(k) Arden v. Watkins,3 East, 317. It seems that the same principles will govern the case of accommodation paper, when proof of it is attempted against a bankrupt's estate, as would apply if suit had been brought upon it against the bankrupt , and the same reasons hold when the bankrupt has given accommodation notes or acceptances. It is clear, on the authorities, that no action could be maintained in either of the above cases. Smith v. Knox, 3 Esp. 46; Fentum v. Pocock, 5 Taunt. 192; Thompson v. Shepherd, 12 Met. 311; Brown v. Mott, 7 Johns. 361; Grant v. Ellicott. 7 Wend. 227; Charles v. Marsden, 1 Taunt. 224; Carrnthers v. West, 11 Q. B. 143; Renwick v. Williams, 2 Md. 356; Molson r. Hawlev, 1 Blatchf. C. C. 409. If the accommodation bill is in the hands of a third party, who took it bona fide even with notice of its being an accommodation bill, he may prove against the estate of either party to it, and recover a dividend on it to the amount due him. Smith v. Knox, above cited, and 5 Taunt. 192; Ex parte Bloxham. 6 Ves. 449, 600; Ex parte Bloxham, 8 Ves. 531; Bank of Ireland v. Beresford, 6 Dow, 238; Ex parte King, Cooke, 157; Ex parte Lee, I P. Wms. 782. See Jones v. Hibbert, 2 Starkie, 304.

(l) Kitchen v. Bartsch, 7 East, 53; Giles v. Perkins, 9 id. 12; 'Pennant v. Strachan, 4 C. & P. 31.

(m) Anonymous, in the notes, 1 Camp. 492; Bourne v. Cabot, 3 Met. 305; Waller v. Drake ford, 1 Starkie. 481; Greening, ex partet 13 Ves. 206; Ex parte Deey, 2 Cox, 424; Watkins v. Maule, 2 Jacob & W. 243; Smith v Pickering, Peake, N. P. 50; Ex parte Hall, I Rose, 13; Ex parte Rowton, id 15.

ful termination of a suit, which did not happen until after the bankruptcy, (n)

Where an assignee sues for damages, the measure to him is not always the injury to the estate, for he rests upon a strict legal right, (o)