1788.
practice to do ſo. The preſent inquiſition, being quaſhed for irregularity, becomes a nullity, and leaves the caſe juſt as if none had been taken.
Pleasants verſus Meng et al.
Indebitatus Aſſumpſit for goods ſold and delivered &c. The Defendants pleaded that they were certificated bankrupts, and that the cauſe of action aroſe before the bankruptcy; to which the Plaintiff replied, that the certificate was unfairly obtained; and, on the trial of the cauſe, offered teſtimony in ſupport of the four following exceptions–to wit:
- That the debt on which the commiſſion was founded, had been contracted prior to the paſſing of the act for the regulation of bankrupts; 3 State Laws. 644. although a bond had been given for it ſince the Act was paſſed.
- That the petition was exhibited by one perſon, in the name of himſelf and his partner, without any other than the general authority of the partnerſhip; which is not ſufficient for this purpoſe.
- That the Defendants were not copartners at the time the commiſſion iſſued jointly againſt them. And
- That two of the Defendants had not committed any act of bankruptcy prior to the iſſuing of the commiſſion.
The admiſſion of teſtimony upon theſe points was oppoſed by the counſel for the Defendants, who contended, that the certificate was concluſive evidence of the debt, trading, bankruptcy, and conformity; and that fraud in obtaining it, or a concealment of effects, were the only matters which the Plaintiff could now be allowed to prove, according to the deciſions under the 5 Geo. 2. c. 30. which ſtatute only differs, on this point, from our act of Aſſembly, by the uſe of the word fraudulent, inſtead of unfairly; words, however, of ſynonimous import. 3 State Laws 644. ſect. 24. Green B. L. 244. 245. 9. I. Stra. 533. Co. B. L. 352 1 Atk. 79. 208. 2 Wilſ. 140. They urged, that any objections to the form of proceeding could only be taken by the bankrupts, who were likewiſe precluded by their acceptance of a certificate. 2 Stra. 746. 5. Burr. 2628. Term. Rep. 409. and they controverted the power of the Court to unravel, in this way, the deciſion in the commiſſioners, whoſe juriſdiction was competent and concluſive as to all the preceding ſteps.
The Plaintiff’s counſel, having premiſed generally, that where a limitted juriſdiction is eſtabliſhed, the Courts of common law are bound to prevent any infraction of that limitation; 3 Black. Com. 112. 109. and that a Court of limitted juriſdiction can never be veſted with a right to determine upon the legality of its own acts; Ibid. 112. 114. 1. Bac. Abr. 563. Sir. T. Ray. 189. Salk. 548. 1 P. Wm. 476. Cowp. 26. contended, that the Common Pleas had a concurrent authority with the Supreme Court to refrain the commiſſioners of bankrupts within the boundaries preſcribed by the act of
