WILSON V. ATLANTIC Se ST. LATTEENCE R. CO. - 461 �sented by said Clara, but that she bas demanded the dividends and a new certificate. �A letter purporting to be written at Guelph, Canada, Jan- uary 9, 1877, by Clara P. Knight, said to be the wife of the bankrupt, and addressed to the treasurer of the company, is prodneed, in which she says "the share was transferred to her in August, 1874r," and calls for the dividends and a transfer to herself. The original certificate does not show any trans- fer to Clara P. Knight. Stow received the same in Canada from the bankrupt, the only transfer thereon being from the bankrupt to Stow, without date, and it is not pretended that the bankrupt was not the owner of the share, holding the cer- tificate when proceedings in bankruptcy were commenced. The assignment by the register vested in the assignee ail the rights and property of the bankrupt on the twenty-fourth day of February, 1875, and the bankrupt act confers upon the district court the fuUest equity powers in administering the estate. �When the demand for a new certificate was made by the complainant he believed that the old certificate was beyond the jurisdiction of the court, as Stow had informed him he had returned it to Knight, in Canada ; and there can be no question that the treasurer of the defendant was of a like opinion, as he was advised by the letter of Mrs. Knight, from Canada, in January, 1877, that she then held this certificate. The rights of the parties, therefore, should be determined as they existed at the filing of the bill, and the production and surrender of the certificate by Stow at the last moment, under the eircumstances detailed, cannot change the resuit. The property in this share having vested in the assignee, and it being his duty to administer the bankrupt's estate in a man- ner most beneficiai to ail parties interested, what course should be adopted by him, with respect to this share, to accomplish this resuit ? �It is said he might have sold his interest in the share, leav- ing it to the purchaser to enforce his rights. It is true, he might have so done if the court in bankruptcy would have conferred upon him the authority, and it is equally true that, ����
