the goods have been taken account of and charged with duty by Excise duties. the excise officers, they are then bonâ fide sold and delivered to the purchaser before the teste of the writ of extent, they are discharged from their liability. Under this clause, therefore, excisable goods, &c., in the hands of a factor are chargeable with both accruing and by-gone duties, not only in respect of the particular goods in question, but of all other goods of the same party. A pledgee, of course, is not liable beyond the amount of the Pledge. duties due from the pledger at the time of the pledge (2); and a factor making advances on the security of the goods in his hands, would seem to have the same right. In two cases, a curious question arose. The goods had been consigned while 7 & 8 Geo. IV. c. 53, was still in force, and the consignors were heavily indebted for excise duties at the time of the consignment: the consignees made advances, and then, after the passing of 4 & 5 Vict. c. 20, the goods were seized under an extent of the Crown; it was argued that 4 & 5 Vict. c. 20, having repealed the 28th clause of the former statute, the provision of the later Act must be considered the first enactment on the subject; and at the time of the passing of this Act the lien of the parties who had made the advance was in full force, and would, therefore, have priority to the Crown. And this argument would, it seems, have succeeded, had it not turned out that a still earlier statute, 28 Geo. III. c. 37, s. 21, was unrepealed, and was sufficient to keep the lien of the Crown alive (r). But in both thess cases, the claim of the Crown at the time of the advances by the consignees seems to have been beyond the value of the goods. In a case under this old statute, it was held that a printer of cotton goods was not a maker or manufacturer within the statute, though the Crown may, perhaps, have a lien on the particular goods for the duties in respect of them, as the printer himself would have had (s). term. When a term is attendant upon the inheritance in trust for the Attendant Crown debtor, the Crown debt attaches upon the term as well as upon the freehold (f); but it does not affect a term in gross until the teste of the writ, and a purchaser who pays off a mortgage which overrides the debt of the Crown, and takes an assignment of the term to attend, will not be subject to the Crown debt, though the mortgage debt be not kept alive (u). (2) See 11 M. & W. 720. (r) Att. Gen. v. Trueman, ib. 694; Att. Gen. v. Walmsley, 12 ib. 179. (s) Rex v. Tregoning, 2 Y. & J. 132. Extents in aid. After what time. Extents in aid, which in some cases were productive of considerable grievance, have been restricted in their operation by a salutary enactment (r), by which the sum to be levied under the extent in aid, is confined to the amount of debt actually due to the Crown, if the debt due to the king's debtor exceeds the Crown debt. (9.) Execution of the extent. The baron's fiat is the true commencement of the king's suit (y). Regularly the goods are bound by the king's extent from the award of execution, which is the fiat of the baron, and, therefore, it may be dated the day of the fiat; as otherwise the goods at that time in the possession of the defendant could not be seized (s); and the extent may issue after the death of the defendant if the fiat be dated before, and a fortiori an extent does not abate on the death of the defendant (a). But in a case where more than a year had elapsed since the date of the fiat, the Court refused a rule that an extent might issue tested of the date of the fiat, and Bayley, B., said, that regularly the extent should be dated the day when it issued (6); and though a new extent has been allowed to be issued tested of the day of a former extent (c), yet in such a case it is clear that the Court would not allow bonâ fide intervening transactions to be ripped up. And in another case (d), where upwards of eight years had elapsed, and it was suggested that the object of the motion was to overreach a fraudulent conveyance of property, which the debtor, in fact, held at the time of the first extent, the Court refused the application. But, while the Crown debt remains unsatisfied, a new extent of the then present date may be had at any time, without motion, in order to seize subsequently acquired property of the debtor (e). As against the king, a scire facias was not, even before the Jud. Act, necessary to revive the record (e), although, according to the old case of Rex v. Robinson (f), no process can be had on a dormant extent without motion in Court. By a rule of the Court of Exchequer of 1822, before an extent in aid is issued, the Court required an affidavit that otherwise the Crown debt was in danger of being lost (g). (x) 57 Geo. III. c. 117. (y) 2 Saund. 70 f; Man. Ex. 25. (b) Rex v. Maberly, 2 Cr. & M. 537. (c) Rex v. Bruce, Man. Ex. 27, note. (d) King v. Harvey, 7 Pri. 238. (e) Rex v. Mallett, 1 ib. 395. (9) Man. Ex. 313. But neither the statute of Geo. III. nor this rule, applies to an extent in chief of the second degree by the Crown against the debtor paravail, nor need there in such a case be a denial of collusion (h). Although the Crown is not bound by the statutes of bank- Bankruptcy. ruptcy (i), yet, when the Crown debt has once been satisfied, the Crown debtor is not entitled to continue the proceedings under an extent in aid previously taken out against the debtor paravail, who has become discharged under those statutes (k); and it seems that, as a general rule, the extent in aid ceases with the satisfaction of the Crown debt (). The relation back of the title of the trustee does not affect the Crown (7). visions to By s. 150 of B. A. 1883, save as in the Act provided (m), the Certain proprovisions of the Act relating to the remedies against the property bind the of a debtor, the priorities of debts, the effect of a composition or Crown. scheme of arrangement, and the effect of a discharge shall bind the Crown. Generally as to the execution of the extent, see (n). (10.) Property