In passing a receiver's accounts in Chambers, when the same solr appears for the receiver and one of the parties to the suit, only one copy of the accounts will be allowed between them on taxation: Sharp v. Wright, 1 Eq. 635.

A receiver's accounts though passed have been ordered to be reviewed on application by a late ward of Court, stating errors and neglect: Wildridge v. M Kane, 2 Moll. 545; and a settlement of accounts, between the infant two days after coming of age and the receiver, did not prevent the receiver from being charged with interest at 4 p. c. from the decree until the infant came of age, on surplus rents omitted to be inserted pursuant to direction: Hicks v. H., 3 Atk. 274.

The Court has no jurisdiction to make a summary order to account against the represves of a deceased receiver: Jenkins v. Briant, 7 Sim. 171; Ludgater v. Channell, 15 Sim. 479; though it seems that if the balance has been ascertained, the order may be made on petition that his recognizances be put in force against his real and pers. represves and against his sureties: S. C., 3 Mac. & G. 175.

But where, on their application to pass his accounts, and pay in the balance, it had been so ordered in 1812, they were not allowed in 1841 to object want of assets: Gurden v. Badcock, 6 Beav. 157.

And see Dan. 1703-1714.

SURETIES.

The surety is answerable to the extent of the amount of the recognizance for whatever sum, principal, interest, or costs the receiver has become liable, and also for the costs of his removal and of appointing a new receiver: Exp. Maunsell, 3 J. & Lat. 251; Re Lockey, 1 Ph. 509; Smart v. Flood, 49 L. T. N.S. 467; Dawson v. Raynes, 2 Russ. 466, though under the particular circumstances of this case, payment of interest was not required from the sureties of a bankrupt receiver.

It has been held that the precise amount due must be shown by the certificate (report) before the recognizance could be put in suit: Ludgater v. Channell, 15 Sim. 479, 481. But on appeal (3 Mac. & G. 175) it was held that the recognizance might be enforced against the surety as well as against the real and personal represves of the deceased receiver without the amount due having been actually ascertained, and that the order might be made on petition.

The recognizance, after it has been allowed by the chief clerk by signing a memorandum in the margin, is sent from Chambers to the Enrolment Office, and receipt taken for it from the Clerk of Enrolments.

Enrolment will not be allowed after six months from acknowledgment except under special circumstances, and by order made by the Court or a Judge upon motion for enrolment after that time: see O. LXI. 14.

An amount due from a receiver is a debt of record so long as his recognizance remains in force, so that the Statute of Limitations only begins to run from the time when the recognizance is vacated: Seagram v. Tuck, 18 Ch. D. 296.

For the practice as to putting recognizances in suit, and as to vacating them when the receiver has passed his final account, see Dan. 1716.

An action having been brought against a surety on his recognizance, an order by consent was made, on payment by the surety of the costs of the application, and of subsequent proceedings consequent thereon, for a reference to see what was due from the receiver, payment by instalments of the amount, not exceeding the amount of the recognizance, and an injunction to stay proceedings in the action: Walker v. Wild, 1 Madd. 528, 1815, B. 1125. The surety is entitled to stand in the receiver's place, and be indemnified out of a balance in Court due to him: Glossop v. Harrison, G. Coop. 61;

3 V. & B. 134.

Accordingly, a receiver's shares of an estate which was being administered in Court, though excepted from a mortgage given as an indemnity to his surety, were liable to recoup the surety the amount paid by him for the receiver: Brandon v. B., 3 D. & J. 524.

They will not be discharged at their own request, unless under special circumstances: Griffith v. G., 2 Vez. 400; in Swain v. Smith, V.-C., 13 July, 1827, B. 1447, a surety was discharged on his own application, having become such in breach of his partnership articles.

On payment by surety to solr of Plt proceeding against him in the Petty Bag, and on notice of the application to Plt, his recognizance was discharged: Mann v. Stennett, 8 Beav. 189.

A surety was held answerable for costs of attachment against receiver for not accounting, and costs of appointing new receiver, and ordering tenants to pay rent to him: Exp. Maunsell, 3 J. & Lat. 251.

