case lewis versus chase Reg lib b fol Lord chancellor Parker Eq can ab pl pl a  creditor petition against a allowance of a bankrupt certificate upon which the  bankrupt give he a bind for payment of his whole debt in consideration of  withdraw his petition equity will not relieve against this bind the plaintiff  be a bankrupt endeavour to be discharge with the consent of four give of his  creditor in number and value upon the late statute the defendant peer William  er p a creditor prefer his petition to the Lord chancellor against the  allowance of the certificate upon which the bankrupt in consideration of the  defendant withdraw his petition give he a bind for his whole debt afterward  the bankrupt certificate be allow and the defendant put the bind in suit peer  William against the bankrupt he plead the act of parliament and that the bind  be obtain in order to procure his discharge and on a verdict for the plaintiff  the bankrupt bring this bill insist that the bind be obtain from he under his  necessity and within the reason of that clause in the statute which make bind  void for consent to the bankrupt discharge Geo c and it be represent as a  unconscionable thing for one creditor to desire more than his share of the  bankrupt estate with the rest and that on the other hand the bankrupt ought to  be favour who have give up all to his creditor cur here be a honest creditor  and the bankrupt if he pay he all still pay but what in conscience he ought he  that come into equity to avoid the payment of a just debt ought to come with a  very clear case if he hope to succeed the defendant can not be say to do amiss  in petition the great seal against the allowance of the certificate neither  can it now appear to I what success that petition will have be attend with it  may be he have just cause to petition and the bankrupt no right to have the  petition disallow and the plaintiff if he have a fair defence ought to have  make use of it against the petition but in case of treat with the defendant to  withdraw it the other may insist upon reasonable term to have his just debt  suppose the present bill be to be dismiss the consequence will only be that  the plaintiff must pay what he just owe but be he to be relieve the defendant  will thereby be put into a worse condition than any of the other creditor for  the bankrupt estate be distribute he can now have his proportion thereof so  that he must lose his whole peer William debt and it be the plaintiff fault to  come so late which make the case still the strong against he nor do the law  make any distinction whether the bankrupt become so by his own extravagant way  of live or by misfortune and therefore he be the less to be favour it be hard  enough to bar creditor of the full remedy which the law give for the recovery  of debt indeed where the word of the statute be plain they must be submit to  but then the bankrupt ought in all such case to bring himself within it and it  will not be fair to put the defendant who have the law on his side in a worse  condition than any of the other creditor who debt be extinguish by the statute  therefore dismiss the bill with cost but a late determination of the court of  c p in summer v Brady h Bl have express contradict the authority of this case  and indeed it seem inconsistent with the spirit of many other case as  Middleton v Lord Onslow post Spurret v spiller atk smith v Bromley Doug edit  Jones v Berkeley ibidem Cockshott v Bennet t r and see Jackson v lomas t r  jackman v Mitchell Ves Leicester v rise east overrule feise v Randall t r ex  part sadler Ves well v Girling bro b stat g c S