case copeman versus gallant see now bankruptcy Act Vict c S on point as to  construction see rial v roll atk Drummond v Drummond l r Ch Eq can ab pl  bankrupt though in possession yet if empower to dispose of good in trust for  another they be not liable to the bankruptcy either in law or equity a make a  bill of sale of some lease and personal estate to b and c in trust to pay a s  debt at first b act in the trust but afterward c take the whole into his  possession and act alone and become a bankrupt peer William er p upon which a  bring a bill against c and other to bring c and his assignee under the  commission of bankruptcy to a account touch the personal estate of a so assign  in trust for the payment of his debt as aforesaid and Lord Cowper be about to  pronounce his decree for the plaintiff videlicet that the defendant shall  account say that he bethink himself there be a clause in one of the statute of  bankrupt which may affect this case where it be declare that the trust good in  the possession of a peer William bankrupt this give he credit and induce other  to trust he and therefore shall make the good liable to the bankruptcy  wherefore he direct that the statute shall be look into and particular the  clause in the saint of James cap sect which be accord read appear to be in the  follow word videlicet and for that it often fall out that many person before  they become bankrupt do convey their good to other man upon good consideration  yet still do keep the same and be repute the owner thereof and dispose of the  same as their own be it enact that if at any time hereafter any person or  person shall become bankrupt and at such time as they shall so become bankrupt  shall by the consent and permission of the true owner and proprietary have in  their possession order and disposition any good or chattel whereof they shall  be repute owner and take upon themselves the sale alteration or disposition as  owner that in every such case such good shall be liable to the bankrupt debt  as if they have be the proper good of the bankrupt see saint Geo c S upon the  read of which clause Lord chancellor declare that he think this clause govern  the case then before they and thereupon dismiss the plaintiff bill with cost  but I be of counsel for the plaintiff and read the clause of the statute do at  the rise of the court desire that we may have another day to speak to this  clause it be a very hard case which Lord chancellor grant and accord at  another day June in Trinity term the cause come on upon this point only peer  William I observe that the printer of the statute book mistake in divide this  paragraph of the act on which the present question depend and in make it no  part of the precedent clause so that this clause be read to the court without  the preamble and as a substantive clause have the great weight against we and  indeed in like manner the last word of this very clause videlicet for the  better payment of bankrupt debt and discourage of man to become bankrupt  belong to the next follow paragraph of the act though make by the printer part  of this but probable this will be of no weight with the court in regard it  will be take as if the paragraph be all right divide it be a plain mistake of  the printer and in the act itself in the parliament roll there be no paragraph  but a continuation throughout of the same line but as to the principal  question it be to be observe that the chief end of the statute be to punish  fraud commit by the bankrupt for in the clause just precede this it enable the  commissioner to proceed when the bankrupt by fraud make himself accountant to  the king also if the bankrupt fraudulent conceal his good or will not give a  account how he become a bankrupt this act subject the bankrupt to the pillory  vide sect and to the loss of one of his ear so that the clause in question be  intend only to prevent a fraud in the bankrupt and not to punish a innocent  peer William man or a three person and all the meaning of this clause be that  if the bankrupt himself assign over his own good and still continue in  possession and act as owner of they they shall be liable to his debt for the  continuance of the possession be a strong presumptive evidence of fraud but  this preamble extend only to such good as be original in the bankrupt and  continue in his possession I must admit the word of the clause be general but  I take it that accord to the common rule of construe act of parliament and the  reason of this case the generality of the enact clause shall be qualify by the  preamble which be special and particular and express say to be the reason of  make the act the preamble of the act have be always think material in the  construction of it and by the Lord coke it be call the key of the act of  parliament to open and explain the meaning thereof and the preamble in this  case say for that bankrupt frequent convey over peer William er p their good  and yet continue in possession and dispose of they be it enact c so that first  the mischief be recite and then come the remedy therefore it be reasonable to  construe that the remedy shall not be large than the mischief this be the  common rule and it be much more reasonable that it shall hold in the present  case where if the clause shall not be restrain by the preamble it will  occasion a manifest hardship peer William if in any case a act of parliament  shall be restrain by the preamble it shall in this to prevent a three person a  innocent person from be wrong to prevent the application of the estate of a  three person towards satisfy the debt of another and leave his own debt unpay  this be as harsh a thing especial in equity as can well be imagine it be a  construction that utter ruin the plaintiff nay ruin he for be honest and for  make a honest provision for his debt since his own creditor who he think and  may reasonable think he have provide for will be unpay by this construction  and will come upon the plaintiff for their demand this very case have receive  a determination at law Michaelmas term in the case of LApostre versus Le  Plaistrier where a action of trover for a parcel of diamond be bring against  the defendant as assignee under the commission of bankruptcy award against one  Levi to who before the bankruptcy the plaintiff have deliver the diamond to  sell but it appear upon the trial which be before c I holt that the real  property of the diamond belong to the plaintiff this very clause of the  statute of James I be insist upon by the defendant counsel and this seem a  hardship upon the plaintiff the original owner of the jewel it be make a case  in the king bench where on argument it be adjudge that the general word of  this clause ought to be explain by the preamble and that these jewel be  original the plaintiff and the bankrupt have no more than a bare authority to  sell they for the plaintiff use be not liable to the bankruptcy peer William  now this as well as the principal case be within the word of this clause in  both case the good be in the bankrupt custody and he in both case be entrust  with a power of sell and dispose of they only it be more likely in the case  cite that the jewel may gain credit to the bankrupt and may induce people to  trust he than that the stock of the farm shall do so in the principal case and  if in the case cite the jewel be hold not to be liable to the bankruptcy no  more shall the good be in the principal case and if the law be with we it will  be very strange that equity in so hard a case shall be against we suppose a  factor who deal in the sell of the good of other people shall become a  bankrupt will it not be a very hard case that by his bankruptcy the good of  other people must be lose and yet thismust be the consequence of this decree  if it shall stand as pronounce against my client but with submission the law  and practice be hold to be otherwise vide Godfrey v Furzo post Vol III suppose  a executor in trust of a large personal estate and where there be great debt  shall become a bankrupt will this personal estate because the executor have a  power over it before the bankruptcy but never execute such power be liable to  all the bankrupt debt and in the mean time all the testator debt remain unpay  Q so ex part Ellis atk ex part marsh ib Howard v jennet burr joy v Campbell  Sch l and yet this will bet he consequence if the clause in question be to be  construe accord to the word and be not to be restrain by the preamble peer  William these case often very often happen and consequent these hardship will  as often happen if the good in the principal case be to be liable to the  bankruptcy therefore I hope that this harsh clause in the statute though it be  general shall yet be qualify and restrain by the preamble which be special and  shall extend only to the bankrupt own good which he himself alien and assign  and still keep possession of or to such case only where there be some fraud  which like a ill leaves will infect the whole mass but if the court shall be  of another opinion still this case be out of the clause of the statute of  James because the first assignment which comprehend the whole personal estate  of a be make to b as well as c and therefore c who afterward become a bankrupt  have not alone and without the join of b a power over this estate and  consequent we be not within this statute though take in any sense peer William  er p Lord chancellor I can by no mean allow of the notion that the preamble  shall restrain the operation of the enact clause and that because the preamble  be too narrow or defective therefore the enact clause which have general word  shall be restrain from its full latitude and from d that good which the word  will otherwise and of themselves import which with some heat his lordship say  be a ridiculous notion and instance in the Coventry act car cap which if it  have recite the barbarity of cut Coventry nose and the enact clause have be  general videlicet against the cut of any member whereby the man be disfigure  or deface it may with equal reason peer William be object that cut of the lip  or put out the eye will not have be within the act because not within the  preamble however his lordship hold this case not to be within the clause of  the statute of James in regard this assignment to b and c be with a honest  intent videlicet for the payment of the debt of the assignor therefore the  assignee under the commission of bankruptcy sue out against c be order to  account for all the estate of a which the court declare shall not be liable to  the bankruptcy of c but this opinion of Lord cowpers with respect to the  operation of the preamble be express disapprove by Lord chief baron Parker and  Lord Hardwicke in rial v roll atk and ves S c and they hold the present case  of copeman v gallant to be well decide on the construction of the act as  restrain by the preamble et vide ex part Flyn atk mace v cadell Cowp walker v  burn Doug Collins v Forbes t r jarman v Woolloton ib Gordon v e company t r  Derby v smith t r lingham v Biggs Bos p horn v baker east ex part smith buck  note a ex part dale ib fox v fisher b a Oliver v Bartlett bro b Gibson v bray  b more the more modern case be against such restrain construction of the act  particular in the case of dormant partner and it seem that the true reason of  the decision in the principal case be the bankrupt have be a trustee ex part  dyster rise ex part Enderby b c smith v Watson ib overrule Coldwell v Gregory  price