Pollock,  F.,  Jones,  Serjeant,  and  Alderson,  contra. —
If,  in  the  result,  it  shall  appear  that  the  doctrine,  which,  it
must  be  admitted,  has  uniformly  prevailed  in  the  profes-
sion, at  least  in  modern  times,  viz*  that  a  sheriff  is  liable
in  trover,  if  he  seize  and  sell  goods  of  a  person  subse-
quently declared  a  bankrupt,  without  notice  of  a  previous
act  of  bankruptcy,  be  not  warranted  by  the  statutes,  the
Court  will,  notwithstanding,  arrive  at  that  conclusion.  As
a  public  officer,  he  is  bound  to  execute  the  process,  with-
out the  means  of  protecting  himself,  even  though  he  know
that  an  act  of  bankruptcy  has  been  committed,  for  it  is
uncertain  whether  a  commission  of  bankruptcy  will  be
prosecuted  and  followed  up  by  the  regular  proceedings,
so  as  to  divest  the  bankrupt  of  the  property.  When  the
act  is  first  done  by  the  sheriff,  he  is  justified,  for  then,  no
commission  having  issued,  the  property  remains  in  the
bankrupt;  but  it  is  said,  that  he  becomes  a  wrong  doer  by
relation,  and  it  therefore  becomes  necessary  to  consider
the  doctrine  of  relation,  with  reference  to  the  statutes  of
bankruptcy,  which,  it  will  be  seen,  was  intended  to  avoid
the  intermediate  acts  of  the  bankrupt  only.  The  IS  Eliz.
c.  7,  8.  2>  enacts,  that  the  assignees  shall  have  power
and  authority  to  take  by  their  discretions  such  order  and

(a)  4  B.  &  A.  3d?.
