conveyance. Voluntary did not oblige the Court to hold it, at all events, to be for a valuable consideration, and could at most only admit the party into proof, that there were other valuable considerations; and he decreed that the trustees, in this case, should convey to the assignees (1) of the bankrupt. Deed made trix to ces tui que trusts, when good. Where a deed was made by an executrix before an act by execu- of bankruptcy, for securing out of the trust monies (in her hands at the time of the deed) the fortunes of the cestui que trusts, — it was held good against creditors. (2) But where an administrator executed a conveyance to two persons, for the payment of 1500%. each (given to them by the intestate) it was held fraudulent as against creditors,—unless it could be proved, that the administrator had assets in his hands belonging to the intestate, at the time of executing the conveyance. (3) Convey If a trader make a voluntary conveyance, in considerance made ation of natural affection, and he be not indebted at the time when party not into any person, nor in treaty with any one for the sale of the debted, lands conveyed,—such a conveyance, it has been held, would not fraudulent. have no badge of fraud about it; but if the party be indebted, or in treaty at the time for the sale of the lands, it would then be considered fraudulent. (4) A conveyance, also, made to secure the debt of another person, is not fraudulent against creditors. Therefore, where a father, at the request of his son, executed a mortgage to secure a debt due from the son to the mortgagee,-the Vice-Chancellor held, that this was not a voluntary conveyance without consideration. (5) A voluntary conveyance, though void as against the creditors of a bankrupt, has been holden good for all other purposes. (6) And a voluntary bond, being valid as between the parties, when it is surrendered by the obligee for a substituted bond from the obligor, has been determined to be a good consideration for such substituted Voluntary convey ance good, except against creditors. (1) Walkerv. Burrows, 1 Atk. 93. 490. (3) Bateman's case, 1 Mod. 76. (4) Style, 446. (5) Ex parte Hearn, Buck. 165. (6) Ex parte Bell, 1 G. & J. 282. bond, even against creditors,-unless, indeed, the bond was given with a fraudulent design to substitute a valid, for an invalid, security. (1) SECTION X. Of an executory or beneficial Contract. nant to renew or grant a lease, passes to nees. There is some difficulty (from a review of the cases in Whether the books) in determining what interest the assignees take a covein a covenant, or agreement, entered into by a lessor with the bankrupt for the renewal, or the granting, of a lease. In one case, it was held, that the assignees were not entitled to the specific performance of such an agreement (2) But the assig this appears to have been decided principally upon the authority of another case, which has been since very much impugned, — and in the report of which there are indeed two wholly contradictory statements. In one of these (3), it is laid down, that equity will not compel a lessor, who had covenanted with a bankrupt to renew a lease, to renew in favour of the assignees; and in another report of the same case (4), it is stated to have been holden, that such a covenant was assignable in law. In a subsequent case (5), Mr. Justice Buller doubted the authority of the first mentioned report of this case, and said he did not see why a covenant for the renewal of a lease, of which a profit might be made, might not be assigned; and Mr. Justice Heath said, that he thought the case cited from Vernon a very strange one; for, that a covenant to renew a lease ran with the land. (1) Ex parte Berry, 19 Ves. 218. (2) Moyses v. Little, 2 Vern. 194. (3) Drake v. Mayor of Exeter, 1 Ch. Ca. 71. 1 Nels. 102. 1 Eq. (4) Ibid. Freeman, 183. Executory contract. When lease for the personal ac Bankruptcy, indeed, does not seem to operate as an actual discharge of such a contract; though it may depend upon many circumstances, whether a court of equity will decree a specific performance of it in favour of the assig nees. (1) In one case it was said, that a specific perform ance would not be decreed, merely to give up the house to the assignees. (2) And Sir William Grant, in a more recent case, (in which, however, the point was not expressly before him) doubts whether assignees could compel a landlord, specifically to perform an agreement to grant a lease to a (3) bankrupt - particularly where such an agreement contained a stipulation, that the intended lessee should not assign. Lord Loughborough also observed in Brooke v. Hewitt, that it must be a very strong case, that would induce the Court to carry into execution an agreement between landlord and tenant, (the estate not being executed at law,) where the person, who was to become the tenant, had become a bankrupt; and he added, that in such a case, the Court