IN BE SCHNEIDEB.
& J. 46,330. A like rule has obtained in cases arising under the insolvent law and under voluntary assignments, and in the administration of the estates of decedents. Minot v. Thacker, 7 Mete. 348; WiUard v. Clarke, ld. 435; West v. Creditors, 1 La. Ann. 365; Heckert's Appeal, 24, Pa. St. 482 j McClintock's Appeal,. 29 Pat St. 360; McCandless' Appeal, 61 Po.. St. 9. The underlying principle of these decisions is that mere lapse of time will not bar claims. against the trust estate valid and in full life when the trust was created, so long as the estate is unadministered and the trust subsists. The principle is perfectly sound, and there is no good reason why it should not prevail in cases under the bankrupt law. The statute :0£ limitations; operating upon the remedy, bars an action at law, but it does not extinguish the debt, and is no obstacle to the creditor who seeks his share of the assets in the hands of the assignee, where such creditor' had a provable debt when the bankruptcy proceedings It iavery true that section 4984; Rev. St., prescribes that in the circuit court,upon an appeal, the contested claim must be declared on and tried as in an action at law. And if, as assumed by the exceptants, the statute of limitations would be a good plea in bar to the declaration in the circuit court, then undoubtedly it ought also to operate as a bar to the proof of debt. But the assnmption is unwarrantable, for tae purpose of the issue and trial in the circuit court is not to obtain a judgment against the debtor, or the assignee personally, but to determine whether the creditor has a provable debt, and the amount thereof. And now, April 4, 1883, the exceptions to the register's report are overruled, and the report is confirmed absolutely.
(District Court, E. D. New York. March 24, 1883.)
A former assignee of a bankrupt has not 11 prior claim for his compenqf\tion to that of a subsequent assignee in whose hands there are not sufficient funds to pay the charges of both. Semble, that in that case the amount should be divided pro rata between the two assignees. .
.Reported by R. D.
.. In Bankruptcy.
Abbett <t Puller, for the motion. Henry J.Darby, for the assignee.
BENEDICT, J. This is an application for an order direoting the present assignee of the above-named bankrupt to payout of the funds in his hands the sum heretofore found due a former assignee, on being discharged from his trust. It is evident that there has been no violation of· the order of February 28, 1882, and so the moving party concedes. The only question, therefore, is whether the petitioner is at this time entitled to be paid the sum heretofore determined to be his proper compensation. If the claim of the petitioner were entitled to priority of payment over the claim of the present assignee for. his oompensation, inasmuch as there are funds in the hands of the present assigneesufficient to pay the petitioner, there would be no reason for deferring his payment. But ii'ig.not seen that any soch right of priority exists. . The accoont of the assignee shows that the funds in his hands aranot sufficient to pay his own proper charges and also those of the .former assignee. If there was 110 likelihood of any additions to the fund, it would .s.eem proper DOw to divide the amount pro rata between the two assignees.; but as the papers show a probability that sufficient money will shortly be realized by the- present assignee to enable him to pay both claims in full,U is hardly worth. while to make a division at the present time. The present motion is there· fore denied, without prejudice to aoother motion, and without prejudice to the claim of the petitioner.
and otbers.:March ti, 1883.)
(Oircuit OO'Urt, E. D. MicMgan.
FOR INVENTiONS TARY OF INTERIOR.
OHISSION 01' SIGNATURB Ol'BBC1UI-
A valid patent must be signed by the commissioner 01 patenta and the secretary of the interior. If signed by the commissioner and not by the secretary, the patent is a Ilullity, though the omission be accidental.
2,. .sAME-RECORD .OJ/' PATENT-OFPICE.
In such the patent cannot be sustained by the production 01.tbe record of the patent-otticc showing a complete patent, since a perfcct racord of anim.perfect patent cannot prove the grant.
*See 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 704.