What is the test for repudiating a dividend?

He then citess Whitmore v. Turquand, 3 Deg. F. & J. 107, which merely decides that where the intention was that all the creditors should come in and take a dividend and a period was named for creditors to come in the time so limited was not of the essence of the deed, but was introduced for the purpose of hastening the arrangement; and that a creditor therefore for whose benefit the deed was made, was not excluded from the mere circumstance that he had not come in within the limited time, unless he had done something to repudiate it.

The next case is Borell v. Dann, 2 Hare 440; but that does not establish that a debtor or his assignee, under a voluntary assignment, could add to the names of creditors to be benefited by the trust, but simply that a person under an Insolvent Act could not, by inserting only certain creditors in his schedule, prevent other creditors not named from proving on the estate, and participating in the dividends.