ment that the mortgage securities should be transferred to him, and accordingly R.. by letter, directed the banking company to transfer the mortgage securities to S.; but afterwards R. obtained possession thereof, on a bill by S. :-Held, that as, by the law of Ceylon, the bank had no legal defence against the demand of R., the bill must be dismissed with costs as against the bank. Sichel v. Raphael, 34 L. J., Ch. 106; 10 Jur. (N.S.) 1165; 11 L. T. 433; 13 W. R. 191.

bankrupt :-Held, that the letter was a good
equitable assignment to B. of all dividends.
An undertaking by B. to pay "when and as
received" all dividends coming to him in respect
of his proof upon the estate of I., who was then
a bankrupt, is a good equitable assignment of the
dividends as against the trustee under B.'s sub-
sequent bankruptcy. Bushby, Ex parte, Irving,
In re, 47 L. J., Bk. 38; 7 Ch. D. 419; 26
W. R. 376. S. C., nom., Brett, Ex parte, Irving,
In re,
37 L. T. 507.

Payment by Instalments-Account.]-A. owed Rent.]—A letter to a tenant authorising and B. money upon a contract payable by instalments. B. gave an order upon A. for payment of a portion requesting him, when his Michaelmas rent beof such money to C. came due, to pay 2007. to the landlord's bankers, A. made two payments under the order to C., but refused to be person-revoked by the subsequent bankruptcy of the constitutes only a revocable authority, and is ally bound by the terms of it. B. became insolvent, landlord. Hall, Ex parte, Whiting, In re, 48 L. J., and some money was still due to C. under the Bk. 79; 10 Ch. D. 615; 40 L. T. 179; 27 W. R. order-Held, that the order operated on an equitable assignment, and that C. was entitled to an account of the money then due under it, without regard to any payments made by A. v. Smith, 26 L. J., Ch. 8; 4 W. R. 690.

The original order was not stamped. It was made an exhibit in the cause, but not produced at the hearing. The signature and the contents were admitted by the answer :-Held, that it need not be produced at the hearing. Ib.

385.

Acceptance by Debtor.]-K. was indebted 1007. Gowan to the plaintiffs and the defendant was indebted to K., who signed an authority directing the defendant to pay the plaintiffs 1001. and deduct it from the sum due to K. The defendant wrote on the document, "I accept this authority," and K. handed it to the plaintiffs. The defendant received a notice from K. that the plaintiffs having taken bills in satisfaction of the debt, they cancelled the authority given by them to the defendant as aforesaid. K. subsequently failed:-Held, that the document was a sufficient equitable assignment of the debt due from the defendant, but that an account should be taken as to what was, in fact, due from the defendant to K. Greenway v. Atkinson, 29

A. having contracted to pay to B. 2,3601. by instalments, B. gave to C., for valuable consideration, a paper authorising A. to pay parts of each instalment to C., and C.'s receipt was to be a discharge to A. A. was served with notice of the order-Held, an equitable assignment of the sums mentioned in it to C. Lett v. Morris, 4 Sim. 607; 1 L. J., Ch. 17.

W. R. 560.

Practice-Bill.]-Bill by assignor and assignee of debt, for recovery of it, stating assignment, is sufficient evidence of assignment without further proof, though defendant states he is ignorant thereof. Ryan v. Anderson, 3 Madd. 174. Sed quare. See Sayer v. Wagstaff, 2 Y. & C. C. C. 230; 12 L. J., Ch. 215.

Mortgage of Undertaking.]—By deed the H. Company mortgaged (inter alia)" all the undertaking" of the H. Company to the D. Company. The H. Company afterwards borrowed money of P. who had notice of the mortgage, to enable it to complete a contract with the M. Company, the purchase money of which was payable by instalments, and the H. Company assigned to P. all sums due in respect of the contract with the Liability to Assignee Defence of.]—To M. Company. Notice of this assignment was given to the M. Company :-Held, that the an action for money due, a plea, that the plaintiff assignment of the debt to P. was a good equitable assigned the debts to D., who gave notice thereof assignment. Pitman, Ex parte, General Credit and Discount Co., Ex parte, Hamilton's Windsor Iron Works, In re, 39 L. T. 658; 27 W. R. 445.

to the defendant, and that the assignment remained in force, and that the defendant still remained liable to pay D.. that the action was not brought for the benefit of D., nor with his consent, and if the plaintiff recovered, the defendant would nevertheless be obliged to pay D., is good. Jeff's v. Day, 35 L. J., Q. B. 99; L. R.

Credit opened by Banker.]-A letter from a banker, stating that a special credit for a specified amount has been opened in favour of a par-1 Q. B. 372. ticular person, does not constitute an equitable By bill in equity, it was alleged that Kemp, assignment of funds in the banker's hands to that amount. Morgan v. Lariviere, 44 L. J., Ch. 457; L. R. 7 H. L. 423; 32 L. T. 41; 23 W. R. 537.

L. contracted to supply cartridges, payment of which was to be made by instalments on the certificates of approval from the agents. Bankers wrote to L., stating that a special credit of 40,0007. had been opened in his favour, and would be paid on receipt of the certificates. Only some instalments were supplied and paid for:-Held, that the letter did not amount to an equitable assignment of the 40,000l. lb.

Dividends.-A., by letter, undertook to pay to B. all dividends that A. should receive against the estate of a liquidating debtor. A. became

having made an agreement for the purchase of a house, entered into an agreement with King, the defendant, to transfer to him the benefit of the agreement for a sum of 3,000Z., and obtain for him a conveyance of the premises: thereupon a memorandum was drawn up in the following terms: "Mr. K., when the title to the plaintiff's estate is perfected, and the same shall be regularly conveyed to me by all the parties, I will be accountable to you for the sum of 3,0007, upon receiving a proper release from you and Mr. Wilson for the same." That Kemp immediately afterwards borrowed 3,000l. of B. upon this undertaking of King, and delivered an order to King to pay the money to B. King, by his answer, represented that the contract was made with Wilson, who was an uncertified bankrupt,

but that the name of Kemp was used as a cover | Bank v. Harle (6 Q. B. D. 626) disapproved. against his assignees, and that he had obtained Tancred v. Delagoa Bay Ry., 58 L. J., Q. B. a conveyance and possession of the premises, not 459; 23 Q. B. D. 239; 61 L. T. 229; 38 W. R. through Kemp or Wilson, but by negotiation 15. with the owners. Upon this state of the pleadings the bill was dismissed. Staley v. King, 8 Bligh (N.S.) 717; 3 Cl. & F. 132.

Policy Payment into Court.]—A. mortgaged a policy of assurance on his life to B., who afterwards, under the power of sale in the mortgage, A mortgage of debts due to the mortgagor, sold and conveyed the policy to C. On A.'s made in the ordinary form with a proviso for death C. claimed payment. A.'s widow served a redemption and reconveyance upon repayment notice on the society not to pay C. The society, to the mortgagee, is "an absolute assignment under the advice of counsel, paid the money into (not purporting to be by way of charge only) court-Held, that C.'s title was clear, and that within 8. 25, sub-s. 6, of the Judicature Act, the society should not have paid the money into 1873 (36 & 37 Vict. c. 66). Burlinson v. Hall court, and must pay the costs of payment out. (infra, col. 853) followed. National Provincial | Carroll's Policy, In re, 29 L. R. Ir. 86.

Order to Pay the Balance of Money due."]- rent of lands, and wrote to his tenant, "When W. and A. were appointed joint receivers in a your Michaelmas rent becomes due I authorise partnership suit, and ordered to pay the residue and request you to pay to B. 2001." Before the of the moneys received by them to the partners rent was due A. became bankrupt :-Held, that according to their respective rights. L., one of this was not a good equitable assignment of 2007., the partners, assigned his share to W., in con- there being no consideration except by the sideration of advances, and L. signed an order verbal agreement, which, relating to an interest to W., requesting him "to pay the balance of in land, was by the Statute of Frauds not money due to me to G. W. wrote undertaking receivable in evidence. Hall, Er parte, Whiting, to pay "the balance due to you" to G. :-Held, In re, 48 L. J., Bk. 79; 10 Ch. D. 615; 40 L. T. that the balance intended was the balance 179; 27 W. R. 384-C. A. remaining after satisfying W.'s own claim. Garrard, Er parte, Lewer, In re, 5 Ch. D. 61; 25 W. R. 364-C. A.

Sums not yet Due.]-An undertaking by B. to pay over" when and as received" all dividends coming to him in respect of his proof upon the estate of I., a bankrupt, is a good equitable assignment of the dividends as against the trustee under B.'s subsequent bankruptcy. Irving, In re, Bushby, Er parte, 47 L. J., Bk. 38; 7 Ch. D. 419; 37 L. T. 507; 26 W. R. 376.

Future and Contingent Debt.]-The assignment for a valuable consideration of a future or contingent debt is effectual to pass the property therein; and when the debt comes into existence,

it is payable to the assignee of the original creditor. Percy v. Clements, 43 L. J., C. P. 155; 30 L. T. 264; 22 W. R. 803.

Money in hands of Third Person.]-Bills for 2,500l. were drawn by A. and accepted by the plaintiffs, and the defendants agreed to discount them. The acceptances were handed to the defendants, who gave A.'s clerk a cheque for 2,000l., but refused to pay the balance to the plaintiffs without A.'s order, and on the same day the plaintiffs gave the defendants an order by A. for payment of the balance to the plaintiffs :-Held, that it was a question for the jury whether from the time of lodging the order the and not for A. defendants held the money for the plaintiffs, 5 H. & N. 225; 29 L. J., Ex. 210. Noble v. National Discount Co.,

Consent to Receive.]-A. gave a sum of money into the hands of B. to pay to C. B. had not paid it over to C:-Held, that if C. had not consented to receive this sum of B., A. might countermand the authority and recover it back from B. Owen v. Bowen, Car. & P. 93.

Consent to Pay.]-Where A., having money in the hands of B., directs him to pay a assent of B. is unnecessary to give it validity. sum out of that particular fund to C., this amounts to an equitable assignment, and the Morrell v. Woolten, 16 Beav. 197.

G. agreed to build a vessel for the defendant, to be paid by instalments. Before the vessel was finished G., by writing, directed the defendant to pay to the plaintiff, to whom G. was indebted, 1007. out of moneys due or to become due from the defendant to G. Notice in writing the balance of the price of the vessel-Held, was given to the defendant, but he paid to G. that the instrument constituted a valid assignment of 1007., and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover that amount from the defendant. Brice v. Bannister, 47 L. J., Q. B. 722; 3 due from him to T., delivered to him a joint and Extinguishment of Debt.]-A., to secure a debt Q. B. D. 569; 38 L. T. 739; 26 W. R. 670-C. A. several promissory note for 1007. made by A. and Promise to Pay out of particular Fund. ]-The B. Afterwards C., who was indebted to A. in defendants write to the plaintiffs: "We under- 1007. delivered to T. by A.'s direction, a bill take to pay you, agreeably to instructions from accepted by C. for that amount, which bill was W., 1,2627. on his account, as soon as we shall taken in exoneration of B.'s liability. receive from R. the amount of moneys in his debtor to C. to the same amount, subsequently, hands belonging to W., and now under attach-by C.'s direction, paid 1007. to T. in payment of ment to you"-Held, that the defendants were the bill:-Held, that upon payment of the bill by bound to pay the plaintiff the 1,2627., on the receipt D., the debt due by B. to T. ceased. Thorne v. of the first proceeds remitted by R. on account of Smith, 2 L. M. & P. 43; 10 C. B. 659; 20 L. J., W. Hare v. Rickards, 5 M. & P. 35; 7 Bing. 254; C. P. 71; 15 Jur. 469. 9 L. J. (o.s.) C. P. 86.

D., a

The plaintiffs and the defendant were correTransfer of Liability.]—In an action to recover spondents of J. J. informed the plaintiffs that a debt of 500l. a plea as to 3391. that before he had requested the defendant to pay the action the plaintiff was indebted to S. in 3397.; proceeds of certain coffee to them after a sale. that the defendant, at the request of the plaintiff, The plaintiffs thereupon wrote to the defendant agreed with S. to pay him the 3397., and S. for particulars of the remittances from J., to agreed to accept the defendant as his debtor which the defendant replied: "We are directed instead of the plaintiff for that sum; and that by J. to remit to you the proceeds of 110 bags the defendant was still liable to pay that sum to real ordinary coffee, which he has consigned to S., is no answer to the plaintiff's claim, inasmuch us"-Held, that this amounted to an under- as the plea does not show that the plaintiff's taking on the part of the defendant, to hold the liability to S. was discharged. Cochrane v. Green, proceeds of the coffee for the use of the plain-9 C. B. (N.S.) 448; 30 L. J., C. P. 97; 3 L. T. tiffs, and that the defendant could not set off 475; 9 W. R. 124. the amount of the sale of the coffee against a balance due to himself from J. Frühling v. Schroeder, 2 Scott, 135; 7 Car. & P. 103; 1 Hodges, 105; 4 L. J., C. P. 169.

