Sdly, Against whom, and under not indorse it, because the person paying the cash what commission. thinks that the bill will have as good credit without his indorsement, the bill cannot be proved under a commission afterwards issued against the trader'. And where a trader transferred a bill without indorsing it, and there was a private mark upon the bill, and it appeared in evidence, that all bills transferred by him without indorsement, but with this mark, were considered by him as rendering him liable to pay as if he had indorsed them; it was nevertheless held, that such bill could not be proved under a commission against him. So where a bill is transferred by way of sale, without being indorsed, it cannot be proved under a commission against the party transferring, even by the person to whom he transferred it. But, if the bill were deposited merely as a pledge, the residue of the debt for which it was deposited, after a sale of the bill, is proveable under the commission. Secondly, with respect to the number of parties, the holder of a bill or note is entitled to prove it under different commissions, against all the several parties to the instrument, under their respective commissions, and to receive dividends upon the whole 'sum under each, to the extent of 20s. in the pound '; for it is a creditor's right in bankruptcy to prove and avail himself of all collateral securities from third persons to the extent of 20s. in the pound; and the holder of a bill drawn by a firm upon some of their members constituting a distinct firm, has a right to prove it against all the parties according to their liabi Ex parte Shuttleworth, 3 Ves. jun. 368.-Ex parte Blackburn, 10 Ves. jun. 206.-Cullen, 100, 101. Id. ibid. 3 Bank v. Newman, 1 Ld. Raym. 442.-Ex parte Smith, Cooke, 120. 1 Mont. 142.-Ex parte Witter, Cooke, 173.—Ante, 184 to 187+ Id. ibid. Ex parte Wildman, 1 Atk. 109.-2 Ves. 113.-Ex parte Lefebre, 2 P. W. 407.-Cowper v. Pepys, 1 Atk. 1071.-Ex parte Bloxham, 6 Ves. jun. 449. 600. 645.—See argument in 12 Ves. jun. 438. Cullen, 96.-1 Mont. 143.-Cooke, 170.-Bayl. 209. * Ex parte Parr, 18 Ves. jun. 65.-Davison and Robertson 3 Dowe's Rep. 229. 230. whom, and under lities upon the bill, provided he was ignorant of their 3dly, Against partnership'; or such holder may prove it under one what commission. or more commissions against some of the parties, and proceed at law against the others. In Ex parte Rushforth, Lord Eldon said, "It is clear that where a person has a demand upon a bill or bond against several persons, and no part of that demand has been paid before the bankruptcy by any of them, he may prove against each; and the circumstance that one is a surety and the other the principal, or a co-surety as between themselves, does not give a right to stop the holder from receiving dividends, till he has received 20s. in the pound; that is well settled in Ex parte Marshall, and Ex parte Wildman, and it applies to joint and several demands, either by bill or bond." It has long been settled in bankruptcy, that a creditor cannot prove against the joint estate of two bankrupt partners, and also against the separate estate of one of them, but must elect, though he has distinct securities, unless there is a surplus ; and a joint debt cannot be proved under a separate commission, except for the purpose of assenting to or dissenting from the certificate, and recovering a dividend out of the surplus, after satisfaction of the separate creditors; but if there are no joint effects and no solvent partners, or no separate debts, or the joint creditors will pay the separate creditors 20s. in the pound, they may then vote in the choice of assignees, and go at once against the separate estate. But he must have time to look into the accounts of the respective 'Ex parte Adams, 2 Rose, 36.-1 Ves. & Bea. 495.-Ex parte Parr, 18 Ves. jun. 65.-Davison & Robertson, 3 Dow. 220. 230. Ex parte Wildman, 1 Atk. 109.-Wilks v. Jacks, Cooke, 168.1 Mont. 143. 3 10 Ves. jun. 416. 4 Ex parte Bonbonus, S Vès. jun. 542.