(j) Ex parte Greening, 13 Ves. 206; Watkins v. Manle, 2 Jacob & W. 243; Smith v. Pickering, Peake. N. P. 50; 1 Cooke's B. L. 295 (8th ed); Owen on Bankruptcy, 72, 73; Archbold, 202; Wallace v. Hardacre, I Camp. 46; Anonymous, id. 492; Lampriere v. Pasley, 2 T. R. 485.

(k) Robson v. - , 2 Rose, 50; Dod v.

Herring, 1 Rubs. & M. 153, Richards v. Merriam, 11 Cush. 582. But assignees are not bound by the bankrupt's submission to arbitration. Marsh v. Wood, 9 B.

& C. 659; Snook v. Hellyer. 2 Chitty, 43; Andrews v. Palmer, 4 B & Ald 250. And, in referring disputes to arbitration, the assignees, for their own security, should protest against the reference being taken as an admission of assets; and if they refer generally without a protest of this kind, it will amount to such admission, and they will be personally liable to pay the sum awarded, as in the case of executors and administrators. Robson v. - , above cited. See Deacon on

Bankruptcy, 323, 324. On the subject of mortgages, see the following cases, general do whatsoever trustees may do. (l) And an assignee who acted in such matters in good faith and with reasonable discretion, would seldom be molested by the court. But it is always prudent for the assignees to obtain the specific instruction and sanction of the court for whatever they may do in this way.

1 A bankrupt indorser has power to waive demand and notice of a debt maturing before an assignee is appointed. Ex parte Tremont Bank, 2 Lowell, 409. - K.

As assignees have, in general, the powers of trustees, so the responsibilities of trustees attach to them, (m) Many cases have arisen on this question, and it will often be difficult to apply to the facts of a particular case the rules of law. But the difficulty cannot lie in those rules. The assignees are trustees and agents for compensation. They will, therefore, be held strictly for bad faith. But beyond this it is believed that they can be liable for lack of discretion, or for mistake, only where this amounts to negligence; not slight negligence, nor * gross negligence, but the ordinary negligence for which bailees and trustees with compensation are usually liable. If this general rule has any peculiar modification in the case of assignees, it must be because the law points out precisely their course, and the court are always ready to direct them, and therefore a mistake is without excuse, and a slight mistake may imply great negligence, (mm) where the right of redemption in the assignees is allowed and discussed: Hig-den v. Williamson. 3 P Wms. 132; Pope v Onslow, 2 Vera. 286; Taylor v. Wheeler, 2 id. 565; Er parte Alsager, 2 Mont. D. & De G. 328; Pye v. Daubuz, 3 Bro 595; Ex parte Hartley, 1 Deac. 288; Ex parte Cox, 2 Mont D. & De G. 486; Ex parte Pettit, 2 Glyn & J. 47; Ex parte Berredge, 3 Mont. I). & De G. 464; Ex parte Carr, 2 id. 534; Ex parte Living, 1 Deac. 1; Ex parte Wilson, 2 Ves. & B. 252; Ex parte Barnes, 3 Deac. 223, Ex parte Temple, 1 Glyn & J. 216. Mortgages of personal property: Jones v. Gibbons, 9 Yes 407 • Ryall v. Rolle, I Atk. 165, I Ves. Sen. 348; Stephens v. Sole, 1 Ves. 752; Bonrne v. Dod-eon, 1 Atk. 154; Ex parte Austin, I Deac & Ch. 207; Doane v. Eddy, 16 Wend. 523: Murray v. Burtis, 15 id' 212. In this country, by the late national bank-rapt cases, and in general in the State insolvent laws, power is given to the assignees of an insolvent to compound debts, arbitrate and redeem mortgages, on obtaining the approval of the court in that behalf. Generally, he should deposit all moneys collected in a bank of good credit, and to the account of the bankrupts' fund. Ex parte Reynolds, 5 Ves. 707; Ex parte Beaumont, 3 Deac & Ch. 549.

(l) See cases cited supra, in notes (t) and (v), p. *465.

(m) See sections 13, 14, 15, 16 The liabilities of assignees in respect of neglifence, and their duties as trustees, have been set forth in preceding notes. Especial reference is made to the case of Belchier v. Parsons, 1 Kenyon, 44, where this subject is treated at much length. Kinder v. Howarth, 2 Stark. 354; Ex parte Lane, 1 Atk. 90; Ex parte Turner, 1 Mont. & McA. 52; Knight v. Lord Plimonth, 3 Atk. 480. See especially, also, Raw v. Cutten, 9 Bing. 96, Tindal, C.J.

(mm) Various points of practice on these questions are decided in many cases before the United States courts Among those which are reported, the following will be found interesting in special cases: In the matter of Pulver, 1 Benedict, 381; In the matter of Hill, id 381; In the matter of Orne, id. 454; In the matter of Levy, id. 454; In the matter of Conant, 5 Blatch. 54; Stevens v. Hauser, 39 N. Y. 302.