Out of Rents.]-A. made a verbal agreement to give his bankers a charge on the half-year's

On an agreement to extinguish the defendant's debt by transfer of a debt due from the plaintiff to a third party, the agreement being in writing, and it being intended that the defendant's should be so-Held, that the arrangement was not complete until he had signed. Webber v. Mowbray, 2 F. & F. 310.

A. and B. were respectively indebted to C.; and B. was also indebted to A. C. agreed with B. to transfer A.'s debt to his (B.'s) account, which he did by charging in an account delivered the sum due to him from A. :-Held, that by this arrangement A.'s liability to pay was not discharged. Cuxon v. Chadley, 5 D. & R. 417; 3 B. & C. 591: 1 Car. & P. 274; 3 L. J. (0.8.) K. B. 63; 27 R. R. 423.

sold the debt, provided the debtor has no notice of the sale. Stocks v. Dobson, 4 De G., M. & G. 11; 22 L. J., Ch. 884; 17 Jur. 539. And see infra, col. 867.

Right of Set-off.]-In an action upon a contract, the defendant pleaded by way of set-off a judgment debt due from the plaintiff to the defendant, to which plea the plaintiff replied that he had assigned the debt due to him from the defendant to a third party :-Held, that this assignment did not deprive the defendant of the right to set off a debt due from the plaintiff to the defendant. Watkins v. Clark, 12 C. B. (N.S.) 277; 6 L. T. 819.

Where the plaintiffs were creditors and the defendants debtors to T., and, by the consent of all parties, an arrangement was made that the defendants should pay to the plaintiffs the debt due from them to T.:-Held, that as the demand of T. on the defendants was for money had and received, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover A purchaser of a debt commenced an action to on a count for money had and received against the recover it in the name of the assignor. The debtor defendants. Wilson v. Coupland, 5 B. & Ald. 228. pleaded a parol agreement between him and the A. being indebted to B. for brokerage, and B. assignor by way of set-off. Thereupon the plainindebted to C. for money lent, B. gives an order tiff at law filed a bill to obtain equitable relief: to A. to pay C. the sum due from A. to B.-as a -Held, that his remedy was at law and that security, on which C. lends B. a further sum-there was no ground for the equitable interand the order is accepted by A.; on the refusal ference of the court. Rolt v. White, 1 N. R. of A. to comply with the order, C. may maintain | 171; 9 Jur. (N.S.) 343; 7 L. T. 586. an action for money had and received against him. Israel v. Douglas, 1 H. Bl. 239. And see Maxwell v. Jameson, 2 B. & Ald. 51.

When an equitable chose in action has been assigned, the debtor cannot set off against the assignee a debt which has accrued due to him from the assignor since the notice of assignment, Privity of Parties.]-An arrangement though resulting from a contract entered into between A. and B. who is indebted to C., that previously, unless from the nature of the transac A. shall take upon himself B.'s debt to C., tion it appears to have been intended between is not binding, and gives no cause of action to the original parties that the one should be set off C. against B., unless C. is a party to the arrange-against the other. Watson v. Mid-Wales Ry.. ment. Price v. Easton, 1 N. & M. 303; 4 B. & Ad. 36 L. J., C. P. 285; L. R. 2 C. P. 593; 17 L. T. 433; 2 L. J., K. B. 51. 94; 15 W. R. 1107.

