Tested in the defendants; and it was expressly found by the jury that they took possession and occupied with a view to benefit the estate, - a finding perfectly consistent with the evidence." And a rule to set aside a verdict for the plaintiff was refused. If the assignees accept the lease, the bankrupt is absolutely discharged from the covenants; and if he afterwards becomes assignee of his assignees, he will be under no greater liability than any other assignee. Doe v. Smith, 5 Taunt. 795; note to Auriol v. Mills, 1 Smith, L. C. 455; Boot v7. Wilson, 8 East, 311. If, on the other hand, the assignees decline to accept, they cannot maintain an action on the covenants for breach thereof by the lessor. Kearsey v. Carstairs, 2B.& Ad. 716; Fairburn v. Eastwood, 6 M. & W. 679. And it is said, that if the assignees refuse to accept the lease, it may be considered a determination of the term; and if the bankrupt lessee might, according to the terms of the lease, at the determination of the term, take the off-going crop on payment of the rent, the assignees may do the same. Ex parte Maundrell, 2. Madd. 315; Ex parte Nixon, 1 Rose, 445; and so if the lessee was bound to leave straw, etc., the assignees must also do so. Ex parte Whittington, Buck, 87. In re Gough, Buck, 85; Broom v. Robinson, cited 7 East, 339.

(d) The case of Onslow v Corrie, 2 Madd. 330, decided this precise point. The facts were, in substance, that assignees of a bankrupt, after examination, concluded to accept a lease. Subsequently, finding they had miscalculated its value, they assigned to a person who at the time of the assignment was insolvent, for the purpose of exonerating themselves from payment of rent and performance of. covenants. The Vice-Chancellor, Sir Thomas Plumer, said: "Why is the assignee liable to the landlord ? because of the privity of estate. The original lessee is liable in respect of the parity of contract. The liability of an assignee of a lease begins and ends with his character as assignee. In him there is no personal confidence of the lessor. Ever since the case of Pitcher v. Tovey, it has been held, that by an assignment, an assignee exonerates himself from all claims in respect of rent, even though he assigns to a beggar. . . . This being the general law on the subject, as to an assignment, how does the case' stand upon an assignment by the assignees of a bankrupt? Such assignees are trustees for the creditors of the bankrupt. If in general an assignee of a lease is not liable to rent after an assignment, I see no ground whatever for saying assignees of a bankrupt's estate should be in a worse condition than other assignees of a lease." Valliant v Dodemede, 2 Atk. 546; Pitcher v. Tovey, Carth 177, 1 Salk. 81, 4 Mod. 71, 2 Vent. 228; s. c nom. Tovey v. Pitcher, 3 Lev. 295, 1 Show. 340; Lekeux v. Nash, Stra. 1221; Chancellor v. Poole, Doug. 764; Odell o. Wake, 3 Camp. 394. In Philpot v. Hoare, 2 Atk. 219. Ambl 480, it was held, that covenants did not bind the assignee of the lessee who had become bankrupt. Here the assignment was fraudulent. Walker v. Reeves, Doug. 461; Buller, N. P. 159; Taylor v. Shum, 1 B. & P. 21; Wilkins v. Fry. 2 Rose, 371. The case of Knight v. Peachy, 1 Vent. 329, T. Raym. 303, is contra, but must be considered as overruled by subsequent cases.

Some questions have arisen as to the rights of the assignees to or over commercial paper held by the insolvent. In general, all such paper passes to the assignee, and carries with it all the rights and interests of the insolvent. Nor does the title of the assignee depend upon the negotiable quality of the paper, for the very reason that he takes it, not by transfer or purchase, but by sequestration, (h) But the title and equities of third parties

(e) Thursby v. Plant, note 5, 1 Saund. 240; Banard v. Godscall, Cro Jac. 309; Brett v. Cumberland, id. 521; Bachelour v. Gage, Cro. Car 188; Norton v. Ack-lane, id. 579; Jodderell v Cowell, Cas. temp. Hardw. 343; Mayor v Steward, 4 Burr. 2443; Cautrel v.'Graham, Barnes' Notes, 69. Lord Mansfield, in Wad ham v. Marlowe, 1 II. Bl. 437, a better report in 8 East, 311, n; Auriol v. Mills, 4 T. R. 94; Rowe v. Galliers, 2 id. 133; Boot u. Wilson, 8 East, 311; Valliant v. Dode-mede, 2 Atk. 546; Doe v. Carter, 8 T. R. 57, where several additional cases, bear-iug on this point, are collected. Doe u. Bevan, 3 M. & S. 353; Tuck v. Fyson, 6 Bing. 321.

(f) See the English statutes. 49 Geo. III. c. 121, 6 Geo. IV. c. Ill; Dommett v. Bedford'3 Ves. 149; Wilkinsou v. Wilkinson, Cooper, 261, 2 Wils Ch. 57; Holy land v. De Mendez, 3 Meriv. 184; Doe v. Carter, 8 T. R. 61; s. o. id. 301; Corrie v. Onslow, 2 Madd. 341; Shee v. Hale, 13 Ves. 404, and see Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 id. 213.

(g) Doe o. Clarke, 8 East, 185; Doe v. Carter, above cited, where all the prior cases are collected; Cooper v. Wyatt, 5 Madd. 489; Rex v. Robinson, Wightw. 393; Brandon v. Robinson, 18 Ves. 434. These cases show that it is competent for a grantor, devisor, or lessor, to attach conditions to the effect that the grant, devise, or lease, shall cease on the bankruptcy of the beneficiary. But it appears that he himself will not be allowed to enter into an agreement, as by bond, for the subsequent transfer of his property for certain specified uses in the event of his bankruptcy. Thus a contingent settlement by a trader, of his own property upon his wife, to take effect in case he should become a bankrupt, would be a limitation in fraud of creditors, and could not be allowed; but it is said, that if the wife brings a fortune to her husband, she may allow him to use it, with the proviso that, in case of his bankruptcy, it shall return to her Ex parte Cooke, 8 Ves. 353; Higinbotham v. Holme 19 Ves 92; Ex parte Hinton, 14 id 598; Ex parte Young, 3 Madd 130; In the matter of Murphy, 1 Sch. & L 49; Higginson v. Kelly, I Ball & B. 256; In the matter of Meaghan, 1 Sch. & L. 180; Ex parte Hodgson, 19 Ves 207; Stavely v. Parsons, stated in Mr. Sumner's learned note to 8 Ves. 357. (h) Wallace v. Hardacre, 1 Camp 45; Hall v, Barnard, 1 C & P. 382. In the case of Ex parte Smith, Buck's C. B. 355, no question was made that bills of exchange, like other property of the bankrupt pass to the assignees. Here two firms, one upon the continent of Europe, and the other in London, had been in the habit of drawing upon, and transmitting bills of exchange to, one another on general account. In this instance bills had