mere excess of the material for steel rails left over after their manufacture, not suitable for use withoutbeirig further wrought, and to return a verdict for the defendant if they were otherwise, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff, and the defendent moved for a new trial. On this motion the argument for the defendant, in substance, is that the crop-ends were steel, and subject as such to the duty laid upon them, without reference to their being an excess of the crude material, or their suitability for use as they were. They were in fact steel, according to all the evidence, and this argument is well founded, unless they are otherwise specially enumerated and provided for as metals unwrought. They are not, on the finding of the jury, manufactures, articles, or wares composed wholly or in part of steel; for such things would be made of steel, and these crop-ends. are a mere surplus of metal not made into '11he classification falls between steel not otherwise specially enumerated or provided for, and unwrought metals not otherwise specially enumerated or provided for. It belongs to the class which is most specially enumerated or provided for. Steel is a metal, and unwrought steel is more specific than steel; for the latter would include both that which. is wrought and that which is unwrought, while the former would be confined to that which is unwroughtonly. And "wrought," within the meaning of the tariff laws, is understood to be applied to things made suitable for use. Ddwning v.'Robert8on, Sup. Ct. U. S. It may be suggested that unwrought metals is a term which includes the whole range of metals when unwrought, and for that reason is broader than steel; buHhat construction would make statute mean as if it read, "unwrought metals other than steel," and these statutes have to be taken exactly as they are. Motion denied.
(DiBtrict Oourt, D. NfJ/J) Jmey. January 18,1887.)
L BANimUPrcY DICTION.
PARTNlIlRSHIP-POOO:m:mDINGB TO ANNUL-JURIS-
Three members of a copartnership, of which A. was the fourth member, were adjudged bankrupts on their own petition, "8 was the firm. A.'s namewas signed to the petition, but without his consent, and. in composit.ion proceed· ings which resulted in a resolution assented to by creditors and approved by the court, and a settlement with creditors on the basis thereof, It was expressly stated that A.'s individual assets and debts were not included in the schedules. Afterward,S, in involuntary proceedings in another district. wherein A. resided, he was adjudged a bankrupt, and waS granted a discharge. In proceedings under Rev. St, U. 5120, to annul the discharge, the jurisdiction ,of the court to entertain themvoluntary bankruptcy and to pant the discharge, was, denied by creditors. Held that, notwithstanding Irregularities in the voluntary proceeding, and in· the composition effected therein, these irregularities could not be availed of at this stage of the present procileging, and affordlld nl) ground for annulling the discharge for want of Jurisdiction to grant it. .
2. SAME-AcTS OF BANXRUPT BEFORE DISCHARGE. A discharge in bankruptcy cannot be annulled under Rev. St. U. S. § 5120, where the proofs only go to such acts of the bankrupt as were shown on his . examination previous to his discharge. S. SAME-DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS-PARTNERSIDP AND INDIVIDUAL CREDITORS. Three of the four members of a copartnership, and the copartnership itself, settled with creditors under a composition in a bankruptcy proceeding to which the fourth member, A., was not a party. Afterwards, in another proceeding, A. was adjudged a bankrupt. Held, that the firm creditors were not entitled to share with A.'s individual creditors in the distribution of the fund realized from A.'s individual estate, except the holders of certain notes made by the firm. but on which A. was liable as an indorser.
In Bankruptcy. EugeneL. Bushe, for North RiverBank and Candler, Cobb & Co. G. A. Seixa8. and A.R. Dyett, for Importers' & Traders'Nat. Bank. Gratz Nathan, for Irving Nat. Bank and John E. BQrne'& Co. Wm. Forse Scott, for bankrupt.
NIXON, J, .A statement of the various proceedings heretofore had in this will be necessary in order to intelligently consider the questions now pending. An involuntary petition in bankruptcy .was filed in this .. court against Jay L. Adams, April 25, 1878, on which he was adjudged a bankrupt on the eleventh of June following. An application for his dif'charge was made on the tenth of May, 1879, notice of which was duly given. to all his creditors. Eight of these, to"wit, the American Exchange National Bank, Importers' & Traders' National Bank, Mercantile National Bank, and the Irving National Bank, all of the city of New York, the Hudson County National Bank of Jersey City, the Dolphin Manufacturing Company of Paterson, Alonzo Follett,and George A. Alden & Co., appeared and filed specifications against a discharge; but none of them followed up their specifications with any evidence, and on the fifteenth of November, 1881, the discharge was duly granted. Under the provisions of section 5120 of the Revised Statutes, several of the creditors, within two years after the date of the discharge, made application to the court by petition to annul the same, as follows: The North River Bank of the city of New York, on October 31,1883; John ,W. Candler, Albert A. Cobb, George C. Barrett, and Nathan A. ],rye, formerly trading as Candler, Cobb & Co" on No\'ember 3, 1883; the Importers' & Traders' National Bank of New York, on November 7, 1883; John E. Borne & 00., on November 10, 1883; lind the Irving National Bank, on November 14, 1883. All the petitions alleged, generally, want of jurisdiction in the court to grant the discharge; and also specified certain fraudulent acts of the bankrupt which authorized the creditors to have the discharge vacated and set aside under the provisions of section 5110 of the Revised Statutes. The bankrupt put 'in a demurrer totheallegationsofthe want of jurisdiction in the court, and answered to the specifications of fraudulent acts. The demurrer was overruled, and a reference ordered to a commissioner to take the proofs. . . Pending the reference, the assignee also fUed a petition, setting 'forth
IN BE 'ADAMS.
