Surnaue Coursr or Pmayjlwnria. ray it was liromgly urged, that it did not lie with third perfons to ,79,_ enquire into, or di pute, the regularity of the proceedings under ;,.,`; a commillion of bankruptcy. The Court charged the ]ury, in favorof the defendants, on the two lall points; but left it to them to determine, whether thelirll: was, or was not, an a& of bankruptcy; inclining to thinkthat it was: And the plaintiE§ were delired to move for a new trial, if they doubted thedireékion of the Court. A verdift being found for the defendants, the motion was made and argued in fab lalt, by L¢·tvi.r, Tigbmau, and A. Mor- ri: for the plaintifs, andby Ingfiyill, and Rawlc, for the defendants. At the prefent erm, the unanimous opinion of the Court was delivered to the following efeét. ' Br rua Coun':-After {latin the preceeding tranl'ae· tions, and the feveral points made, sie Court left it to the jury, · to determine on the lirlk point, whether the deed made by Whrtz to one of his children, was,or wasnot, an a& of bankruptcy : We are inclined tothink it was. As to the feeond point, we are of opinion, that this was not a fuHicient debt to fupport the eommilliou. No aélion of debt would lie upon this writing alone. It is no extinguilh· ment, nor fatisfaélion. An Iajauul nmpuqfmt, indeed, would j lie ; but that is a derivative a&ion, recurring to the original ac- count, which is prior to palling the aél: of Alfembly. As to the third point made by defendants’ counfel, we are fatislied, that it is competent to third perfons, where their in- terell is aifeélted, to take advantage of the irregularity of the proceedings. Belides the numerous cafes cited in Pkajznt: unfu- Mmg, 1 D¤lL Ry. 38o.andtliat cafe itfelf, fee 2 Burr. 932· Whether a creditor, who has received adividend, can objeél: to the commillion, we will not fay ; but Doctor Mom, who never did receive a dividend, certainly may obje& to it. ` Let the rule for a new trial be difcharged. Sc0·r·r onfu: Caosmuz. HIS was anaétiozx of Dower, brought in Burl: County, j' I againlt the defendant, who had purchafed lands, fold by L/_ 5 the erilf under a judgment obtained on a Stir: Facia: on a mort- gage. The mortgage was executed by the hulband, but the plaintiff (his widow) was no party to it: And on the trial Jul`- tice Anas referved the point, whether the wile’s dower was bound by the mortgage ? Snjeant, for the plaintiff, contended that there was a dillzinc- tion as to the efl`:& of a fale under a 1*7. Fu. and a Lrvari fa- L`!JJ`•
�
