This takes us to the question whether the power given to the Bank amounts in equity to an assignment of the decree or .all_Y portion thereof, to the Bank. From the power of attorney It JS B clear that the amount under the decree was specifically ear -marked for discharge of the debts due to the Bank. · It was constituted as a special fund for the said purpose. The power to realise that fund was made over to the Bank with the further authority to set off the amount realised towards the debts due to it. In other words, the power of attorney is an engagement to pay out of the particular fund the debt due to the Bank and hence the same c constitutes an equitable assignment of the amount due under the decree or so much of that amount as is necessary for discharging the debts due to it. That rule is recognised in Watson v. The Duke of Wellington('). Therein the plaintiffs, executors of Mr. Sims, had advanced a large sum of money to Marquis of Hastings on the joint bond of the Marquis and a surety. The sum due on D the bond exceeded £9000. Towards the end of 1825, the Marquis having returned from India to England, the plaintiffs made repeated applications to him for payment of the debt. The Marquis represented that he was about to receive a large share of the Deccan prize.money; promised that theit demand should be paid out of that fund; and begged that, in the meantinte, no E proceedings might be taken against him or the assets of his surety. On February 6, 1826, Mr. Allen, the solicitor of the plaintiffs. again waited on the Marquis, who then stated that he had directed Col. Francis Doyle, whom he had empowered to receive his share of the prize-money, to pay the debt and costs due to the executo_rs of Mr. Sinis; and at the same tinte !lie Marquis wrote and delivered to Mr. Allen a Jetter addressed to Col. Doyle directI' ing him that the executors of Mr. Sinis were claimants on that fund for a bond debt with interest. From these facts the COurt of Chancery came to the conclusion that there was an equitable assignment in favour of the executors of Mr. Sinis of a portion of the prize-money sufficient to meet the debis due to the estate of Mr. Sims by the Duke of Wellington. To the same effect is G the decision in Burn v. Carvalho(2 ). Therein the Court of Chancery held that in equity, an order given by a debtor to his creditor upon a third person, having the assets of the debtor to pay the creditor out of such fund is a binding equitable assignment of so much of the fund.