would consider, whether it would put any terms upon the assignees to make them do equity, and dispose of the lease to a proper and responsible per son; and that, as the covenant of the bankrupt must, of course, be of less value than if his bankruptcy had not intervened, the assignees would be ordered to enter into all the covenants. (4) If, however, a party contract to grant a lease, merely for the personal accommodation of the bankrupt, then it is clear, that the assignees are not entitled to the specific execution commoda- of it; for to hold the contrary would be against the mauibankrupt. fest intention of the parties, as well as the justice of the case, in that particular instance. (5) tion of When With respect to any contract, which the bankrupt may bankrupt have entered into, for the PURCHASE of any estate or interest (1) Brooke v. Hewitt, 3 Ves. 255. 168. (3) Weatherally, Geering, 12 Ves. (4) 3 Ves. 253. (5) Flood v. Finlay, 2 Ball & B. 9. tered into an agree ment for chase of lands, assignees in land, it is provided by the 76th section of the new act, Executory that the vendor, or any person claiming under him, (if the contract. assignees shall not, upon being required, elect whether has enthey will abide by and execute such agreement, or abandon the same) may apply by petition to the Lord Chancellor; who may, thereupon, order the assignees to deliver up the the puragreement, and the possession of the premises to the vendor, or person claiming under him, or may make such other order as he shall think fit. As to any agreement, therefore, of the bankrupt for the purchase of lands or tenements, there can be no doubt, (from the wording of the above section,) that it admits a right in the assignees to enforce the performance of a contract of this description against the vendor, if it is thought beneficial to the interests of the creditors to do so. whether to may elect, fulfil the agreement or not. entitled to for sale. The provision also, as to the election of the assignees in Assignees the above section, appears to proceed upon the broad prin- benefit of ciple, that they are entitled to the benefit of every covenant contract or agreement of any description made with the bankrupt (1) before his bankruptcy. Accordingly, it has been holden, that lands previously articled to be sold by a bankrupt pass to the assignees, together with the benefit of the contract, and that they can compel the purchaser to a specific performance (2); and unsatisfied judgments against the bankrupt, in such a case, have been also holden to be inoperative against the title. So, where the bankrupt had made a conveyance of all his property to trustees for the benefit of his creditors, under which the trustees contracted to sell certain lands to the defendant-and afterwards filed a bill against him for specific performance-but before answer, a commission of bankruptcy was issued out against the bankrupt-upon which his assignees filed a supplemental bill to enforce the contract; - it was held in this case, that though the conveyance to the trustees was itself an act of bank (1) And see Whitworth v. Davis, IV. & B. 145. Sloper v. Fish, 2 V. & B. 145. (2) Sharpe v. Roahde, 2 Rose, 192. BB contract. Executory ruptcy, yet that the assignees might compel the performance of the contract made under it. (1) It seems, too, that the assignees may adopt any contract which the bankrupt enters into even after the act of bankruptcy (if such contract be beneficial to the estate), and may enforce it against the person who has so contracted with the bankrupt. (2) Assignees have the same title as the bankrupt. As to the wife's dower. SECTION XI. Of the Estate of the Wife, and Property settled by the The assignees are entitled to the same interest in all the property of the wife of the bankrupt, as he himself possessed at the time of his bankruptcy. For the sake of compendiousness, it is proposed to include in this section the consideration of the law, as it affects both the Real, and Personal, estate of the wife. And first, as to her Real estate : : If the bankrupt be seised of lands in right of his wife, the assignees are entitled to them during the coverture. (3) When the wife, however, is entitled to dower in her husband's lands, this right is not affected in any way by the commissioners' assignment. (4) And a provision made previous to the marriage in bar of dower, if precarious and uncertain, does not bar the wife. As, where it was provided by a settlement, that the wife should be entitled to such personal estate as the husband might die possessed of, according to the custom of London; and the husband afterwards became bankrupt, the wife was held entitled to dower in this case against the claim of the assignees. (5) But where a bankrupt, before he was seised in possession (1) Goodwin v. Lightbody, 1 Daniell, 155. (2) Butler v. Carver, 2 Star. 433. 11. (3) 2 Com. Dig. Bankrupt D. (4) Good, 90. Stowe, 163, |