Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-08-18
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT.
VERMONT DISTRICT.
IN BAN KRUPTCY
In Me matter Of Christopher {. RoiusI.

In The matter Of Christopher Z. Rotvell.
This was an application Ly Christopher C.
Rowell who had been duly declared Bankrupt
on his own petition, for certificate OF disct arge
TO the allowance Of which the following obec-
tons were interpusrd. l. That Stephen 5. Dow
ner. Uriah llklns, and The bankrupt beng part.
n"rs IN the leaning business, and such beconi.
ing Indrbled to John Do Wner, he the said john
III January 1872, commenced SUIT against them
and attached property belonging Jointly 10 The
bankrupt and one Jabsh Hunter aud at the No.
venser team OF the Court, the bankrupt agreed
aud consented 10 Judgment by detnult in the
SUIT IN order to secure Downer a preference over
o'1rr creditors, and Tor a much larger sum than
was due 2. Thai The firm of Oowner, Wilkins
Il Co.,, being indebted TO Stephen ). Duwner IN
some small sums, he the said Stephen s. com.
nienced "a SUIT against the Bankrupt at the NAV
term OF the County Court, and attached his pron.
cry lhat II vas understood between the pnrtes
that The SUIT could not he sustained aud that the
Bankrupt, with iuent to secure the sad Stephen
,. preference over other creditors, al the Nov
emher term OF he Count, consented to Judgment
in The sui tor All amount equal to The debts he
owed the SAID Stephen >. The ID, A. H. and 5 h
objections charged the giving OF preferences to
certain favored creditors over the general credl-
tors.
Prentiss, 1.-The questions to be decided arise
upon the objections flied by the opposing cledi-
Tors, and the attention of the Court 10 confined 10
lious. All other transactions 10 which the proofs
may refer, except such as embraced 10 the
objections, are OF course laid out OF the case.
l. ln considering The first objection, il NAV
he observed IN the outset that there is no evidence
whatever to shew that the claims of Duwnrr
were in any part fictitious or that the sum for
which he Obtained judgment was not Justly due
hum. Nor Is there any evidence to show that the
bankrupt was not partner Of the firm of Down.
or, W kIns " 20. aud not liable rs such for the
debts. On tie contrary, the objection states, in
TERMS that he was partner, und as such became
indebted TO Downer; and from that together
with the testimony and exhlbns il must he taken
that The dehls were bona fde debts, aud that the
bankrupt was nemher of the partnership at the
time they were Contracted. Such, il seems was
the opinion OF the bankrupis counsel in tile SUIT:
for Mr.. Barrett says, that on learning oil The facts
in the case, he advised that the suit could moi he
defended, and that 1t would be proper 10 submit
10 Il default.
As to consion between the bankrupt and the
CREDITOR it is clear that the proceedings in the suit
afford no presumption whatever OF any collision
between Ihem The Bankrupt employed counsel
To appear ~ the suit, and Instead OF suffering
Judgment 10 pass al the first term, he might he
procured IA continuance. Amer The decree of
bankruptcy, aud before the next term of The
Court, there was ample lime Tor the assignee up.
on whom the duty property devolved, 10 iuvesll-
gaze the mnlter, and prepare defence ii he found
II defence would be available. The bankrupt felt
unable, aud Wns moi obliged, 10 provide means
for defending the sun nut II appears that he
made efforts 10 procure others in interest TO do it,
Failing IN tits, his counsel suffered default to
be entered under rule, however, that the ,nn,a-
ges should be assessed by the clerk, evidently
with view TO guard against recovery for more
Than was really due
Nor was The assent of the bankrupt to the com.
pnIalioh OF damages, ii assent II Gun be called,
gwen under such circumstances as TO warrant
any inference of collision ON his part. The op-
pOrtuhly was sought 10 get his assent 10 the com.
putalloh, aud II is very manifest that he was re.
iuclant 10 do or say any thing in tha matter lie
pereinporily refused 10 Sign the paper and il
was only after QUE of the other partners had AS
senled 10 Il, and after being much pressed, that he
was prevailed upon 10 say he should make no oh
jectlons. This, in any Wow OF it, is OF very little
Importance, especially as the assent OF the other
partner was alone sufficient authorize the enter
ing up OF judgment Tor The amount against all the
defendants
As there is no evidence TO impsach the Justice
OF the Judgment, but rather evidence from The
testimony aud exhibits that the Judgment was
right, II Is dficnlt 10 see what ground there is in
the transaction for complaint against the bankrupt
There is no foundation for saying that the act OF
suffering ueiaul IN The suit enabled The creditor
10 gam an unlaw tul preference. IL was the al
iachmenl, not The judgment, that Ieaei and gave
the preference, though recovery Of Judgment
WIS necessary to render the preference available.
II no properly OF The bankrupt had been attached,
there would have been no preference. Ths at