A

ACTION.

See ADMINIStrator.

CONTRACT.

DUTIES, 1.

INJUNCTION, 2.

INTERNAL REVENUE, 2, 3.

ADMINISTRATOR.

1. Where the amount involved in an
Admiralty suit is not sufficient to
permit a review by the Supreme
Court of the judgment of the Circuit
Court, a general finding of facts and
law by the latter Court is sufficient,
under the Act of February 16th,
1875, (18 U. S. Stat. at Large, 315,
§ 1.) `1,265 Vitrified Pipes, &c., 274
2. In a suit in rem against. a vessel,
brought in the District Court, the
vessel was discharged from custody,
in that Court, on a stipulation for
value. On appeal, a decree was ren-
dered by the Circuit Court for the
libellant, with a direction that the

Where a libellant, in Admiralty, in
a cause of collision, has a decree in
the District Court, for a specified
amount, with costs, and, on appeal,
this Court decrees for the libellant,
the proper decree in this Court is not
a decree for the amount awarded be-
low, including the costs there, with
interest from the date of the decree
below, nor is interest to be added to
the amount reported by the Commis-
sioner below, from the date of his
report, but the decree is to be for
amount of the loss at the time of the
loss, with interest from the time of
the loss, and for the costs in the
District Court, without interest on
such costs. Deems v. The Albany &
Canal Line,
474

See BILL OF LADING, 1.
COLLISION.
DAMAGES.
FEES.
INTEREST.
LIEN.

APPEAL.

2. The filing in this Court, under Gen-
eral Order No. 26 in Bankruptcy, by
a creditor in bankruptcy, of an ap-
peal from a decision rejecting his
claim, and of a statement of his claim,
within ten days after giving notice
of his intention to enter his appeal,
are not jurisdictional requisites, and,
if the requirements of § 4981 of the
Revised Statutes in regard to the
notice and bond on such appeal are
complied with, this Court has power
to relieve the creditor from any con-
sequences of not filing such an appeal
and statement within such ten days.
Fellows v. Burnap,

See BANKRUPTCY, 1.

ASSESSMENT.

See INTERNAL REVENUE, 2, 3.

ASSIGNMENT.

See BANKRUPTCY, 5 to 9.

ATTACHMENT.

See BANKRUPTCY, 21 to 23.
COLLISION, 7.

B

BAIL.

63

2.

granted by the District Court, June
22d, 1875. A creditor who had op-
posed the discharge instituted, on
the 15th of November following, pro-
ceedings of review. His interest was
$6,000 out of $300,000 of debts. On
the faith of the discharge, the bank-
rupt, aided by friends, had resumed
his former business, and had entered
into contracts with a foreign govern-
ment to transport mails: Held, that,
as the delay was unreasonable, and
had operated to the prejudice of the
bankrupt, the petition of review must
be dismissed. In re Murray,

43

Under General Order No. 30, of the
General Orders in Bankruptcy, adopt-
ed by the Supreme Court, April 12th,
1875, no fees can be allowed to a
register, except such as are provided
for by General Order No. 30, even
for services rendered before such
General Order was adopted. In re
Carstens,
117

3. Under § 5108 of the Revised Stat-
utes, as amended by the Act of July
26th, 1876, (19 U. S. Stat. at Large,
102,) which limits the time within
which a bankrupt may apply for a
discharge from his debts, to a time
"before the final disposition of the
cause," it is too late for him to ap-
ply for a discharge after his assignee
has, under § 5096, been discharged
from all liability, as assignee, to any
creditor. In re Brightman,

130

4. The words, "the final disposition of
the cause," mean the final disposition
of the administration of the estate.

5.

id.