And the surety who has paid the debt of the receiver (his principal) is entitled to enforce the recognizance against his co-surety: Woods v. Creaghe, 2 Hog. 51; Kerr, Receivers, 196.

And as to the liabilities and rights of a receiver's sureties, see Dan. 1717; Kerr, Receivers, 193.

SECTION V.-RECEIVER AND MANAGER ABROAD.

1. Receiver and Manager of Estates in India.

LET B. and M., of &c., be appointed to manage the estates of &c., the testator in &c., named at &c., in British India, and to receive the rents, profits, and proceeds thereof, and to convert, get in, and remit the same to the Plts, to be accounted for by them as exors of the testator; And Let the Plts be at liberty to execute a proper power of attorney in favour of the said B. and M., for the purposes aforesaid. -Logan v. Prin. of Coorg, M. R., in Chambers, 9 May, 1860, B.

1151.

For order appointing one or more persons in succession in Calcutta, to receive and remit assets in India and China, and conduct and defend suits, and to take security, see Hodson v. Watson, L. Commrs., 24 June, 1788, A. 471; and see Wood v. Lindsay, V.-C., 18 Dec. 1826, B. 1938. For order directing a receiver to authorize a firm in Calcutta to receive assets in India, and remit the same to the receiver, see Keys v. K., 1838, A. 767; 1 Beav. 425.

2. Receiver of Property in N. S. Wales-Leave to appoint Agent.

AN inquiry-" What real estate in New South Wales or elsewhere the testator U. was seised of or entitled to at the time of his death, and the nature and extent of his interest therein; And Let a proper person be appointed to receive the rents and profits of such part of the real estate of the Plts, the infants, as was derived through the will of the testator; And Let such receiver, with the approbation of the Judge, appoint a proper person or persons as his agent or agents in New South Wales or elsewhere to receive such rents and profits, and to remit the same to such receiver in this country, and make such agent or agents a proper allowance in respect thereof."-Receiver to pass accounts and pay in balances.-Underwood v. Frost, V.-C. S., in Chambers, 14 Feb. 1857, B. 543.

3. Receiver of Property in Italy, with Agent there, and to
litigate Rights.

RECEIVER to be appointed to collect and get in the outstanding personal estate and effects of the testator, and to receive the rents and

profits of his real estate in Italy, and any money that may arise from the sale of his real estate in Italy; "And Let such receiver, with the approbation of the Judge, if expedient, appoint a proper person as his agent, living at or near L., or elsewhere in Italy, to collect the said rents and profits, and to receive and get in the (personal) estate and effects of the testator, and to see the same properly secured and transmitted to England, to be disposed of as this Court shall direct, and, if necessary, to continue the suit now instituted, and to litigate and contest any other suit which may arise (concerning), or have relation to, the testator's estate in Italy; And Let, if necessary, a proper instrument be executed by the Deft, to such person so to be appointed, for the purposes above mentioned, such instrument to be approved of by the Judge."-Plt and Deft to deliver over to receiver all securities, books, and papers; and he to pass accounts, and pay in balances.Hinton v. Galli, M. R., 28 March, 1854, A. 720.

For order to appoint a person resident near Naples to get in testator's estate and effects, and contest any will set up there, see Drewry v. Darwin, M. R., 20 May, 1765, A. 252.

For order to appoint a person to receive property in America, and another here to receive remittances, and for allowance to each, and each to give security, with inquiry as to enforcing payment of debts there, and out of what fund the expenses and allowances should be paid, see Hanson v. Walker, M. R., 12 May, 1815, A. 1219.

For order directing the appointment of a person in Canada to receive the rents of testator's unsold estates there, and the proceeds of estates sold, and to enter into contracts and sell the unsold estates, according to a scheme, and Deft to execute a power of attorney to such person to enable him to enter into such contracts, and convey the lands sold; moneys received to be remitted to a person in London, he giving security, and the receiver and consignee both to pass their accounts, see Tylee v. T., M. R., 8 Nov. 1856, B. 309.

