
    Eldred vs. Hall.
    The fact that the defendant in a creditor’s bill has neglected to execute an assignment of his property, to the receiver, as directed by the order of the court, furnishes no grounds to the master for refusing to direct such defendant to deliver over his property to the receiver, and to decide what property the defendant has in his possession, or under his control, which ought to be delivered over pursuant to the order of the court appointing such receiver.
    August 4.
    This was an appeal from an order of the vice chancellor upon a review of the master’s decision on an ordinary reference upon a creditor’s bill. The defendant had neglected to execute an assignment of his property to the receiver, and the master for that reason refused to decide what property the defendant had in his possession or under his control, and to direct such property to be delivered to the receiver.
    
      S. F. Clarkson, for the complainant.
    
      H. F. Clark, for the defendant.
   The Chancellor

said, the neglect of the defendant to comply with one part of the order of the court furnished no grounds to the master for refusing to proceed in order to compel the defendant to comply with the other part of such order of the court, which directed the defendant to deliver over his property to the receiver upon oath before, the master.

Order appealed from reversed,"with costs.  