* often depend upon the negotiability of the paper. Frequently these come into conflict with those of the assignee, or of other parties; and in such cases the general rule would seem to be, that the bankruptcy overrides the commercial law or rules, and the title of an innocent party is made to yield to that of the assignee, where it would be available against any others. Hence a bankrupt's transfer [of a] bill, would be invalid against the assignees who take it by the bankruptcy, (i) But if the bill were drawn [by the bankrupt payable to his own order] for more than the funds [in the drawee's hands] and was accepted, the [indorsee of the bankrupt] could recover from the acceptor the excess of the amount of the bill over the funds in his hands, (j) This applies, been sent by the continental house to the London firm for the especial purpose of raising money thereon for the account of the house abroad. Before this had been done, and while the bills were in their possession, the firm in London failed, and their assignees took possession of these bills. A petition having been filed, praying that these bills might be taken from the assignee, and returned to the petitioners, the Vice-Chancellor said: "In cases of this nature the case always turns upon the fact whether the bills are remitted in order that the party to whom they are sent may recover the amount, as the agents of the party remitting, or whether the bills are so sent, on a general account between the parties, that the person receiving them has a right to deal with them for his own use. Certainly, bankers are the persons who are employed in such agencies, but a merchant, or any other person, may be so employed. ... In this case, the admitted facts exclude all doubts as to the actual nature of the transaction. Messrs. Power & Co are desired to do the needful with the bills, and to place the amount to the credit of the petitioners when in cash. In answer, Messrs Power & Co. say, • The needful shall be done.' They were bound, therefore to receive the amount of the bills, as the agent of the party remitting, and were not at liberty to deal with the bills for their purposes." So they did not pass to the assignees.

(i) Willis v. Freeman, 12 East, 656. This was an action against the defendants as acceptors of a bill of exchange for £1,400, drawn by one Anderson, payable to his own order, and indorsed by him to the plaintiff for value. And the defence was, that in consequence of a prior act of bankruptcy by Anderson, which had since been followed by a commission, Anderson's indorsement transferred no right to the plaintiff. Other facts in this case will be stated in the notes below. Of the point here considered Lord Ellenborough said: "It may be considered as clear that, except in cases provided for by particular statutes, a trader who has committed an act of bankruptcy, upon which a commission afterwards issues, can make no transfer of his property to the prejudice of his assignees, nor do any act to interfere with their rights; but every such attempted transfer or act is liable to be vacated by his assignees. On the other hand, when it does not affect the rights and interests of the assignees, the act of a man who has committed an act of bankruptcy has the same effect as the act of any other person. The question, therefore, for consideration, here is, whether this indorsement by Anderson, if allowed to be effectual, could prejudice his assignees, or interfere with their rights, because, so far forth as it would so it would be inoperative."

(j) Wilkins v. Casey, 7 T. R. 711. The case of Willis v. Freeman, above cited, also is an authority upon this point. In that case the trader, after the secret act of bankruptcy, as above set forth, having securities in his banker's hands to a certain amount, drew on them a bill for a larger amount for his accommodation, payable to his order, which, after acceptance, he indorsed to the plaintiff (who knew of his partial insolvency, but not of the act of bankruptcy), the commission having been subsequently taken out, it was held that the plaintiff, who was to make title through the bankrupt's indorsement after his bankruptcy, though he was entitled to sue the acceptors upon the bill, could only recover on it the amount of the sum accepted for the accommodation of the bankrupt over and above the amount of the bankrupt's effects in the hands of the acceptors at the time however, only when * some act of the bankrupt is necessary to make out a party's title; for if he can rest his claim on his own equity, it would be good. Nor can the assignees take paper which was transferred by indorsement of the bankrupt after bankruptcy, if it be such that they could not make it available for the funds of the assignment Thus, if the bankrupt indorsed over accommodation paper, which he might indorse, but could not sue, the assignees do not take it. (k) So if bankers or others who hold commercial paper only for the owners, become bankrupt, it does not go to their assignees. It is sometimes difficult to determine the facts on which this question turns; but, in general, the rule is this: If the bankrupt held the paper only for collection, the assignee does not take it If he has held it to collect and hold in any trust, or for any special purpose, and had placed or held the proceeds in separate or special deposit, applicable to a special purpose, the assignees do not take the proceeds. If he had advanced money on the paper, the assignees take his claim for reimbursement and his lien. If he had discounted the paper, or made it his own otherwise, as by purchase, then the assignee takes it Generally, (l) if the insolvent holds such paper, even by a legal title, but the beneficial interest is in another, the assignee does not take it (m)

* It has been held, on strong grounds, and apparently in conformity with established principles, that an assignee takes the benefit of a promise made to a bankrupt, which could be available only on the happening of a contingency, as a successof the bankruptcy. And this on the ground that, by his recovery, the amount of the assignees and creditors would not be damnified.