For order on the application of C., the receiver of the rents and profits of the real estates of the testator at the Cape of Good Hope, &c., that C., as such receiver, be at liberty to sell the testator's real estate in South Africa, consisting of the several estates mentioned in the schedule, at the best prices which he could obtain, not being less than the sum set opposite the same in the same schedule; and that the receiver was not to be allowed any commission on such sales, but was to be allowed to charge all his costs out of pocket relating thereto; and that Defts do appoint the said C., the attorney of Defts, the exors of the testator, for the purpose of obtaining letters of admon in South Africa, with the will annexed, of the personal estate, &c., until the exors should obtain probate, see Re Collison, Collison v. C., V.-C. H., at Chambers, 4 Dec. 1876.

4. Manager appointed with Direction to remit to Consignee here.

LET (A. and B.) one or more proper person or persons be appointed at in, to manage the estates of C., the testator in &c., at -, and to receive the rents, profits, and produce thereof, and he or they is or are to remit the same to a proper person in London to be approved of for that purpose; And Let the person to whom the said rents, profits, and produce are to be so remitted, pass his accounts thereof from time to time, and lodge the balances which shall be certified to be due from him in Court, as directed in the schedule hereto.-[Add Lodgment Schedule, Form 5.]

For order, by consent, appointing persons to sell a cargo of sugar, and

directing them to pay the net proceeds, after deducting their broker's commission and all other proper charges, into Court from time to time, when the sums received amounted to 500l. and upwards, see Blythe v. Scholefield, M. R., 17 March, 1858, A. 729.

5. Declaration as to Management of Colonial Estate-Consignee appointed ad Interim-Inquiry as to Liabilities-Scheme.

DECLARE that it is fit and proper and for the benefit of all parties interested under the testator's will, that his estate and plantations in D. should be managed and carried on until the further order of this Court in the manner in which the same appear by the affidavit of A. and B., filed &c., to have been managed and carried on since the testator's death; And Let E., of the firm of &c., in the said affidavit named, on his giving security, be appointed consignee ad interim in this country of the produce of the said estate, upon the same terms as regards remuneration as (those on which) the said firm have heretofore acted on behalf of the testator; And Let the said consignee apply the rents, profits, and produce thereof under the direction of the trustees or trustee for the time being of the said will, until further order; And Let an inquiry be made whether any expenses and liabilities, and to what amount, have been incurred in such management, since the testator's decease, which remain unsatisfied, and whether the same, or any and what part thereof, ought properly to be raised or provided for out of or charged upon the said estates and plantations, or any and which of them, or in any and in what other manner; And Let a proper scheme be approved and settled for the management of the said estates and plantations for the time to come.-Any of the parties to be at liberty to propose such scheme.-Porter v. P., M. R., 9 July, 1859, B. 2587.

For order to appoint manager and consignee for estate in Demerara, with stay of proceedings, see Bunbury v. B., 1 Beav. 336, sup.

For order to appoint consignee, and proper person or persons, to act as manager or managers in Jamaica, in the event of the death, absence, or other incapacity to act of the present manager, to receive the rents, profits, and produce thereof, and remit the same to the consignee or consignees in London, see Rutherford v. Wilkinson, M. R., 31 May, 1823, B. 1241, and note, inf. p. 684.

For subsequent order, with security, see S. C., 30 Nov. 1824, B. 146; and without security, Plt's counsel consenting, S. C., 22 April, 1826, B. 903.

For order appointing resident in Jamaica to take out admon and get in estate there, with an allowance, and for appointment of manager and consignee of plantations and real estates, see Hammett v. Reid, V.-C., 11 Aug. 1827, A. 1990.

For orders appointing managers and consignees in the West Indies, with direction to keep down interest on charges, see Quarrel v. Beckford, L. C., 20 Feb. 1807, B. 269; Wedderburn v. Clark, L. C., 13 May, 1793, B. 320; Cunyngham v. C., L. C., 31 July, 1750, A. 635; 1 Vez. 522; Belt's Supp. 232.