tbat tbe proofs of cla.ims then filed against Jay L. Auams individually amounted to $77,570.83, and against the firm of Jay L. Adams & Co; to the furtber sum of $202,096.70; that the firm of Jay L. Adams &Co. was composed ofJobn 1. Adams, WilliamH. Renaud. Edward O. Adams, and the said Jay L.Adanis, and tbat said firm carried on business in the city of New Orleans under the name of John 1. Adams & 00., and in the city of 'New York under the name of Jay L. Adams &00.; that, prior to the institution of proceedings in this court, bankruptcy proceedings bad been instituted in the district court oftbe United States for the district of Louisiana, at New Orleans, by' three members of the firm of John 1. Adams & 00., in the following method: John 1. Adams,William H. Renaud, and Edward O. Adams filed a voluntary petition to have themselves and Jay L. Adams, and the copartnership estate of John '1. Adams & 00., adjudicated bankrupts,' and that one of the parties to the petition sig-ned the name of Jay L. Adams thereto :without any consent from him; that such proceedings were:had'under said:last, stated petition that the said and the individual members thereof, except said Jay L. Adams,were adjudicated bankrupts, and a composi.. tion·waa entered into by the said John 1. Adams, Renaud, and E. 0. Adams, and the estate of the firm ,and of said three members thereof; was thereafter administered, and said composition Wi'lS carried into effect; that; at the time of said proceedings, JaiL. Adams was a resident oLthe state of New Jersey, but carried on business in the' city of New York 'in his individual name, and also in the name of Jay L. Adams & 00., under which firm name merchandise was purchased' for the firm of John 1. Adams & 00., in New Orleans; tbat there was no adjudication 'llgainst Jay L. Adams individually in New Orleans, nor against him as a member of the firm of John 1. Adams & 00; that the claims filed in these proceedings as indebtedness of the firm of Jay L.,Aditms & OO"\\'ere' not proven in the proceedings in New Orleans,excej>tsuch proofs of claims as are indebtedness of John 1. Adams & 00., and bear'tbeirsignatute indorsement; that the principal place of business ofthe firm of ,John 1. Adams & 00. was in New Orleans, and the only business done ;by Jay L. Adams & 00. in New York was the purchase of mcrchandise"for the New Orleans house, and also t4e accepting of accommodation drafts drawn by the firm of John!. Adams & 00. on Jay L. Adams &00., which drafts'were negotiated by Jay L. Adams & Co. in the city of New York, and otherwise raising money in New York city for the firm of John 1. Adams & 00.; that the ,petitioner has now on depdsit, to the'credit of this proceeding, the sum of about $41,000. which has been entirely derived from the individual estate of Jay L. Adams. The assigrieeithen prays for instructions whether the said fund isto be distributed, without distinction, between the individual creditors of the barikrupt Jay L. Adams, and the creditors of Jay L. Adams & Co., or whether in such distribution'tbe individual creditors of Jay L. Adams are entitled 'to .be first paid. To this petition the several creditors who had before petitioned the court to .set aside the discharge and the adjudication in bankruptcy
against Jay: L. Adams. fiJ,ed answers, setting up substantially these proceedings pending before the commissioner, Rnd asking the court to take no action upon the question of the proper distribution of the assets until after the other questions were heard and determined. 'Sevei'almatters are thus presented: for consideration: ; h Has this court jurisdiction over the bankrutpcy proceedings begun against·Jay L.Adams individually? Whatever would have been the course if such an inquiry had beenjhstituted when the proceedings were _wmmenced, I am clearly of the opinion that it is now too late to allow theaepetitioning oreditors to raise the qnestion here. I have examined _the record of the bankruptcy proceedings in the case of John I. Adams & Co. in the district court ·of theUn.ited· States for the district of Louisi&na. It indicates great irregularity. The original petition for cation was a voluntary one, and purports to have been signed by all the members of the copartnership, to-wit, John I. Adams, William H. Renaud, EdwardC. Adams, and Jay. L. Adams; but the name of thelastmentioned member of the firm was not sigued by himself, or, as it seems, with his knowledge and consent. .It was annexed to the petition by John I. Adams, ·who claimed authority for so doing.. The schedules at the end of the petition, marked "A," contained a statement of all the debts of the partnership, and the names and places of residence of their creditors. The Schedule Bwas.an inventory of the estate of the firm, The remaining schedules, respectively marked"C," "D," "E," "F," "G," and "H,"contairied a. statement of. the individual debts and individual estate of the partners, John I. William H. Renaud, and Edward C. Adams. '. Without electing an assignee, a petition was at once filed for a meeting of creditors to ,consider an offer for composition, and anexpressstatemeilt was made therein that the individual assets und the individual' debts -of Jay.L. Adams were not included in the schedules. The eviclerit:design of thepro.ceeding was to secure for themselves, from their partnership and private creditors, a release, by composition, from their partnership.and private debts. Theywere.successful in this, so far as the abtion of the court was concerned. It approved of a resolution, signed by the requisite number of the creditors, to grant to them a release on the, payment of 50 cents oq the dollar Jor all their indebtedness, partnership and individualithey being allowed to retain the possession a.nd exercise control of all.theproperty· Nothing further appears to have been done, except that the court, S0we years afterwards, upon the application of the assignee of Jay L. Adams,appQinted by this court in the bankruptcy proceedings here,dismissed all the proceedings there 'as to him. 'Whether a composition. obtained under such circumstances would operate ;as a discharge, ,if 1ih'e.ereditors of the partnership of John Ada.n1s & Co"and of the three individual members of the firm, should proseoute for the residue oftheir.claims, iUs unliecessary for me to de·ternrlne.. Bat.the Jay L,Ada!ins;were not in that court, nor were his individual debts in any lia,nner paid or satisfied by 'the composition, andl can perceive no go.od reason why. such irregular should be allbwedto interfere, at this late day, with the ju-
IN RE· ADAMS;