difficulty be whether the act of bankruptcy in can be consider as  purge it shall seem that a act of bankruptcy if once plain commit can never be  purge Worsley v Demattos burr but if the act be doubtful then circumstance  faith explain the intent of the first act and show it not to have be do with a  view to defraud creditor ex part hall atk et vide cook bank law be near ten  year since and no commission take out upon it I be most incline to direct a  action of trover in which the jury will consider whether the defendant be  bankrupt in or not and if they pay no regard to it I be sure I will not then  Mr fazakerley object that the court will never direct a trial at law unless it  appear doubtful whether he be a bankrupt in which he say be not the present  case and he say it be never determine that a act of bankruptcy can be waive or  purge the Lord chancellor dismiss the plaintiff bill without prejudice note  this decree be reverse in the house of lord by the opinion of all the judge  Lord chief justice lee who deliver the opinion of the judge say that as the  commission issue when the old statute relate to bankrupt be in force they have  consider it upon the foot of those old statute and that they be all of opinion  that the petition creditor be a creditor at the time the commission issue the  commission therefore be good and valid in law bro PC and Edward bro PC S c say  vide e contra cook bank law and the case there cite February