Assembly; and that if there was no express provision in the Act of Parliament in England, or in the act of Assembly here, as to the made of ascertaining a violation of those boundaries, yet, by analogy to other special jurisdictions, the proceedings of the Commissioners could not be the proof of their own legality; but, from the nature and reason of the thing, that question must be examinable at another tribunal. 1Bac. Abr. 653.Lev. 288. Caʃ. temp. Hard. 186.145. 2.Bl. Rep. 1145. 2.Wils. 582.–They remarked , that, ‘till the 4 Ann. c. 17. s. 7. no provision was made as to the manner in which a Bankrupt should bring forward his discharge; and that, even under the statute, he was obliged to set forth all the proceedings before the Commissioners, which eventually produced the statute of 5Geo. 2. authorizing the Defendant to plead his certificate . This, however, they insifted, only made the certificate prima ƒacie evidence ; relieving the Defendant from the necessity of stating the petition, trading &c. in his plea, and obliging the Plaintiff to set forth his exceptions in his replication. See 2 Ld. Ray. 1646. Stra. 869. S.C. Co. B. L. 356. Doug. 160.–They then cited many authorities to shew, that since, as well as before, the statute of 4 Geo. 2.c. 30. and subsequent to the the granting the certificate, as well as previously, the debt, trading, act of bankruptcy &c. had all been controverted and enquired into in the Courts of law, in a variety of forms, between a creditor and the bankrupt, between creditors and the assignees ; and, in short, between any persons who were interested. 2Stra. 744. Cowp. 569.Bull.37. Co.B.L. 307. 314. Term. Rep. 409. 573.n.. 2Stra.822. 2Stra. 1042. Barn. 81. 2 Bl.Rep. 725. Cowp. 823. Co.B.L.348. 1Ld. Ray. 724. 1 Bl.Rep. 70. Bull. 40.Palm. 325. Cowp. 427.428. 1Salk.110. Cowp. 398. Bull. 39. 1 Atk. 201. Co.B.L. 71. Cro.E. 13.72. Barn. 160. 2 Stra, 809. 7 Vin. 61. pl. 14. 1 Bl. Rep. 441. Co.B.L. 74. Green.B.L. 44. 1 Burr. 467. 484. &c.–They added, that to prevent the injustice which, in many cases would happen for want of a Court of Chancery, the Courts here are obliged to deviate from the rigorous rules of the common law, and to adopt the principles of equity. Although in England the common law courts cannot enquire into the confideration of a bond, or decree the specific performance of a contract, yet the Courts of Equity will do both; and here, to afford a similar relief, wherever the Chancery would order a deed to be given, our Courts instead of doing that, presume the deed to have been actually given, and adjudged the case accordingly. Thus, in the present cafe, the same reasons which would induce the Chancellor to supercede a commission of bankrupts, will induce this Court to confider the commission as virtually superceded.
SHIPPEN,President– This is an action brought by Samuel Pleasants against John Meng, and three other persons, in which the Defendants have pleaded, that they are certificated bankrupts, an the Plaintiff has replied, that the certificates were unfairly obtained.