Acknowledgment.]-B. being indebted to &. in 1137. 138., and C. being indebted to L. on two bills for 607. and 537. 138., one of which was dishonoured, and the other about to become due, C. signed the following document: "I hereby agree to authorise B. to pay L., or his order, the sum of 1137. 138., the amount of two acceptances towards my account, to debit my account with the above money, also L.'s receipt to B., I acknowledge shall be binding between myself and B. in the contract." At the foot of this document B. wrote "acknowledged," with his signature:-Held, that L. could maintain no action against B. to recover the money, since the document was merely an assignment of a chose in action, and there was no consideration for a promise to pay. Liversidge v. Broadbent, 4 H. & N. 603; 28 L. J., Ex. 332; 7 W. R. 615.

bodied a contract by which a company agreed to Divisibility of Contract.]—A statute emconstruct and complete a railway, on behalf of the government, in a certain time in consideration of in proportionate parts and form part of the assets an annual subsidy, "such annual subsidy to attach of the company as and when each section is completed." The company assigned a portion of the undertaking and "all their interest in the subsidy" to trustees. The company failed to complete the railway-Held, first, that on completion of each section of the railway a proportionate part of the subsidy became payable for the whole period; secondly, that if the government had claims relieve itself pro tanto from payment of the against the company, such government might subsidy by counter-claim; thirdly, that as the claims of the trustees arose out of the same contract, such claims were subject to a similar counter-claim. Newfoundland Government v. Newfoundland Ry., 57 L. J., P. C. 35; 13 App. Cas. 199; 58 L. T. 285—P. C.

Stipulation for Indemnity.]-F. and G. assigned a debt due to them from M. to J. as a security for a debt due from F. and G. to J. M. received notice of this assignment, and promised to act upon it. After this, F. and G. sued M. for Claim by plaintiff as assignee of a debt due the debt. M. offered to pay J. and B., if they from the defendant to the assignor. The defenwould indemnify him, which they declined to do, dant pleaded by way of set-off and counterupon which M. paid F. and C., taking an indem-claim that he was entitled to damages for nity-Held, that M., though he might have no defence against the action, was not discharged, but must pay the money to J. and B., and that their refusing him an indemnity did not alter the case. Jones v. Farrell, 1 De G. & J. 208; 3 Jur. (N.S.) 751.

breaches of contract by the assignor :--Held, that the defendant was entitled by way of set-off or deduction from the plaintiff's claim to the damages which he had sustained by the nonperformance of the contract by the assignor. Young v. Kitchin, 47 L. J., Ex. 579; 3 Ex. D. 127 ; 26 W. R. 403.

Payments after Assignment.]-Where a debt not legally assignable has been equitably assigned Insolvency of Assignor.]—A., being indebted for value, and the debtor has had notice of the to B., and B. to C., B. by letter requested A. to assignment, all payments which he may make to pay C. the balance due to him, B., and stated the purchaser are well made, so far as the debtor that C.'s receipt should be a sufficient discharge. is concerned, although the purchaser may have | A. having expressed his assent to pay C.-Held,

that it amounted to an equitable assignment of the debt due from A. to B. After the balance due to B. was ascertained, but before the amount was paid, he became bankrupt :-Held, that his assignees were not entitled to recover the amount from A.. but that he was justified in paying it over to C. Crowfoot v. Gurney, 2 M. & Sc. 473; 9 Bing. 372; 2 L. J., C. P. 21.

The title of an assignee for value of an equitable interest is not affected by a previous insolvency of the assignor, the assignee having no notice of that insolvency. Atkinson, In re, 2 De G. M. & G. 140; 16 Jur. 1003.

payment of costs, to pay and divide the residue among all the creditors in rateable proportions, according to the amount of their respective debts, and the creditors granted a release of the debts. The profits of the business were more than sufficient to pay the creditors in full:Held, that there was no resulting trust of the surplus for the assignors. Smith v. Cooke, 60 L. J., Ch. 607 ; [1891] A. C. 297; 65 L. T. 1; 40 W. R. 67—H. L. (É.)

K.

