Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/324

 S04 Ea^tents. [Ch.XII. Pt.I. Sec. VL from the caption of the inquisition under which they are found. This at least has been decided in a case where the defendant had become a bankrupt, and the debt had been assigned by the commissioners to the assignees, between the teste of the writ and caption of the inquisition (a). It has been subsequently held, that inquisitions are bad which merely state that the debt was due to the Crown debtor, on the teste of the writ, omitting that the distinction to be collected from these two cases seems to be this : " That payment of a debt to the Crown debtor, af- ter the issuing of the extent, and before the caption of the in- quisition, will discharge a party paying without notice of the Crown process ; and, therefore, it is necessary that the inquisi- tion should state that the party was indebted at both periods. But a mere assignmeiit of the debt to the assignees of a bank- rupt between the teste of the extent and caption of the inquisi- tion, will not discharge the debtor as against the Crown." It is, however, apprehended, that if the debt is in one case bound from the fiat or teste of the writ, it would be in the otlier, and that the extent would over-reach even a bond Jtde payment^ after the teste and before the caption, as it does bondjide alien- ations and sales of goods during that period. At least the con- trary does not seem to be proved by the decisions, that the in- quisition must state that the debt is due on the day of the find- ing. That statement may be necessary, in order to shew, that the debt is not destroyed by the operation of other circum- stances than payment, and it is easy to conceive that there may be other events transpiring after the teste, which would destroy the debt, even as against the Crown. It should seem, that though the defendant has been paid the money, yet as that payment would, if the general effect here attached to the for- mer decision be correct, be effectless, at least as against the Crown, the inquisition might correctly state, that the money was still due. No substantial legal reason can be assigned why debts should not be bound from the teste of the writ, as well as goods. In either case hardships may occur. And if the Crown can be bound by a subsequent payment of the debts, it seems (a) 7 Via. Ab. 104. 1 Atk. 262. 163 and 329. Bingham, 216. West, 327. (c) West, 164. (A) Bunb. 265. 3 Price, 396. West, difficult
 * ' iiecnon die captionis iiiquisitionis {b)" Mr. West observes (c),