On the 19th of July, 1876, B. made,
in New York, a valid voluntary as-
signment of all his property for the
benefit of all his creditors, without
preferences. The assignee accepted
the trust and qualified. Afterwards
a creditor recovered a judgment
against B. in an adverse suit, on a
debt existing before the assignment,
and, under an execution thereon, the
property covered by the assignment
was levied on and taken possession
of by the sheriff. Afterwards, and
on the 11th of September, 1876, a
petition in involuntary bankruptcy

was filed against B. by creditors,
other than the judgment creditor,
and he was adjudged a bankrupt,
and an assignee in bankruptcy was
appointed. By agreement, the prop-
erty was sold by the sheriff, and he
held the proceeds subject to the order
of the District Court in bankruptcy.
That Court decided that the assignee
in bankruptcy was entitled to such
proceeds, to the exclusion of the exe-
cution creditor: Held, on review,
that such decision was correct. In re
Beisenthal,
146

6. The assignment was void, under the
bankruptcy statute, as against the as-
signee in bankruptcy.
id.

7. Where an assignment is void as to
creditors, by reason of its being made
to hinder, delay or defraud them,
it does not in law oppose an obstacle
to the enforcement of their legal
rights.
id.

8. But, where such an assignment is
valid as to the debtor and as to cred-
itors, and is avoided by the assignee
in bankruptcy, only as having been
made in contravention of the bank-
ruptcy statute, no right of any judg-
ment and execution creditor, inter-
vening between the time of such as-
signment and the time of the filing of
the petition in bankruptcy, can pre-
vail over the superior right of the as-
signee in bankruptcy to the proceeds
of the assigned property.
id.

9. A general assignment for the benefit
of creditors, without preferences, is
an act of bankruptcy. In re Frisbee,

185

10. Under § 5021 of the Revised Stat-
utes, as amended by § 12 of the Act
of June 22d, 1874, (18 U. S. Stat, at
Large, 180,) the limiting by the
bankruptcy Court of the time to be
allowed for the requisite number and
amount of creditors to join in a peti-
tion in involuntary bankruptcy, and
the peremptory provision for the dis-
missal of the petition, are consequent
on the judicial ascertainment by the
Court that the requisite number and
amount of creditors have not peti-
tioned, and such ascertainment is to

11.

be made on reasonable notice to the
creditors, and, until such ascertain
ment has taken place, further credit-
ors may at any time unite in the
proceedings.
id.

Section 5106 of the Revised Stat-
utes, which enacts that no creditor
whose debt is provable shall be al-
lowed to prosecute to final judgment
any suit therefor against the bank-
rupt, until the question of his dis
charge shall. have been determined,
applies to all provable debts, as well
to those which, under § 5117, would
not be discharged, as to others.
re Schwartz,

In
196

13. The District Court, on the petition
of the assignee of a bankrupt, pray.
ing that the bankrupt might be or-
dered to pay over certain moneys al-
leged to be in his hands, and might
be punished for contempt if he did
not obey such order, took proofs on
the question. The bankrupt testified
that the money was, all of it, ex-
pended before the petition for an ad-
judication of bankruptcy was filed,
and gave an account of the way in
which it was expended. The Dis-
trict Court made an order denying
the prayer of the petition. On re-
view: Held, that the application to
this Court, on review, to reverse
said order, must be denied. In re
Mooney,

204

17. A creditor of a bankrupt, after the
adjudication in bankruptcy, brought
a suit in a State Court for the fore-
closure of a mortgage made to him
by the bankrupt, and made the as-
signee in bankruptcy a party defend-
ant to the suit, without obtaining the
permission or direction of the bank-
ruptcy Court to bring such suit:
Held, that the State Court had au-
thority to entertain the suit; that its
prosecution was not a contempt of
the authority of the bankruptcy
Court; and that the proceedings in
it were not void. In re Moller, 207

18. Held, also, that the bankruptcy
Court had power to allow the cred-
itor to prove a debt for the deficiency
arising on the sale under the decree
in the foreclosure suit, although no
preliminary permission had been ob-
tained from it to institute the suit.