Revocation of Authority.]-Messrs. K. were indebted in the sum of 100l. to the plaintiffs. The defendant was indebted to Messrs. K. Moneys due under Contract.]-A contract pro- brought to the defendant a document signed by vided that payments should be made by instal-Messrs. K., and authorising him to pay to the ments as the work proceeded, on certificates of plaintiffs the sum of 100l. to be deducted from an architect, 80 per cent. of the work done to be the money due from the defendant to Messrs. K. paid, and 20 to be retained until completion. The defendant wrote on the document, "I accept The owners were empowered on the bankruptcy this authority," and on the following day Messrs. of the contractors to employ some other person K. handed it to the plaintiffs. The defendant to complete it, and to deduct the amount paid to received a notice from Messrs. K. that the plainsuch other person from the contract price. The tiffs having taken bills in satisfaction of the contractors assigned a portion of the retention debt, they cancelled the authority given by them moneys and became bankrupt before completion to the defendant. Messrs. K. failed:--Held, of the contract. Notice of the assignment was that the document was in itself a sufficient given to the owners. A trustee in liquidation equitable assignment of the debt due from the and a committee of inspection were appointed. defendant, but that an account should be taken The trustee completed the work, himself advanc-as to what was, in fact, due from the defendant ing money, of which an amount exceeding that to Messrs. K. Greenway v. Atkinson, 29 W. R. of the retention moneys assigned was still unpaid : | -Held, that the trustee must be taken to have completed the work under the original contract as trustee of the contractors' estate, and not as a person employed to complete the work in substitution for the contractors; that the assignment of the retention moneys held good as against the trustee. Tooth v. Hallett (L. R. 4 Ch. 242) distinguished. Drew v. Josolyne, 56 L. J., Q. B. 490; 18 Q. B. D. 590; 57 L. T. 5; 35 W. R. 570—C. A.

Default of Creditor.]-Where a creditor takes from his debtor an assignment of a debt due from a third person as a security for his demand, and by his wilful default the debt becomes irrecoverable, he must bear the loss. Williams v. Price, 1 Sim. & S. 581; 24 R. R. 238; 2 L. J. (0.8.) Ch. 105.

Derogation from Grant.]-A. assigned to C. the debts due and owing by the parties named in a schedule to A., with power to C. to sue in the name of A. C. having brought an action in the name of A. against a debtor whose debt was stated in the schedule to be 2501., and having obtained a capias to hold him to bail, A. caused the sheriff to discharge the debtor. In an action against A. upon the implied covenant in the deed that he would do no act in derogation of his grant, A. pleaded that the debtor was, without his consent, wrongfully and unlawfully held to bail for a much larger amount than was then owing by him to A., and for a much larger amount than the sum mentioned in the schedule as due from him: therefore the defendant ordered him to be discharged-Held, no answer to the action. Gerard v. Lewis, 36 L. J., C. P. 173; L. R. 2 C. P. 305; 15 L. T. 663; 15 W. R. -581.

Resulting Trust -Assignment in Favour of Creditors Surplus.]-By a deed of assignment executed by a firm in favour of their creditors, the business was assigned to trustees, upon trust either to carry on or sell the same, and, after

500-C. A.

Fraud-False Representation.]-A., indebted to C., agreed with B. that he, B., should take upon himself the debt, if C. would accept him as his debtor; and C. being informed by B. of the arrangement, accepted B. as his debtor. B., to induce C. to sue A., wrote a letter falsely representing that no such agreement had been made between himself and A.; and C., acting on the letter, sued A. for the debt, and recovered judgment against him :-Held, that these facts did not give a right of action by A. against B. Collins v. Cave, 4 H. & N. 225; 28 L. J., Ex. 204; 5 Jur. (N.S.) 296. Affirmed 8 W. R. 586Ex. Ch.

Stamping Document.]-The defendants were indebted to O'C. & Co. in the sum of 4607. O'C. & Co. addressed a letter to the defendants as follows:-"We do hereby authorise and request you to pay to A. the sum of 3951. 10s., due from you to us, and the receipt of A. will be a good discharge." This instrument was only stamped as an assignment. In an action on the bill, a defence that it was a bill of exchange within the Stamp Act, 1870, and had not been stamped as such before its execution was overruled. Adams v. Morgan, 14 L. R. Ir. 140—C. A.

Bankruptcy Right of Action-Champerty.]— A plaintiff became bankrupt pending the action. An assignment by the trustee in bankruptcy of the subject-matter of the action to a creditor of the bankrupt, who undertook to proceed with the suit :-Held, not a champertous agreement. Guy v. Churchill, 58 L. J., Ch. 345; 40 Ch. D. 481; 60 L. T. 473; 37 W. R. 504.

Policy of Insurance.]-Construction of a condition in a policy of life insurance that "it should not be assignable in any case whatever." Turcan, In re, 58 L. J., Ch. 101; 40 Ch. D. 5 ; 59 L. T. 712; 37 W. R. 70.

Life and Accident Policies.]-See INSURANCE.