uses without just compensation. Is it to be argued, therefore, that private property can be taken for private uses, either with or without just compensation ?The supreme court of the United States stated the elemental thought underlying American constitutional law when it declared that an attempt, through the guise of the taxing power, to take one man's property for the private benefit of another is void, an act of spoliation, and not a lawful use of legislative Qr municipal functions. There have been somanJwell.considered cases in the United States courts and in the state courts on this subject that it would be a work of Sl1pererogation to repeat their arguments. It must suffice that the weight of authority and sound reason concur in holding bonds and coupons like those in question void ab initio. . Loan Ass'n v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 665; COin. Bank v. City of lola, 2 Dill. 858; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487; S. C. 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 442; Allen v. Jay, 12 (U. S.) Amer. Law Reg. 481, with notes; State v. Curators State Univ. 57 Mo. 178; St. Louis Co. Ct. v. Griswold, 58 Mo. 175; Liv. ingston 00. v. Darlington, 101 U. S. 407. In Cooley, Const. Lim. the subject is fully discussed, cases reviewed, and conclusions stated. Page 264 ct seq. Demurrers overruled.
In '1'C LETCHWORTH and others, Bankrupts.
(Di8trict Oourt, N. D. Ne1A York.
BANKRUPTOy-RENEWAL NOTE ExEOUTED AFTER BANKRUPTOY.
Where a party previous to becoming a bankrupt was liable on a bond, by the terms of which he became a continuing guarantor of notes discounted by a certain bank for a company of which he was. the president, and at the time of Ilis bankruptcy the bank held a note so discounted, indorsed b)' him, the fact ,hat a renewal note was given after the filing of his petition, will not prevent the debt from being proved as a claim against his estate.
In Bankruptcy. Oharles F. DU'1'ston, for assignee. Theo. M. Pomeroy, for creditors. COXE, J. At the time of the commencement of the proceedings ill bankruptcy herein, William H. Seward, Jr., & Co., bankers, held the bond of the' above.named bankrupt, by the terms of which he became So continuillg guarantor for the payment of any notes which the said 1irm might discount, for a manufacturing company of which he was president. Demand and notice of non'payment were waived. When the petition' was filed the manufacturing company was indebted to Seward & Co. in the sum of $2,500, for which they held the com-' pany's Ilote indorsed by the bankrupt. This note was renewed 'fro:/n
time to time, the last renewal being after the adjucation in bankruptcy. The assignee insists that for this reason the debt is not provable. It is thought, however, that under the peculiar phraseology of the bond and in view of the obligation there created, it would be unjust to treat the liability of the bankrupt as that of an indorser simply. At the time of the bankruptcy he was cleady liable on the bond in tLe event of the failure of the makers of the note to pay. True, his liability had not then become absolute, but the debt existed and the obligation was created before the petition was filed. Legally and equitably the estate is bound by his contract. The report of the register is confirmed and the proof permitted to remain on file.
In '1'6 MERRELL and olhers, Bankrupts.
(District Oourt, N. U. Net/J) York. March,1884.)
BANKRUPTCy-DEBTS CONTRACTED BY BANlUlUPT AFTER PROCEEDINGS COMM1l:NCED.
A dtlbt contracted by a bankrupt subsequently to t,he commencement of proceedings against him cannot be proved in bankruptcy.
This is an appeal fro In a decision of the register sustaining certain proofs of debt. The petition in bankruptcy was filed November 13, 1873. On the twenty-sixth of the same month the bankrupts contracted the indebtedness in question. The adjudication was dated February 27, 1874. The proofs of debt were made February 13, 1875. The creditors contend that their proofs should stand, for the reason that the indebtedness upon which they are founded was due and payable at the time of the adjUdication. The assignee insists that they should be expunged beca'Q,se the indebtedness ,was contracted subsequently to the proceedings in baukruptcy. eharles F. Durston, for assignee. Theodore M. Pomeroy, for creditors. COXE, J. Section 5067 ofthe Revised Statutes provides: ",That all debts due and payable from the bankrupt at the time of the commencement of the proceedingli in bankruptcy · · · maybe proved against the estate of the bankrupt.'" The proceedings are coinmen,ced (section 4991) when the petition is filed. provisions were in force at the time the proofs in this matter were ,presented to the regiElter. The indebtedness upon whij}h the proofs are founded was nof contract,ed Qntil 13 days after the proceedings' were com. m,enoed. The (lQnclusion fo,llo)Vs, that the proofs should not be permitted to s.tand. Even before the Revised Statutes, and before the substitution of thewords "commencement of proce,::Jdings in bankruptcy" for the words ,"adjudication of bankruptcy" in section 19 of