
    Respublica against Matthew Clarkson, George Hughes, Richard Bache, Peter Baynton and David Lenox, commissioners of James Newport, a bankrupt.
    Court will not compel commissioners of bankrupt to give a certificate of conformity, though, they should differ from the commissioners.
    Motion at a precedent term, and rule for a mandamus to the defendants as commissioners of bankrupt, to give a certificate of conformity to James Newport, or shew cause to the contrary.
    The commissioners made a general return, that their appeared to them reason to doubt that the discovery and disclosure made by the bankrupt, was a true, full and perfect discovery and disclosure óf all the estate and effects of the said James Newport.
    It was now moved, that the return was insufficient, because uncertain. Under the act “for the regulation of bankruptcy,” passed September 16th, 1785, pa. 653, sect. 24, the bankrupt was entitled to receive a certificate from the commissioners on his conforming to the directions prescribed by the act; and the supplement to this law, passed March 15, 1787, pa. 237, sect, 3, directs, that he shall be discharged on such certificate, when allowed by the president or vice-president of the supreme executive council. The return to a mandamus must be certain to every respect, and therefore it is not sufficient to offer such matter as the party may falsify in an action, but also such matter must be alledged, that the court may be able to judge of it, and determine, whether the party’s conduct be agreeable to law or not. 3 Bac. Ab. 542. Cites 2 Salk. 432, pi. n. Lord Raym. 559. Vent. 111.
    Mandamus to swear one into the place of town cleik; the return was, that upon the election, B had eighteen voices, and the party who sued the mandamus but seventeen, and that they had sworn in B: It was held a bad return, being argumentative, *when it should be express and direct, that he was not chosen. 6 Mod. 309. So on a man- *- dam us granted to restore the recorder of Barnstable, directed to the mayor, and he returned quod non constat nobis that he was ever elected; and the return was adjudged insufficient, and restitution awarded. T. Raym. 153.
    The return should be special; as in the case of the King v. mayor of Durham, where a freeman is disapproved of, a good reason must be given for so doing. 1 Burr. 127. This court have a superintendent jurisdiction over every inferior jurisdiction, and will in such cases exercise the same powers as the court of King’s Bench in England, who are never excluded unless by the express words of a statute. The return of the commissioners should be stated in such a manner, as to enable this court to determine on the legality of their proceedings, and to rejudge their judgments. On the present return, no issue can be formed, no fact can be brought to trial. The power of the commissioners is absolute by these means; and a man may be hung up in suspense during his whole life, without having the privilege of being heard before another tribunal, in his own defence. The idea of conformity must be gathered from the original act and supplement; but ought the commissioners solely and exclusively to judge without appeal respecting it, on the facts? They should either approve or disapprove of the bankrupt’s conformity. But if they have jealousies and suspicions, why are they not particularly expressed? Lord chancellor Hardwicke on a petition to him to disallow the certificate of one Williamson a bankrupt, formerly a merchant of Corke in Ireland, declared, that he himself had very great jealousy and suspicion, concerning the view with which the commission was taken out, but declared they were not sufficient to proceed upon.
    On the part of the commissioners it was urged, that the return being in the express words of the supplement to' the act, “for the regulation of bankruptcy,” must be clearly sufficient. It was by no means argumentative, but precise and express. They are not bound by law to make any special return, or to state their particular doubts or suspicions, or the grounds of them. Under the first law, the commissioners were required to give a certificate of conformity to the bankrupt, though they had the strongest reasons to disbelieve the truth of his discovery and disclosure. Under the latter law they are to exercise a reasonable, not an arbitrary discret’— and determine on their oaths, whether, under all the circumstances, it appears to them, there has been a candid and ingenuous account given to them by the bankrupt, on his *401 different examinations. The supplement *nearly pur--J sues the words of the statute 5 Geo. 2. c. 30. sect. 10. in England; except that therein, four parts in five, in number and value of the creditors, for not less than 20I. respectively, who shall have duly proved their debts under the commission, shall sign the certificate and testify their assent to the allowance thereof. As the bankrupt laws now stand in Pennsylvania, the discretion of the commissioners is intended to be exercised for the benefit of the creditors, and in this instance is exclusive: for they must exercise their own private judgment. Suppose a fact was tried by a jury on an issue joined, or that the court on a special statement returned by the commissioners, should think there was a true discovery and disclosure of the bankrupt, and doubts still remained in the breasts of the commissioners of the truth of them; would this court compel them to certify against ther own judgment? Could they be deemed to be in contempt when they come forward and say, “We have taken an oath or affirmation, faithfully, im- ‘ ‘ partially, and honestly, according to the best of our skill ‘ ‘ and knowledge, to execute the powers and trusts reposed in “us; and under that solemn sanction declare, that we here“tofore had, and still have reason to doubt, that the dis-‘1 covery and disclosure of the bankrupt is not true, full, and “perfect. Our consciences and judgments still remain unsatisfied.”
    No mandamus will lie to an inferior court, to compel them to give a particular judgment, though they may be forced to give a judgment.
    The court, upon the argument, were of opinion-the rule should be discharged, as they could not legally compel the commissioners to sign the certificate of conformity, even though an issue should be found in favour of the bankrupt, or the court on a special statement of the facts should differ from the commissioners, whether there was a full, true, and perfect discovery and disclosure on the part of the bankrupt. If any inconveniences should arise from this doctrine, the legislature only are competent to the remedy.
    Messrs. Kewis, Sergeant, Fisher, and M’Kean, pro repub.
    
    Messrs. Bradford, Wilcocks, and Tilghman, pro def.
    
   See 1 Atk. 82, where Lord Hardwicke observes, “Certifi- “ cates are matters of judgment, and I do not know that a “mandamus would lie to compel an allowance; for it is dis-‘1 cretionary in the commissioners first, and afterwards in the “Lord Chancellor; and yet it ought not to be arbitrary either ¿¿a-1 “in the ^commissioners or the Chancellor to say, we J “will, or we will not, allow a certificate; but they “ought to be governed entirely by fairness or fraudulent “behaviour in the bankrupt.”  