Lettors of administration were also granted as ?»^?,. " Keuben Harabley, deceased (Mr Wood) • re William Henry Tripe, deceased (Mr Sim); re Hicbard Joseph Leon, deceased (Mr Hoskin>») •re William Cameron, deceased (Mr John MncarezorV re Jeremiah O'JCeefe, deceased (Mr Gallawav) ' WILKIXSOHMv. JOHXSTO>\ Summons for plaintiff to give security for the defendant's costs, and stay of action meantime Mr Stewart appeared in support of the summons, and Mr Mouat to oppose. In this case damages to the extent oil £'000 were claimed by the plaintiff under an alleged breach of conditions of sale of certain stock-in-trade and other chattel's, and the defendant had taken out a summons calling upon the plaintiff to show cause why he should not give security for costs, on the grounds-1. That the plaintiff is an undischarged bankrupt. 2. Inat any moneys recovered in the action would be the property of the official assignee After a long argument, His Honor, iv giving judgment, said the working of section of 72 of the act was peculiar, and applied equally to property vested in the'bankrupt at the time of adjudication, and to all property which might come into his, possession between the date of the bankruptcy and his discharge. The word pro perty signilied and included things in action as well as in possession, and both classes of property became absolutely vested in tht, assignee for the benefit of the creditors. Things in action, which were pure torts, such aB actions of libel and slander, did not however, pass to the assignee, and in respect of these the bankrupt could not be expected to give security for costs. In actions arising out of contracts before the bankruptcy, if the bankrupt sued after the bank ruptcy he must be taken as suing for the benefit of the assignee, and would be called upon to eive (security for costs. It seemed to him that whatever the English law might be, Bection 72 of our act abso lutely put property which came to the bankrupt afterwards including things in action on the same footing as though they had vested in the bankrupt at the time of the bankruptoy. It might be-his Honor would not decide the matter now-that the bankrupt might sue in his own name in respect of oausesof action arißing out of contracts. That how eler;hookv!ngat^eCtlon 7& h* ra«>er doubted. 