, 1873-02-05

n9t 10 dcc,red m act Of bank
IS hs hoy ars s s
ls:f os laaE. Il would not TO sufficient defeat
the oEerston Of TIE Bankrupt 1av to simply deny LII
the Court :,t he has god re:=cn for d:puns biz it,
biIty, and that his liability Is involved In doubt, at
The existence Of valid note claim ta Fundamental
Without that Bankrupt Court cannot Proceed, Aud
when r:rty shows there is reasonable dout. upon
That point, accompanied With evidence Of condition
just ciriIns and ton,mercial paper, and show
Tug That the noI-paymeat complained A. Of VA vs.
WA not Habla upon Il, and also the further fact
(which appears in this case) hat demand had eTer
Bankruptcy should not eltertsin jurisdiction, but
should tisiss tho Petition aud turn the parties oTer
to puta.e Tho ordinary remedies provided IN cases to
straetoa would make It necessary for parties engaged
u t1ae to psy eye5y note presented OF upon which it
a sf e nsy s as i. It I'LL II md S:s S::a
Sais3 3 Of the,r e5esiis IN sosa:neFeiai circles.
serverson Of the true object Of The act. This con-
1si = ey
this Court. aso Las heretofore construed it. and
this ea's not Of such character as to indueot to
change It's opinion In that 70
spect. There is m necessity for en1argtng and
srin.ng the construction to protect the rights Of tho
parties here these contestants rbnndaniy abe
to pay tile CHIN Of The petitioner II 1t shall bs dectued
That they ,re liable therefor aud the IDEA OF ad-
judging such en bankTlpts is Asking OF the Court
Judgment Ircdica:ed uron altogether too literal and
technical construction Of the BANKRUPT act: Tho
Courts have enough to do with real estate bankrups
ct purely technical and fictitious character
The contestants having shown, therefore, sli:r*Et
rc:;on for not Voluntarily Inrins the notes described
before their Liability should Ia 5udic4nlly determined,
the susprnaion OF payment for fourteen days Ii not
act of bankruptcy within the meaning Of the B7nk1up:
get. The question Of the contestants liability il not
Intended to be absolutely determined in this case the
view taken Of the bankrupt act renders that uunece-
ea1y 6c,o ~, .omo .xta.nro 4vo, ro+ n~to-, man,
toned tending to show ta.t Chistenden who procursd
the notes to TO discounted by the petitioners.
that IT Mum 70 stated when tho laet note was given
30 Mr. 6rencer the President OF the bank, testihea
bu Mr. Num- coEtrcts j. go far III hc Is concerned
md ar. Chitteuden ID no. c.llod the evidence being
therefore, balanced upon what occurred between Mum
and Spencer and Chtttendcn ret be!2g called, TIC do
Cht.snden did asy 60, be did not disclose tie nanea
Of the parties constituting the ring :" sud there is
evidence th4: the President, Mr. Spencer then taew
dtd go to the Of 1una L Scott for part
ress applied upon chttsnden's Pirate de deet At she
credit, not 10 lie c:eit of the nrn,. But, taxing Ito
fact stated bJ Mr Spencer these PARTIES portion
hc proceeds Of tee ro,es dd not 90 to tho use e he
arm u which they members. and that they were
not given for the benefit Of the i in the usineta
teriay the question Of the liability Of srch parties.
There arc aomc additional circumstances shown, cal
cSlatcd TO excite suspicion and mise question IS 70
the real business transacted by this firm, such AZ
loving HEnn Scott to Keep the trn's business in the
came book they Kept tho other brhiness OF Mum +
the name they used thrir separate business; bu:
they are not sufficient to authorize US to hold the other
PARTIES 60 clearly sho az to require them to have paid
theee notes without contest.
We have considered 81 thcso questions, but they
have net impressed Of sufficient Importance to
warrant in holding th:t tho RESPONDENTS arc late
to he proceeded against In bankruptcy FOR non
payment Of thezo notes. It very inpru-
ena e to pers ap% tho ho1Ron Ra5' Of Ct
their business to bo done in the name Of Mum 4
Scott as it naturally provoked claims against them CT
These petitioners themselves could not have sup
posed these parties liable, think, until quite lately,
ae1 sy h heso nex as
dent, Mr. Spencer, lad understood that the persons
sas II ion ~
were insol'ent Ihis conduct ct the 81 ah
q % tue ' eontestant., bears ' 1e.y - direetly
upon the question Is to whom ho nnderstood at the
time were liable upon these notes. sad has diree.
the notes upon tie responsibility of Mum + Scott
alone.
important bearing upon the question Of liability the
fact thst these contestants under tho nae Of George
Co. tGSh up Al Mum Scott noss e
isted theiz liability. They did undoubtedly Al to
the receipts They took up receipts hold collateral
for the notes Of Mum, Merton + Scott, and It
might IS we'll be said tha. they had admitted
their liability these notes by taking
up the collaterals They took up NIL tho warehouse
receipts Of Mum Scott; they did not dispute their
liability upon the commercini paper Of Mum l. Scott
and We think they have c:st such doubt upon their
Liability CT to take the nou-paJment Of those notes out
Of the operation Of the Bankrupt act.
The Other acts Of bankruptcy ara not proven as
alleged. The allegation ssthat the eaid z Of Mum
Scott" {meaning all the pa-tca to this proceedingl
transferred its property and effects to the firm Of
George Armour j. Cc.-auother firm. The Froof Is
that Ira Mum and George L. Scott transferred their
interest i'll the elevators and their frn effects to
George Ar1nour" " fer the Of the h1n,-a simple
transfer By two partners Of their firm property to the
other partners. That does not support tho allegation
In the petion and II alleged, as proven, We do not
how such transfer could bc maintained within
ths meaning Of the bankrupt act.
We arc not prepared to bold Euch transfer to 10
fraud upon the creditors OF the r1n hndering
or delay the creditors Of the firm, constituting
any preference contrary to the provisions Of the n
r11pt act particularly when the firm, the members
composing It, entirely eoirent: From these views
1t follows t.t the petitioner has failed to provo tho
fncts stated in the petition, aud that the proceedings
must be dismissed with costs.