IN BE WERDER·.
by the treasury department. The words lithe whole quantity" are now construed "as referring only to the merchandise shipped by one consignor from one place, and to the particular kind of fruit damaged." I have examined with care the authorities cited, and am inclined to follow the decision of Ex-Attorney General MacVeagh, in the Pohl Case, (reported in Decisions of the Treasury Dept. Document No. 172, page 239,) as the latest expression on the subject. As I concur, not only in the conclusion reached by him, but also in the reasoning of the opinion, I have thought it unnecessary to enter into any extended discllssion of the question involved, which is precisely similar in both
(Circuit (Jourt, D. NevJtJ1'86l1. March 28,.1883.)
BANJrnUPTCT-AesETs-MEMBERBlIJP IX PRonuCB EXOHAlfGB. Membership in a produce exchange is property which.PUlel to the aalpee ,in bankruptcy as assets of Ule debtor'. estate.
Bill of Review. A. Marks, for bankrupt. H amUton Wallis, for assignee. McKENNAN, J. The bankrupt is a certificated member of the New York Produce Exchange, 'and' thE! only question presented by his bill asset, available is, whether his membership in that institution'is to his creditors, through his assignee, or not. If it is, the order made I by the district court, of which the bankrupt complains, was regard the question as conclusively settled by the opinion ,of the supreme court in Hyd6 v. Wood8, 94 U. 8. 523. Mr. Justic'e MIlILER, speaking for the court, there says:
"There can be no dOlibt incorporeal right Feun hadto this Beat when,be, became bankrupt ,w.as p,r.9perty, and the sum realized by ,the assignees from its sale property. N<I1' do w" think tbere can be any reason to doubt that, if he had made no such assignment, it would bave passed subject to the rules of the stock board, to bisassignee in bankruptcy, and'that, if tbere had been left, intll& han<fs, defendantsany,balance, after payiHg the debts due to the members Oil, t)lfi mjght hav:e, been recovered by, the assignee." ',' ,,
. '.' : . " ,: " ,,' f,
, It is
contest ,the a1,lthoritaMveness¢ this tha.,( it was tot4e the .11
fore thecou,rt, and, therefore,ws,s only the individual opinion of the.judge who spoke for the court. Butit was not only proper; but nec-essary"to 8scertainand determine the nature and character of the the plaintiff that the court might pronounce ·interest judgment upon the merits oithe controversy between the parties. The .plaintiff was the assignee of a bankrupt member of the San Francisco.Stock Exchange. If the bankrupt's membership in that institution was'a mel'e personal privilege, and in no sense property, then it did nbt pass under the assignment, and the plaintiff could not maintain any action touching it for want of title. But to consider the merits. at all, and to determine the legal rights of the parties in reference thereto, it was necessary for the court to define the character of thesubject of the controversy, and so to .pass upon the validity of the claim of the defendants to the proceeds of its sale; they, therefore, held it to be property, which passed U;.nder the assignment in bankruptcy, subject to the rules of the exchange, which provided for the prior app1'()priation of the proceeds of its sale to debts due to its that such appropriation was not within t4e members, and scopeofjhe of the banl\rupt law against preferences. Regarding the' opinion, then,as8uthoritative, it rules this (lase.. and it is, therefore, ordered that the bill be dismissed with costs.
UNITED STATES 'D., JEilSUP·
D. Maryland. March 24, 1883.)
.1. UDICTMENT FOR TAKING ExCESSIVE FES IN PENSION CASE-ACT JUNE 1878. . Reld', that the penalty provided by Rev. St. § 5485, is applicable toact (>f JUhe2(), 1818. elltitled, "An.act relating to claim-agents and attorneys in pension.
AMENDATORY ACTS TO REVISED STATUTES-How CONSTRUED.
Held, I,hat amendatory acts of oongress are to be construed as ena<'lted with reference to the existing system of laws on the subject to which thef pertain,. . and, if possible, to be,conlltrued as part onhat system..
Demurrer to Indictment. A. Stirling, Jr., for the United States. J. Harris, f()r Jessup. '. MORRIS, J. This indictment charges that the traverser in May,. 1880, did unlawfully demand' and receive from'a pensioner of the United Sta.tei:lfol'services in a pension-claim case a greater sum than