-Ex parte Wensley, 2 Ves, & Bea. 254. Ex parte Rowlandson, 3 P. W. 405.-Ex parte Bankes, 1 Atk. 106-Ex parte Bond and Hill, 1 Atk. 98. Ex parte Taitt, 16 Ves. jun. 194.-1 Rose, 21. n. a.—Heath v. Hall, 4 Taunt. 328. 3dly, Against whom, and under what commission. estates, to see which will be most beneficial to him, and has been allowed to defer his election till a dividend declared. And in Ex parte Bielby', where creditors had proved under a joint commission, upon a joint and several promissory note, but had not received a dividend, they were not permitted to waive their proof, and to prove against the separate estate, on the terms of not disturbing any dividends already made. And even receiving a dividend is no determination of an election, and the holder of a security has been allowed to change, on refunding the dividend*. In Ex parte Bonbonus', Lord Eldon said, "There have been many cases where three or more partners, being also concerned in other trades, the paper of one firm has been given to the creditors of another, and they were permitted to take dividends from both estates;" and in case of joint debts, paid by a bill drawn by one of the debtors and accepted by another, each carrying on distinct trades, there may be proof under their separate commissions upon the bill". When the credit has been joint, the creditor may be admitted to prove under a commission against the partners, notwithstanding he has taken a separate security. And if money be lent on the separate notes or bills of different partners in the same firm, and be applied to the use of the partnership, and the firm, when solvent, agrees to consolidate the debts, and to consider them as partnership debts, the creditor may be admitted against the joint estate 3. So Ex parte Rowlandson, 3 P. W. 405.--Ex parte Bankes, 1 Atk. 106.-Ex parte Bond and Hill, 1 Atk. 98. 2 Fx parte Clowes, Cooke, 258. 3 13 Ves. jun. 70. Ex parte Rowlandson, 3 P. W. 405.. 58 Ves jun 546.—Ex parte Wensley, 2 Ves. & Bea. 254. 7 Ex parte Hunter, 1 Atk. 223.-1 Mont. 619.—Cullen, 462. whom, and under on the other hand, when the credit has been separate, 3dly, Against the creditor may be admitted to prove against the what commission. separate estate, notwithstanding he has taken a joint security'. Fourthly, to what Extent Proof may be made. extent proof may Fourthly, With respect to what sum, or to what 4thly, To what extent proof may be made, it seems that the dis- be made. counter of a bill or note is entitled to prove the full amount, without deducting the discount. So a holder, who has purchased the bill for less than the amount of it, may prove for the whole'. So if a debtor give to his creditor an accommodation bill or note of a third person, to a larger amount than the debt, the creditor is entitled to prove the whole amount of the bill, under a commission against such accommodation party. And the holder of a bill or note, transferred or pledged to him by his debtor as a collateral security for his debt, may prove the whole amount of the security, under a commission against any of the parties, except the debtor from whom he received it, although he has received part payment of his debt from such his debtors. In the case of several parties, we have just seen that the holder of a bill or note is entitled to prove his debt under a commission against the drawer, acceptor, and indorsers, and to receive a dividend from each upon his whole debt, provided he does not in the whole receive more than 20s. in the pound. So where A. being an indorsee of B. and Co's. acceptances for £1364 issued a separate commission against B. and at the time ' In Re Bate, 3 Ves. jun. 400.-Ex parte Lobb, 7 Ves. jun. 592. See other instances, 1 Mont. 621. 2 Ex parte Marler, 1 Atk. 150.-Cooke, 174.-1 Mont. 143. + Ex parte King, Cooke, 159.-Ex parte Crossley, Cooke, 158.Ex parte Bloxham, 6 Ves. jun. 449. 600. in which Ex parte Bloxham, 5 Ves, jun. 448. was over-ruled. " Id. Ibid.-1 Mont. 144.-Bayl. 210, 211. n. 1. Ante, 586, 7. 4thly, To what extent proof may be made. of suing out the commission, D. the person for whom |