CUNARD STEAM-SHIP 00.
legal rate. Lebanon Nat. Bank v. Karmany, ,upra; Oolumbia Nat. Bank v. Bletz, supra. · Eo Die. THE COURT. The Snyder notes should have been deducted before the discount was doubled. That would not be an offset to a penalty. When the bank credited the plaintiffs with the proceeds of these notes, there was no appropriatio1.l of their amount by either party, and 8S the plaintiffs made,no direct payment to the bank of the discount on the accommodation paper, be equitable to make such deduction; for to the extent of notes the discount had not been paid by the plaintiffs. ' , The deduction should have been made of the amount, of the note!) less the sum 'paid by t,hepenalty bears no interest, neither should there be an,y'interest 'on the Snyder notes. Rule absolute"nnlees plaintiffs ;within 10 days remit from thever-' diet all abov:e'o$2.150.3.... Oral opinion by McKENNAN, J. jA:CHEsoN,' J., concurring.
SHERMAN V.LANDON and
(Oircuit Court, 8.
York. January 23,1883.)
SHIPMAN,J. The motion of the defendan' .tor above..entitled cause is denied.1
new trial, in the
CAREY v. CUNARD STEAM-SHIP Co.(Oircuit Oourt, 8. D. Nel/) York., .January 26, 1883.)
SHIPMAN, J. The motion of the defendant in the ahol"e-ent.itled cause for, a new'trial is denied,and the stage of proceeiliuge eated.
*4ffirmed., . See 7. Sup. C\. Rep. 1860.
(Oircult Oourt, E. D.Arkansa8. October Term, 1882.,
1. ASSIGN)fENT FOR BENEFIT OF CREDITORS - DEED OJ' ASSIGNMENT - FAILURE
TO A'l'TACH ,SCHEDULE.
The failure to attach the schedule of property described in a deed of assignment, renders the deed ,inoperative and void as to all property intended to be embraced in the schedule, and not otherwise described than by reference to it.
A deed of assignment containing a stipulation that no creditor shall participate in the proceeds of the property assigned unless he accepts t)le same in full satisfaction ()f his debt, is valid in Arkansas; but a deed containing such a stipulation, to he valid, must convey all the debtor's property. '
On the twenty-sixth of December, 1882, the defendant executed and delivered to Allison, as assignee, a deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors. Two days afterwards the plaintiffs sued out: an a;ttachment against, Martin., which on a stock of goods in, the possession of Allison, the assignee, and which had belonged to Martin. Martin traversed the plaintiff's affidavit, upon which the attach. ment was sued out, and Allison filed an interplea claiming the goods attached as assignee un4er ,the deed of! llssignment. Both issues were tried before the court. That patt of the deed of assignment material to the case reads as follows:
"I, John A. Martin, do hereby grant, bargain, and sell to T. J. Allison, assigneeln'tli Ii8t,i'fm.t the ·benefit of a:11 'my creditors,the goods, wares; dise, and property hereto attached in Schedule A, made apart (If thisOODWWallce, to have and to hold to him in trust as aforesaid forever; I conveying also to the said T. J. Allison, assignee, for the use aforesaid, all notes, books, accounts, and e\'ery class and character of evidence of debt to me belonging, or relating to my business in any manner whatever. with full authority in said '1'· .T. Allison, assignee, to collect the same and apply thew to the uses of this trust in manner and form as is by 'law prescribed in thai behalf. TIle said T. J. Allison, assignee, shall prpceed to collect and dispose of goods, wares, merehandise, and chdses in action, and apply the same to the of myereditors,share and share alike: provided. no creditor herein prOVided for shall participate in the assets herein assigried, unless he accepts th6sarn'e in TuIlOf his .'This aSSignment to be closed under' the direction of 'creditors assenting to the s a m e . ' " "Decembe1' 26, 1882. [Signed] ii",. ,J . . . .T.4,",:MAR,TIN."
The deed was acknowledged and delivered, and the keys of the store, house, and possession of the stock of goods delivered to Allison as assignee under the deed at its date; but the assignee did not ilia