(h) The following cases serve, perhaps, sufficiently to illustrate the doctrine of the text, showing the various kinds of actions which assignees have been permitted to bring: Parker v. Manning, 7 T. R. 537; Bed Ford v. Brutton, 1 Bing. N. C. 399; Snellgrove v. Hunt, 1 Chitty,- 71; Bloxam v. Hubbard, 5 East, 407; Kitchen v. Campbell, 3 Wilson, 304. 2 W. Bl. 827; Hewit v. Mantell, 2 Wilson, 872; Winter v. Kretchman, 2 T. R. 45; Vernon v. Hanson, id. 287; Noble v. Kersey, 4 C &

P. 90; Tennant v. Strachan, Moody & M. 377, 4 C. & P. 31; Waller v. Drakeford, 1 Stark. 481; Thomason v. Frere, 10 East, 418; Rawson v. Walker, 1 Stark. 361; Brandon v. Pate, 2 H. Bl. 308; Carter v. Abbott, 2 Dow. & R. 575, 1 B. & C 444; McKeon v. Caherty, 3 Wend. 494; Hurst v. Gwennap, 2 Stark. 306; Yates v. Carnsew, 3 C. & P. 99; Farring ton v. Payne, 15 Johns 431; Thompkin v. Ha'ile, 3 Wend. 406; Smith v. Milles, 1 T. R. 475; Cooper v Chitty, 1 Burr 20; Menham v. Edmonson, 1 B. & P. 369; Rush v. Baker, 2 Stra. 996; Elderkin v. Elderkin, 1 Root, 139; Gray v. Bennett,

3 Met. 522, Wright v. Fairfield, 2fi,& Ad. 727; Partridge v. Hannum, 2 Met. 569; Smith v Coffin, 2 H. Bl. 444; Day v. Lafliu, 6 Met. 280; Mitchell v. Hughes,

4 M. & P. 577; Ward v. Jenkins, 10 Met. 583; Gibson v. Carruthers, 8 M. & W. 321; Brown v. Cuming, 2 Caines, 33; Porter v. Vorlev, 9 Bing. 93; M'Menomy v. Feners, 3 Johns. 71; Edwards v. Goleman, 2 Bibb, 204; Kelly v. Holdship, 1 Browne, 36; Corn well's Appeal, 7 Watts & S. 305; Burnside v. Merrick, 4 Met. 537; Hancock v. Caffyn, 8 Bing. 358; Hill v. Smith, 12 M & W. 618; the instructive case, Moore v. Jones, 23 Vt. 739. Ejectment, - Barstow v. Adams, 2 Day, 70; Talcott v. Goodwin, 3 id. 264. It seems that if the cause of action arise before the bankruptcy, the assignee may sue, but must declare as assignee; if it arise after the bankruptcy, the assignee may now sue in his own right, and need not describe himself as assignee. When the bankrupt sells, or makes any contract respecting property after the commission, the assignees may, in that respect, treat him as their agent. Evans v. Mann, Cowp. 569; Thomas v. Rideing, Wightw. 65, 1 Rose, 121; Kiggill v. Player, 1 Salk. Ill; and the cases cited, Deac. on Bankruptcy, 731. In the case of Evans v. Mann, the facts were that the bankrupt, after his bankruptcy, and before he had obtained his certificate, carried on his

1 Thus an assignee in bankruptcy may sue for money paid as usury by the bank-rapt Wheelock v. Lee, 10 Bankr. Reg. 363. That a suit by an assignee in bankruptcy against an officer holding the proceeds of the bankrupt's goods under an attachment within four months of the bankruptcy proceedings was not barred if begun within two years of a demand and refusal, by the provision of the bankrupt law, providing that an assignee must sue at law or in equity within two years after a cause of action accrued, although eleven years after the attachment, through the assignees negligence, see French v. Merrill, 132 Mass. 525. The U. S. St of Aug. 19, 1841, § 8, limiting an assignee's suing and being sued to two years, does not apply to a bill in equity by a trustee under a will to obtain instructions of the court in which the assignee of a cestui que trust is one of the defendants. Minot v. Tappan, 127 Mass 333 - K.

*They may transfer the notes of the bankrupt, by indorsement or delivery, where the contract or obligation of the insolvent requires it. (i) But, as a general rule, while assignees may transfer what they can by delivery, if negotiable paper requires indorsement, this should be made by the insolvent, who retains the power to make an indorsement which is necessary to carry into effect a previous contract, (j)l

* They may compound debts, redeem mortgages, compromise claims against or in favor of the insolvent, (k) and in trade as a lighterman, and both built and sold lighters. He sold one to the defendant, who paid him part of the purchase-money; after which the assignees apply to the defendant for the value of the lighter; and so far affirm the contract as to enter into an agreement, by which they are content to be paid the residue of' the purchase-money, after deducting what the bankrupt had received. And for this residue they have brought the action. The objection to the form of the action was, that the plaintiffs, being assignees under a commission, did not state themselves to be assignees in the declaration: "On consideration, there seems to be this distinction, - if the assignees bring an action on a contract made by the bankrupt, before, his bankruptcy, they must state themselves in the declaration to be assignees. But here the contract was after bankruptcy, when the bankrupt could have no property of his own. The lighter was the property of the assignees; and, consequently, the sale by him a contract as their agent by operation of law, and on their account. Therefore it was not necessary that they should state themselves to be assignees in the declaration; though in respect of the evidence in support of the action, it might be incumbent on them to prove the trading, bankruptcy, etc, - in short, the whole case." As to the assignee continuing in his own name an action commenced in the name of the bankrupt, see Ames v. Gilman, 10 Met. 239; Smith v. Gordon, 6 Law Reporter, 313. The bankrupt may continue it, if the assignee make no objection, and be held as trustee for the assignee for the amount of the judgment. Clark v. Calvert, 8 Taunt. 742, and the cases reviewed. Sawtelle v. Rollins, 23 Me. 196. If the assignee is removed or die, the assignee who takes his place succeeds to his powers, and holds his place in court. Page v. Bauer, 4 B & Ald. 345; Richards v. Maryland Ins. Co. S Cranch, 84; Hall v Cashing, 8 Mass 521; Merrick's Estate,

5 Watts £ S. 9.

(i) Ex parte Mowbray, 1 Jac. & W. 428. This was a petition praying that assignees might be ordered to indorse a bill of exchange which had been transferred before his bankruptcy, for valuable consideration, but without indorsement; if the bill was not indorsed, the petitioner claimed to be a creditor for the amount. Lord Chancellor Eldon said: "The difficulty is, to frame an order which shall provide for a special indorsement, that will prevent the assignees from being personally liable. But if a special indorsement is made, and the petitioner will be content with it, I see no reason why I should not make the order; if he is not satisfied with that, he must apply again." See also Ex parte Brown, I Glyn & J. 408; Ex parte Hall, 1 Rose, 13; Ex parte Rowton, id. 15.