(Circuit Court, 8. D. New York. November 17, 1882.)
RECOVERY 0:8' DUTIES PAID BY THIRD PARTIES.
Where merchandise is withdrawn upon the written authorization of the importer, by third parties who pay the duties thereon, in an action by the importer against the collector of the port to recover duties illegally exacted, the duties thus paid may be recovered upon the assumption that they were paid in beha1f of the importer.
IN BE MEAD.
who were authorized by them to withdraw the goods and pay the duties which were required to be paid upon withdrawal, were acting in their behalf in the whole transaction. The case is quite similar to Greenleaf v. Schell, 6 BIatchf. 22'7, where the verdict, the reference to ascertain the amount due, and the question raised before the refere& were substantially the same as here. \ The exceptions are overruled;
In re MEAD. Bankrupt.
(Di8trict Court, S. D. New York.
November 21, 1882.)
BANKRUPTCy-ExPuNGEMENT OF DISPROVED OLAlM.
Where, upon a long re-examination of a creditor's proof of debt, the claim, as made, is disproved in form and substance, it should be expunged. 2. SAME-JOINT TRANSACTIONS-FILING NEW PROOFS. Where a large claim was proved upon six notes, alleged to have been given for loans of money and accumulated interest thereon, and on re-examination it appeared that none of the notes were given on a loan at interest, but that all the advances of money were made for the purposes of continuous speculation in city lots through many years upon joint account between the creditor and the bankrupt, and under his management; that large losses had eventuallv arisen, apparently sufficient to cover all the creditor's claims, and that no final account as to the result of all the joint transactioM had ever been had: held, that the notes were not intended as unconditional promises of payment, but were subject to the final result of the joint transactions, and that the proof of them as absolute debts on loans at interest should be expunged, with liberty to the creditor to file new proof on the result of the joint transactions, if anything should be claimed to be due thereon, on payment.of costs, and on filing a stat&ment in detail of the account on which the claim should be made.
Nelson Smith and G. A. Hart. for contestants. Edward G. Black, for claimant. BROWN, D. J. The contesting creditor in this proceeding seeks to expunge a proof of debt made by the claimant James C. Mead, a cousin of the bankrupt, upon five promissory notes of the latter, dated in 1873, 1874, and 1875, to the amount of $34,350. The adjudication of bankruptcy was made on June 29, 1878, in inVOluntary proceedings, upon the petition of six creditors, including the claimant, at the instance and request of the bankrupt or his attorneys. The regular business of the bankrupt was that of a plumber, but he had been largely engaged in speculation in city lots during 15 or 20 years prior to the adjudication; and in the year 1875, or prior thereto, he had become insolvent through the great depreciation in the value of