( 320 )
.Jatevab-DENS A. J.
Tav.t9.fhtjTnaolvency ,o■Jayasekere
were conflicting. Taking this to be the law. can it be applied tothe present case ? The petitioning creditor here was also thepetitioning creditor in the previous insolvency (No. 507) and hisdebt is the very same debt on' the strength ot which he obtainedf the adjudication of the appellant in the previous case. Under theEnglish law a second adjudication has been permitted when, afterthe first adjudication, the insolvent had been allowed to trade or 'carry on business without any interference by the assignee of thefirst insolvency, and he has incurred fresh liabilities and acquiredproperty, and in almost all the reported cases questions have been■ raised as to the right of the proved creditors of the first insolvencyto. share in the property acquired subsequent to such insolvencyand disclosed as assets in the second insolvency: Eve parte Ford,1Cohen v. Mitchell,1 2 In re Clark ex parte Beardmoref Bird v.
/ Phillpott* and the second of the local cases mentioned above alsou dealt with the same point.
I do not think there is any authority for holding that a secondadjudication can be obtained on a debt which has been proved,%r could have been proved, in the first insolvency. The order^refusing * to adjudge the appellant insolvent is on the facts of this$ease right, and the appeal must be dismissed.
.IMaartensz. A. J.—I agree.
Appeal dismissed.
1 (1876) 1 Ch. Div. 821.
■* (1890) 28 Q. B. D. 262.
8 (1894) 2 Q. B. 393, 821.* (1900) 1 Ch. Div. 822.