1 The assignment transfers only the property owned by the bankrupt at the filing of the petition; and the latter's earnings and acquisitions after the commencement of proceedings are his own, subject to his eventual discharge, failing which they remain liable to his creditors. Mays v. Manufacturer's Bank, 64 Pa. 74. An undischarged bankrupt may maintain an action for a debt due to him for work and labor done after his bankruptcy, if the trustee doee not interfere. Jameson v. Brick & Stone Co. 4.Q. B. D. 208. - K.

If an assignee takes a leasehold estate, he thereby becomes liable for the rent and covenants during the whole term, (c)

(a) Where the assignees took possession, they were held to have made their election, although the personal effects of the bankrupt were upon the premises, and the assignees delivered up the key immediately after the effects were sold. Hanson v. Stevenson, 1 B. & Ald. 303. So when the assignees took upon themselves the management and direction of the bankrupt's farm. Thomas v. Pem-berton, 7 Taunt. 206. See also Welch v. Myers, 4 Camp. 368. So also where the assignees of a termor, who had become bankrupt, put up the lease for sale, and sold it, and received a deposit from the purchaser, it was held, that they had made their election, and were liable to the landlord as assignees of the lease. Hastings v. Wilson, Holt, N. P. 290, and see the cases cited ante.

(b) In Turner v. Richardson, 7 East, 335, which may be called the leading case on this subject, the facts were briefly, that the assignees of a bankrupt advertised the lease of certain premises, of which the bankrupt was lessee, for sale by auction (without stating themselves to be owners or possessed thereof); no bidder appeared; no subsequent possession was taken by the assignees. After solemn argument, the court delivered their opinions seriatim, and Groce, J., said: "They were to consider whether it were for the benefit of the creditors that they should take to the property or waive it. On the one hand, if they entered and were possessed, they became liable to be sued upon the bankrupt's covenants for rent and non-repair, which might amount to more than the value of the lease; on the other hand, if the lease were valuable, and they did not take to it, the creditors would have had a right to call upon them for neglect of their duty. In order, therefore, to ascertain the fact of the value, they advertised the property for sale, without stating, however, that it was in their possession; it was no more than making an experiment whether the property were of any and what value, . . it is plain, from the evidence, that, finding they were of no value, they never did enter into possession; the defendants were not assenting to the assignment of these premises to them," and all the judges were agreed in this. Wheeler v. Bramah, 3 Camp. 340, to the same point. Mere neglect to deliver up the premises will not be held an election to take. Wheeler v. Bramah, above cited; Canaan v. Hartley, 14 Jurist, 577. Or paying rent for the purpose of avoiding a distress. Id. Releasing an under-tenant even, will not be deemed an election to accept. Hill v. Dobie, 8 Taunt. 325,2 J. B. Moore, 342. See also Lindsay v. Limbert, 12 J. B. Moore, 209; Gibson v. Courthorpe, I Dow. & R. 205, Page v. Godden, 2 Stark. 309; Thomas v. Pemberton, 7 Taunt. 206.

(c) This doctrine is laid down in the cases already cited.' Ansell v Robson, 2 Cromp. & J. 610, was an action against assignees of a bankrupt for rent, on the trial it appeared that the bankrupt was a coach maker, and at the time of the bankruptcy had numerous coaches let on hire, under contract. The assignees entered upon the premises to keep the coaches in repair, in pursuance of the bankrupt's contracts. In August, the bankrupt's effects were sold, ana the key of the premises delivered to the bankrupt, but the assignees paid the rent up to Michaelmas following. It was sought, in this action, to recover rent for the quarter ending at Christmas following. Lord Lyndhurst said: " If assignees go on the premises for the purpose of taking possession, and actually take possession, that is sufficient to bind them to take the premises. A tenancy from year to year, until it is terminated, is the same as a lease. The interest of the bankrupt

* But he may transfer the lease, and his transferee takes his place and his burden. And it has been held, that if an assignee finds an estate burdensome, and attempts to free himself by transfer to a mere beggar, the law sustains him in this; mainly on the ground that the landlord has a claim against the assignee only by privity of estate and not of contract, there being no personal confidence between them, and that, as soon as the assignee parts with the estate, this claim is gone, (d)

If the lease contains covenants that the lessee shall not assign, and that if he does the lease shall be forfeited, it is held that the lease nevertheless passes to the assignee, and that he may transfer it But it has been held, in England, that the landlord may look, not only to the assignee, while he holds it, or to his transferee afterwards, but to the original lessee also; on the ground that the bankruptcy discharges or bars only the debts due at the time(e) The English cases on this subject (and we have * few American ones) are not quite consistent, nor would they be altogether applicable here, as they rest in part on technicalities of the common law which would have less force with us. And a distinction has been taken there on this point between bankruptcy and insolvency. (f) The process against the bankrupt is in invitum; but the insolvent moves himself, and seeks to transfer his property. This is, therefore, a voluntary breach of a covenant not to assign, and so works a forfeiture. It was suggested by Lord Ellenborough that every lease should contain a proviso, that bankruptcy or insolvency by the lessee shall determine the lease, (g)