For order in the West Indian Encumbered Estates Court appointing a receiver and manager of an estate in Jamaica, see Re Clarke's Estate, 24 Feb. 1863, Cust, 147. And for the recognizance of the receiver, certificate of security, and order discharging the receiver in that case, see ib. 148, 9, 150.

NOTES.

The Court has jurisdiction to appoint a receiver of real and personal property abroad: see Houlditch v. L. Donegal, 8 Bli. N.S. 343; and see Barkley v. L. Reay, 2 Ha. 308; Faulkner v. Daniel, 3 Ha. 204.

And accordingly receivers have been appointed to receive, convert, get in, and remit to this country the rents, profits, and proceeds of property:

-in East India: Logan v. Princess of Coorg, sup., Form 1, p. 681; Keys v. K., 1 Beav. 425;

-in China: Hodson v. Watson, sup. p. 681;

-in N. S. Wales: Underwood v. Frost, sup. Form 2, p. 681;

-in the West Indies: Bunbury v. B., and other cases, sup. p. 683;

-in Canada: Tylee v. T., sup. p. 682;

-in America: Hanson v. Walker, sup. p. 683;

-in Brazil: Sheppard v. Oxenford, 1 K. & J. 500;

-in Italy: Hinton v. Galli, sup., Form 3, p. 681; Drewry v. Darwin, sup. p. 682;

-in Ireland: Houlditch v. L. Donegal, sup. And see Re Trant, M. R., in Chambers, 8 July, 1857, B. 1366, sup. p. 674;

-in Jersey: Smith v. S., 10 Ha. Appx. lxxi. In this case the real estate was in England, but part of the personal estate consisted of personal chattels in Jersey.

By the West Indian Incumbered Estates Act, 1862 (25 & 26 V. c. 45), 8. 3, power is given to the commrs appointed under the W. I. Incumbered Estates Acts, 1854, 1858, when they shall have made an absolute order for sale of any lands under the Acts, to appoint a receiver of the rents and profits of any lands within the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, in a suit relating to such lands; and the receiver so appointed shall have and possess all the powers, authorities, rights, and privileges possessed by receivers appointed by the Court of Chancery in England.

By the W. I. Incumbered Estates Act, 1864 (27 & 28 V. c. 108), s. 5, the power to appoint receivers, given by the Act of 1862, was extended by including live and dead stock, machinery, utensils, and other chattels and effects in the property of which a receiver might be appointed; and the appointment might be made after a conditional order for sale.

From the difference between a plantation and an estate in England, the former being in the nature of a business or trading concern requiring a large investment of capital and skilful management, the rights and liabilities of receivers and managers of West Indian property differed in many respects from those of an ordinary English receiver: see Daniel v. Trotman, 11 W. R. 717, 719; Cust, W. I. Estates, 9.

In some of the earlier cases it appears that the manager of West Indian property was not required to give security; and in Forrest v. Timms, L. C., 1789, A. 128, the appointment was "on his giving security to be approved, &c., for his duly managing the plantation and estates, and for his duly accounting for what he should receive, and for his consigning the produce of the said plantation, as far as the due management of the said estates required it, to the person, &c., to whom the Court had directed, or should direct, the consignments to be made."

See also S. C., nom. Morris v. Elme, 1 Ves. jun. 139; Cockburn v. Raphael, 2 Sim. & S. 453.

And in Rutherford v. Wilkinson, sup. p. 683, 9 July, 1825, Lord Gifford, M. R., in making the order under the circumstances without security, said that in general, in order to dispense with security, it should appear that no manager could be found who would give security, or that the proposed person was fit to be appointed without, but made the order under the circumstances without security, by consent of such parties as could consent; but on a subsequent application in the same cause security was required: and see Wedderburn v. Clark, 1b.; and so in Cobham v. C., V.-C., 30 April, 1841, A. 1801.

In the case of receivers of West Indian property appointed under the W. I. Incumbered Estates Acts, 1862 and 1864, the appointment is made upon their first giving security:" see Forms in Cust, W. I. Estates, pp. 147,

149.

The lien of a consignee of West Indian property (not only on the produce,