Page:United States Reports, Volume 1.djvu/391

3801788. 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. 

NDEBITATUS 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: 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.
 * 1) 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.
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) That the Defendants were not copartners at the time the commiſſion iſſued jointly againſt them. And
 * 4) That two of the Defendants had not committed any act of bankruptcy prior to the iſſuing of the commiſſion.

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 Aſſembly;