extendible at suit of the Crown. Under an extent, at the suit of the Crown, may be taken in execution all the freehold estates and interests which the debtor holds in severalty, in coparcenary, or in common, trust estates, equities of redemption, lands over which the debtor has the power of revoking the uses, lands held jure uxoris, lands in the hands of the heir, whether named or not, rents service, rents charge, impropriate tithes, and lands in ancient demesne (o). Estates tail, in the seisin of the issue in tail, may be taken under Entail. an extent (p). But, after a bona fide alienation by the issue in tail, the land cannot be followed (q). The heir of a Crown debtor shall not be charged if the executor Heir. has assets; and a purchaser from the debtor is not to be charged Purchaser. when there are assets in the hands of the executor, or heir (»). Lands held by the debtor's widow in dower, or as her jointure, Dower, (h) Rex v. Bell, 11 Pri. 772. (i) Re Bonham, 10 Ch. D. 595, C. A. (k) Rex v. Bingham, 1 Cr. & M. 862; 2 C. & J. 130. (1) Re Bonham, sup. (m) See s. 40 of B. A. 1883. (n) See Prid. Judg. p. 148, ed. 4. (p) 33 Hen. VIII. c. 39, s. 75. (2) 7 Co. Rep. 21; Prid. ib. Joint estates. Copyholds. Tithes. Chattels real. are not extendible, unless the lien of the Crown attached before the marriage; and even in that case, they are to be taken only where the other property is insufficient. Joint estates cannot be taken under an extent, unless execution is issued before the death of the debtor (s). Copyhold lands are not extendible by Crown process (f); but it seems that a lease of copyholds granted by licence of the lord can be taken in execution at the suit of the Crown (u). Tithes, in the hands of ecclesiastical persons, cannot be extended by the sheriff; but upon his return that the extendee is a beneficed clerk, process may issue to the ordinary (r). Chattels real, such as leaseholds, estates by elegit, &c., may be either extended by the Crown at their yearly value as lands of the debtor, or may be sold at a gross price as part of his goods and chattels; but they are not bound until the teste of the extent, so that a bona fide alienation of chattels real before the teste of the extent is good against the Crown (y). (11.) Sale under 25 Geo. III. c. 35. Previously to 25 Geo. III. c. 35, the rents and profits only of lands of the Crown debtor could be taken under an extent, in like manner as under a writ of lerari facias; but by force of that statute, a sale of the debtor's interest in the lands can be made. For this purpose, however, a motion must first be made in Court, and, after the order for sale obtained, the king's remembrancer conveys to the purchaser as a matter of course. But where the sheriff has sold, under a mistake that the lands are leasehold, the Court cannot interfere to confirm the sale (). Where an estate has been sold under the last-mentioned statute, but a good title cannot be made, the Crown may move to discharge the purchaser without his consent and without payment of his costs (a). Where execution is levied under an extent of the Crown, and a writ of error is brought while the money is in the hands of the Crown, the Court will, on application, order the money to be paid to the officer of the Crown, as in the case of a subject, though the (s) Man. Ex. 39, 40. (t) Parker Rep. 195; Aldrich V. Cooper, 8 Ves. 394. (u) Watk. on Cop. 301; Watk. No. cxlvii. cxlviii. cxlix. to Gilb. Ten. (x) Man. Ex. 41. (y) Fleetwood's case, 8 Co. Rep. 171; Wightw. 41. (z) Rex v. Blunt, 2 Y. & J. 120. only remedy for the recovery of the money is by petition of right (¿). extent and If, on sale under an extent, the purchaser obtain an order for Sale under an payment of his purchase-money into the exchequer, and the money surplus. is invested with the consent of the Crown on the motion of the purchaser, and accumulated until it is more than enough to satisfy the Crown debt, the Crown, not being liable in such a case to bear any loss, will not share in the surplus which remains after payment of principal, interest, and costs (c). renewable. Under this statute, the interest of a Crown debtor in leaseholds Leaseholds renewable on lives may be sold (d). It makes no difference if, after the Crown debt has accrued, a new lease be taken in the name of the Crown debtor, because the new lease remains subject to the same equities (e). But it was said, there would have been a difficulty if the legal estate had been in the Crown, against which there would be no equity (ƒ). The prior security will not prevail against the Crown, if it were made in favour of a person in whom it was a breach of duty to the Crown to take it; as where it was taken by a receiver-general from a person immediately responsible to him in respect of moneys due to the Crown. And it seems that in such a case it would be the same if the mortgage were legal (g). When the Crown debtor is entitled to an equity of redemption, Equity of the prosecutor must give the mortgagee notice of his intended redemption. motion for an order to sell the estate subject to the mortgage, and under this order the sheriff ought to sell the equity of redemption only. And where the whole estate was sold without reference to the mortgage, the Court refused to order payment of the mortgage out of the proceeds of the sale, without the consent of the mortgagor; but directed a reference to the deputy-remembrancer, to ascertain what was due on the mortgage (h). The Act has been declared by the Crown Suits, &c. Act, 1865, Crown Suits to authorize the sale of any land taken in execution by virtue of Act, 1865. any writ or process of execution, issued after the commencement of the latter Act, by any court of law or equity, for enforcing the payment of any sum of money to, or in favour of, the Crown (i). (b) Rex v. Burns, 1 Y. & J. 579. (e) The King v. De la Motte, 2 H. & N. 589. See 1 & 2 Geo. II. c. 121, 8. 10. (d) Reg. v. Lane, 6 M. & W. 489. (e) Fector v. Philpott, 12 Pri. 197. (f) Ward v. Booth, 14 Eq. 195, M. R. (i) 28 & 29 Vict. c. 104, s. 50. |