problem of extension involving the bankruptcy statutes —a long series commencing 
with acts of Henry VIII and running down into the reign of 
George 11. Together the statutes formed a loosely jointed codex on the subject, 
so it was conceivable that the early statutes could not be treated as 
separable. The first appeal which concerned the extension of these acts was 
that of Richards et al. v. Hudson et d. from Virginia, in 1762. In this cause, 
by virtue of English legacies and chancery decrees, George Buchanan and 
William Hamilton, the executors of Neil Buchanan and inhabitants of England, 
were the debtors of the respondents who were resident in Virginia. 
The sums owing had long been due, but for some reason, which does not appear 
in the case, had not been paid. In May, 1752, a commission of bankruptcy 
issued against Buchanan and Hamilton in England, and one Rickards and 
others were named assignees. Since a great part of the assets consisted of goods 
and outstanding debts in Virginia, the assignees continued Francis Jerdone 
and Robert Duncanson, the former Virginian factors of the bankrupts, to 
assemble and remit such assets of the bankrupts' estates. In April, 1754, the 
respondents filed a bill in the Virginia Chancery against the bankrupts and 
their factors for the sums due under the above decrees and legacies. The defendants 
mainly insisted in their answers that the bankrupts' effects had 
vested in the assignees, that the assignees should have been made parties, and 
that no assets remained in their hands. In 1757 a bill of revivor and supplemental 
bill was filed by the respondents against the bankrupts, the factors, 
and the assignees; in their answer the latter insisted that the Virginia Chancery 
Court had no jurisdiction. Upon hearing in April, 1761, the court assumed 
jurisdiction and decreed that the factors should pay certain sums from the 
assets of Buchanan and Hamilton and their assignees which were at present 
in their hands or which had been in their hands when served with process 
95 
From this decree the defendants appealed to the King in Council, the appeal 
being entered in April, 1762. 96 In their brief appellants urged that the Virginia 
court could have no jurisdiction, since no part of Neil Buchanan's effects 
remained in Virginia and the executors and assignees all resided in England. 
If it did possess jurisdiction, it could not divest the assignees of the bankrupts' 
effects previously vested in them by commission prior to the filing of the Virginia 
bill, and give preference to respondents in direct opposition to the bankruptcy 
laws. 97 In reply, respondents argued that the effects of a bankrupt were 
to be applied according to the laws of the country in which they were located. 
96 Case of Appellant {Add. MS, 36,218/199- MPC 2/109/196. 
201); Case of Respondent (ibid., 205-6). 9T Case of Appellant (Add. MS, 36,218/199).