Affembly; and that if there was no exprefs provifion in the Act of Parliament in England, or in the act of Affembly here, as to the made of afcertaining a violation of thofe boundaries, yet, by analogy to other fpecial jurisdictions, the proceedings of the Commiffioners could not be the proof of their own legality; but, from the nature and reafon of the thing, that queftion muft be examinable at another tribunal. 1Bac. Abr. 653.Lev. 288. Caʃ. temp. Hard. 186.145. 2.Bl. Rep. 1145. 2.Wils. 582.–They remarked , that, ‘till the 4 Ann. c. 17. ʃ. 7. no provifion was made as to the manner in which a Bankrupt fhould bring forward his difcharge; and that, even under the ftatute, he was obliged to fet forth all the proceedings before the Commiffioners, which eventually produced the ftatute of 5Geo. 2. authorizing the Defendant to plead his certificate . This, however, they infifted, only made the certificate prima ƒacie evidence ; relieving the Defendant from the neceffity of ftating the petition, trading &c. in his plea, and obliging the Plaintiff to fet forth his exceptions in his replication. See 2 Ld. Ray. 1646. Stra. 869. S.C. Co. B. L. 356. Doug. 160.–They then cited many authorities to fhew, that fince, as well as before, the ftatute of 4 Geo. 2.c. 30. and fubfequent to the the granting the certificate, as well as previoufly, the debt, trading, act of bankruptcy &c. had all been controverted and enquired into in the Courts of law, in a variety of forms, between a creditor and the bankrupt, between creditors and the affignees ; and, in fhort, between any perfons who were interefted. 2Stra. 744. Cowp. 569.Bull.37. Co.B.L. 307. 314. Term. Rep. 409. 573.n.. 2Stra.822. 2Stra. 1042. Barn. 81. 2 Bl.Rep. 725. Cowp. 823. Co.B.L.348. 1Ld. Ray. 724. 1 Bl.Rep. 70. Bull. 40.Palm. 325. Cowp. 427.428. 1Salk.110. Cowp. 398. Bull. 39. 1 Atk. 201. Co.B.L. 71. Cro.E. 13.72. Barn. 160. 2 Stra, 809. 7 Vin. 61. pl. 14. 1 Bl. Rep. 441. Co.B.L. 74. Green.B.L. 44. 1 Burr. 467. 484. &c.–They added, that to prevent the injuftice which, in many cafes would happen for want of a Court of Chancery, the Courts here are obliged to deviate from the rigorous rules of the common law, and to adopt the principles of equity. Although in England the common law courts cannot enquire into the confideration of a bond, or decree the fpecific performance of a contract, yet the Courts of Equity will do both; and here, to afford a fimilar relief, wherever the Chancery would order a deed to be given, our Courts inftead of doing that, prefume the deed to have been actually given, and adjudged the cafe accordingly. Thus, in the prefent cafe, the fame reafons which would induce the Chancellor to fupercede a commiffion of bankrupts, will induce this Court to confider the commiffion as virtually fuperceded.

SHIPPEN,Preʃident– This is an action brought by Samuel Pleaʃants againft John Meng, and three other perfons, in which the Defendants have pleaded, that they are certificated bankrupts, an the Plaintiff has replied, that the certificates were unfairly obtained.