In general, it may be said, all debts and claims whatever, (hh)l The statute makes provision for this and the proof of debts, in the sections nineteen to twenty-four. They may be due and payable at the time, or not payable until * later, (i)2 They aside the nonsuit was refused. In the matter of Richardson, 2 Story, 571, Story, J, said. "I am aware that it is often laid down that in law there is no fraction of a day. But this doctrine is true only sub modo and in a limited sense, where it will promote the right and justice of the case. It is a mere legal fiction, and therefore, like all other legal fictions, is never allowed to operate against the right and justice of the case." s. p. Sadler v. Leigh, 4 Camp. 197; Ex Parte Farquhar, 1 Mont. & McA 7; Ex parte D'Obree. 8 Ves 82; Wydown's case, 14 id. 87. We are aware of no cases where the technical rule of the law, that no fraction of a day can be allowed, has been adhered to in bankruptcy, save In the matter of David Howes, 6 Law Reporter, 297; and In the matter of Welman, 7 id. 25, where the doctrine laid down in the first case is maintained and defended. The authorities are reviewed in the opinion of the court at some length, and the views of the judge, though savoring of technicality, are ably sustained. The doctrine of the majority of the cases seems to be a wholesome one, and which may well be maintained on the reasoning of Mr. Justice Story. Westbrook Manuf. Co. v. Grant, 60 Me. 88.

(h) See the cases cited on page *484, note (m), to the point that the assignees may sue for and recover any goods fraudulently conveyed by the bankrupt.

{hh) Archbold on Bankruptcy; Deacon on Bankruptcy; Eden on the Bankrupt Law, tit. Proof of Debts. In Downer v. Brackett, 5 Law Rep. 392, Prentiss, J., said: 'All the property then owned by the bankrupt passes to and vests in the assignee, and consequently all debts existing before and at the date of the decree are provable under the bankruptcy, and all debts up to that time passed by the bankrnpt's certificate of discharge. Spalding v. Dixon, 21 Vt, 45, 14 law Reporter, 88; Harrington v McNaughton, 20 Vt. 293. The exceptions to this general rule occur in the next section of this work. And in a case in New York, it was said that the question, what debts are provable, is one of mixed law and fact; but the question, whether the debts due at the time of the bankruptcy are discharged, is one purely of law, and for the decision of the court, on production and examination of the papers before the Court of Insolvency, and the certificate. Dresser v. Brooks, 3 Barb 429.

(i) Parslowe v. Dearlove, 4 East, 438. This was an action of assumpsit by a

1 A debt due on a covenant of an insurance company to repay part of a premium on the election of the assured to cancel the policy is provable against the company, although the company was insolvent at the time of cancellation, tie Independent Ins. Co. 2 Lowell, 187. But a bankrupt's liability for costs in an action pending at the time of his bankruptcy is not a provable debt. Dows v. Griswold, 122 Mass. 440

2 Thus damages for breach of a contract to employ a person at a fixed salary and a yearly percentage of net profits, may be proved, although the bankruptcy has occurred may be payable only on contingency, if the contingency be rational and real, or if the uncertainty be not excessive. (J)1 schoolmaster, for the education, etc., of defendant's children. Defendant pleaded non-assumpsit, and his bankruptcy and certificate. At the trial it appeared that the school money had been payable half yearly; that the half year for which the plaintiff now sought to recover ended on the 26th of June last, when the holidays commenced; but that the defendant had taken his children home for the holidays, on the 18th of June, and became a bankrupt on the 20th. The question was, whether this was a debt provable under the commission. On this a verdict was taken for the plaintiff; a rule to set aside the verdict was refused. Lord Ellenborough said: "The question then is, whether this can be considered as a debt due at the time of the bankruptcy: in other words, whether, under a contract to pay a certain sum half yearly, the money can be said to be due before the end of the half year? This is nothing like a debitum in praesenti. It would depend upon the due performance of the engagement on the part of the schoolmaster. It was a subsisting contract at the time of the bankruptcy; the children were not taken away from the school, but went home for the holidays." It was admitted on the argument, and by the court, that had the debt been fully due, though not payable, it could have been proved, and would have been barred by the certificate. In England, before the statute 49 Geo. III. c. 121, if a creditor had no security for his debt in writing, and it was not payable till after his debtor became bankrupt, - as in the case, for instance, of goods sold to the bankrupt on a certain credit, - the creditor was not allowed to prove his debt under the commission. Ex parte East India Co. 2 P. Wms. 395; Hoskins v. Duperoy, 9 East, 498. By that section all debts contracted before the act of bankruptcy, though not due till afterwards, can be proved, whether there is written security or not, subject to a deduction of .£5 per cent interest. The same provision, with little modification, has been adopted in the later English statutes, and in most of the recent insolvent laws. See further, Utterson v. Vernon, 4 T. R. 570, Ex parte Minet, 14 Yes. 189; Hammond v. Toulmin, 7 T. R. 612; Ex parte Grome, 1 Atk. 115; Ex parte Mare, 8 Ves. 335; Ex parte King, id. 334; Ex parte Winchester, 1 Atk. 116; Ex parte Dowman, 2 Glyn & J. 241; Ex parte Elgar, id. 1; Clayton v. Gosling,

5 B. & C. 360. And in such case the amount to be proved is the full amount of the debt itself without the deduction of interest That rebate will be made when the dividend is computed. Ex parte Hill, 2 Deacon, 249; Cothay v. Murray, 1 Camp. 335; Ex parte Elgar, above cited; Ex parte Dowman, id.