22.

livered to the sheriff, who at the
time had in his possession the goods
of H., by virtue of an attachment is
sued in a suit against H. by W.
Afterwards, H. filed a petition in
bankruptcy and was adjudged a
bankrupt, and J. was appointed his
assignee. Independently of the at-
tachment, the sheriff took no posses-
sion of the goods of H. until after the
petition in bankruptcy was filed. C.
applied to the District Court to be
paid the amount of his judgment in
full, but his application was denied:
Held, on review, that C. was entitled
to be paid his claim in full. In re
Hull,

257

The property being in the posses-
sion of the sheriff under the attach-
ment, the lien of the execution at-
tached to it, and remained, although
the operation of the bankruptcy pro-
ceedings was to vacate the attach-
ment.

id

23. The case of In re Beisenthal, (ante,
p. 146,) distinguished.
id.

24.

H.. who was a debtor to a bankrupt
at the time of the commencement of
the proceedings in bankruptcy, there-
after and before the adjudication of
bankruptcy paid the debt to the
bankrupt, without any actual notice
or knowledge of the pendency of the
bankruptcy proceedings, and in the
usual course of business, but the
money thus paid did not come to the
hands of the assignee in bankruptcy.
The assignee brought suit against H.
to recover the debt: Held, that the
suit could be maintained. Howard
v. Crompton,

328

25. L. executed a mortgage to A., his

brother, in Vermont, to secure a pre-
existing debt, more than two months
before a petition in bankruptcy was
filed against L. The mortgage was
not recorded until within two months
before such petition was filed: Held,
that the mortgage was not fully
made, under the laws of Vermont, as
against the assignee in bankruptcy
of L., until it was recorded. Bost-
wick v.
Foster,
436

See APPEAL, 2.

BILL OF EXCEPTIONS.

See PRACTICE, 10, 12.

BILL OF LADING.

1. Casks of wine were shipped to New
York, on a vessel, under a bill of lad-
ing which stated that the casks were
in good order and well conditioned,
and said, also: "Weight and contents
unknown; not liable for average leak-
age or breakage." The casks, with-
out reference to their contents, were
delivered from the vessel at New
York, and placed in the custody of
officers of the customs. There was
some leakage during the voyage.
Some of the casks were empty on
their arrival, and others were par-
tially so. The casks were of an in-
ferior quality, and were in poor con-
dition, on their arrival, arising from
their quality and the usual perils of
navigation. The master of the vessel
libelled the casks of wine in rem, in
Admiralty, for the freight money,
and sued the claimants therefor, in
the same suit: Held,

(1.) The vessel was not liable for
leakage and breakage not arising
from her own negligence.

(2.) Proof of the inferior quality of
the casks threw on the claimants the
burden of showing that the injury to
the casks was caused by the negli-
gence of the vessel.

(3.) The burden was on the claim-
ants, of proving that the leakage was
greater than the average in such
casks.

BOND.

1. A bond to the United States, signed
and sealed by W., G., C. and M., and
acknowledged by each as his act, re-
cited that W. and G., composing the
firm of A. & Sons, as principal, and
C. and M., as sureties, were held, &c.,
jointly and severally, to the United
States, in the sum of $9,000, and was
conditioned that the firm of A. &
Sons should pay all taxes assessed
upon tobacco manufactured by the
firm. W. and C. died, and H. was
appointed administratrix of W. The
United States then brought suit on
the bond against H., as administratrix
of W., and G. and M., claiming a
judgment for $9,000. On demurrer
to the complaint, by H.: Held,

(1.) That, as the complaint set
forth a several obligation by the obli-
gors, it was good, because, by the
law of New York, a several liability
could be enforced, in one suit, against
all the defendants;

(2.) That this was so, although H.
was sued as administratrix, and the
others as individuals;

(3.) That the bond was not the ob-
ligation of the firm, and that, there-
fore, it was not necessary to exhaust
all remedies against G., as surviving
partner of the firm, before suing on
the bond. United States v. Lawrence,
229

See INTERNAL REVENUE, 3.
JUDGMENT.

LIMITATION OF ACTION.
TOWN BONDS.

C

CARGO.

See BILL OF LADING.

CARRIER.

1. Goods, in the course of transporta-
tion from West Springfield, Massa-
chusetts, to Cleveland, Ohio, were
destroyed by fire in the depot of the
Western Railroad Corporation, at