lay it down, that there is no poffible cafe in which the agent of a prize may not be ordered by the Court of Admiralty, or Court of Prize, to bring in the actual proceeds of the prize. Yet I profefs, I have not been able to figure to myself what that cafe can be. Suppofe a cafe in which it is fufpected that the agents are infolvent, or likely to become infolvent, and that for the fafety of those interested, it was defirable to take the money out of the agent's hands, and lodge it in some safe cuftody; that appears to me, speaking conjecturally, to be a poffible matter to be done by the Court of Prize; for I fhould doubt whether in fuch a cafe, an application could be made to the Court of Chancery to fecure the money.. The Court of Prize could not indeed make the diftribution themselves, nor do I find that any fuch application has been made to them. Could there then be a fuit against the agents for diftribution? A fuit for diftribution might be well maintained in the Court of Admiralty; or if the cafe were got into the Court of Appeals, in that Court. But what would be the decree to be made upon that? It would be a personal decree upon the agent; the diftribution would be directed, the fhares allotted, and then upon that decree, the agents might be proceeded against perfonally. It would be a contempt of Court if they did not make payment according to the order. Yet there would be a much better way, a more effectual one, by an action immediately grounded upon the right vested and the quantum of that right ascertained by the order of diftribution. But the Court itfelf cannot, as I conceive, take into their own hands to direct the proceeds of the prize to be paid over to their registrar, for the purpose of diftributing it. The regiftrar is liable to none of the provifions of the Act to which the agent is liable. The agent is liable to an action. But I am at a lofs to conceive, if the agent is directed to pay over all the money, how the action for money had and received could be maintained in effect against him, that money having been taken out of his hands. I am ftill more at a lofs to conceive, how it could be maintained against the registrar. What fort of an officer is the registra!? Is he to make diftribution? No. Is he to make notification? No. The A&t directs that to be made by the agent. Is he fubject to any penalty? No; he is not the perfon to whom the Act is directed, to whom the duty is enjoined, and who is answerable for the breach of that duty, in an action to be brought. Would the agent be protected in an action for the penalty? It would be hard that the agent fhould be liable to it; but I do not fee, upon the face of the law, how he could could be furnished with a defence for the non-performance of the duty enjoined by the A&t. But none of thefe remedies can take place against the registrar. Therefore it feems the clear direction of the A&t, that the money is to remain in the hands of the agent, liable to the actions of those who have a legal vefted right in it; that to thofe perfons the agent is accountable; that against the primary interest of thofe perfons, the money is not to be taken out of the hands of the agent by order of the Court of Prize. The conftruction which has been put upon the fecond fentence is, that there was no vefted right in this prize in the officers and crews of his Majefty's fhips, nor in the army; but that upon the ground stated in the fentence, the whole was vested in his Majefty by his prerogative; and was to be difpofed of to fuch ufes as his Majefty fhould think fit. With that conftruction of the fentence, the monition which has iffued is perfectly confiftent; but not with the idea, which we take to be a well-founded idea, that by force of the Act, after the adjudication of lawful prize, the plaintiff and all other officers, and the crews of his Majefty's fquadron, have a vested legal right. The effect of the monition is directly in prejudice of the right of action of all other perfons concerned; it interferes with the legal duty imposed upon the agent; and fubverts and overturns the law with refpe&t to the duty and fituation of agents, where they are acting for perfons having a vested right in prizes. It is not neceffary to have recourse to thofe cafes cited of Lord Anfon and the others, becaufe the proceeding in this cafe prevents the plaintiff from recovering his legal vefted right, at least it difturbs him in the recovery of that right, if not totally prevents him, and subjects the agent, and all others who are interested in the acts of the agent (Greenwich Hofpital included), to the Courts of Prize. Whereas, according to the conftruction which we are of opinion ought to be given to the Prize A&t, all thofe rights are to be enforced in Weftminster Hall, belong to the Courts of Westminster Hall, and do not belong to the Courts of Prize. Thefe are the grounds which I have gone through, without referring to the cafes that have been cited by name. Thofe cafes are very well known, are in the memory of every one, and will all be found in the recollection of the argument. The ground upon which we proceed is, that upon the face of this declaration the plaintiff has a legal vefted right in the fubject of the monition; that the Court of Prize cannot depriva him of that right, cannot do an act prejudicial to that right, and and cannot prevent or obftruct him in the recovery of that right. The demurrer therefore must be over-ruled, and Judgment given for the plaintiff in prohibition. The following General Rules were made in this Term, in the Court of Common Pleas. Ordered, That from and after this Term, no bail-bond taken in London or Middlefex, by virtue of any process iffuing out of this Court, returnable on the first return of any Term, shall be put in fuit until after the fifth day in full Term; and that no bail-bond taken in any other city or county, by virtue of fuch procefs, shall be put in fuit until after the ninth day in full Term; and that no bail-bond taken in London or Middlefex, by virtue of any procefs iffuing out of this Court, returnable on the fecond or any other fubfequent return of the Term, fhall be put in fuit until after the end of four days, exclufive of the day on which fuch procefs fhall be expreffed to be returnable; and that no bail-bond taken in any other city or county, by virtue of fuch last-mentioned process, fhall be put in fuit until after the end of eight days, exclufive of the day on which fuch laft-mentioned process shall be expreffed to be returnable, upon pain of having all proceedings made upon fuch bail-bonds to the contrary thereof fet afide with cofts; any former rule or order of this Court to the contrary thereof in any wife notwithanftding. Ordered, That from and after the first day of Michaelmas Term next, every fine at the time of the figning of the Judge's allocatur thereon, fhall have the writ of covenant fued out and annexed thereto. And it is alfo ordered, That from and after the first day of Michaelmas Term next, in every common recovery wherein the vouchee or vouchees fhall per fonally fonally appear at the Bar of this Court, for the purpose of fuffering fuch recovery, the writ of entry fhall be fued out and produced at the time of the recording of the vouchee or vouchee's appearance at Bar, at the foot of the precipe in fuch recovery. And it is further ordered, that from and after the first day of Michaelmas Term next, on every common recovery wherein the vouchee or vouchees' Warrant or Warrants of Attorney fhall be taken under a dedimus poteftatem. the allocatur of the Lord Chief Juftice, or fome one other of the Juftices of this Court, fhall be indorfed in dedimus poteftatem, by virtue of the feveral rules and orders of this Court, in that behalf made; and that at the time of indorfing fuch allocatur on every fuch common recovery taken by dedimus poteftatem, the Writ of Entry fhall be annexed thereto, together with the affidavit or affidavits of the caption or captions of fuch Warrant or Warrants of Attorney refpectively. LOUGHBOROUGH H. GOULD. J. WILSON. CASE S In the HIGH COURT OF CHANCERY, before the RT. HON. LORD THURLOW, MICHAELMAS TERM, 30 GEO. III. SMITH ex parte in the Cafe of LEWIS and POTTER. This Cafe came before the Court upon a petition which ftated that Sir James Efdaile and Co. had proved a debt under the bankruptcy of Lewis and Potter upon a note of hand of J. Barber, payable to one Powel, and indorfed by him to Lewis and Potter, who afterwards endorfed it to Efdaile and Co. After fo proving the amount under Lewis and Potter's commiffion, Efdaile proceeded against Barber and Powell to judgment, and then accepted an offer made by Barber to pay 15. in the pound as a compofition to all his VOL. II. S creditors, creditors, and gave him a full discharge for this note, without notice to Lewis and Potter's Affignees. The petition prayed that the proof of this debt under the bankruptcy, might be expunged, upon the ground that Efdaile had difcharged the acceptor by compofition, without notice to the Affignees. LORD CHANCELLOR.I have before decided that the doctrine of notice, which holds amongst folvent perfons, does not apply as between bankrupt eftates: but, here, the endorfer only was bankrupt, the maker and the payer of the note were not. The debt, proved by Sir James Efdaile, was undoubtedly well proved at the time, and the question is, Whether the fubfequent conduct of the creditor has deftroyed that intereft which he acquired by fuch proof. By the compofition which he has made with the drawer of the note, which goes to the length of discharging of the drawer, he certainly has prevented the affignee of the indorfer from coming on the drawer of the note for payment of what his estate shall pay in confequence of the proof; and yet, on the other hand, it does feem a strong thing to say that where there are many names on a bill, one of whom is insolvent, though not bankrupt, and the other bankrupt, and the holder proves under all the Commiffions, and then makes a compo fition, bonâ fide, with the infolvent perfon, and obtains from him all that he poffibly can, that he fhall, thereby, be deprived of the benefit of all the provision made by him under the commiffions against the other parties who flood on the bill pofterior to the party compounded with. And I am well fatisfied, in this cafe, Sir James Efdaile did, in fact, make the best terms he could with the drawer of the note by taking 155. in the pound of him in full. And whatever difficulty I may find in making a precedent which allowed of fuch a compofition, without giving notice to the affignees of the indorfer, I am convinced that the juftice of this particular cafe, it it ftood alone, would not require me to expunge this debt. The cafe made, does not impute any fraud to the tranfaction of this compofition; but, on the contrary, the holders ufed all their diligence at law against the drawer of the note and the payer, and then made the best terms they could with the acceptor; though, at the fame time, they have gone to the extent of acquitting him altogether in respect of the note. However, whatever may be the circumstances of the prefent cafe, I think, in point of precedent, it may be dangerous to fay, that after fuch an acquittal, the holder may refort to the indorfer's estate. It is certainly open to this fort of fraud, that when the holder |