Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/179

 IN EE STERLING, AHERNS & CO, 171 �express or implied, (and I do not think there is any difference between the two,) that he will provide for the bills when they become due, and then the drawer becomes bankrupt, there can- not be a double proof against bis estate, namely, one proof by the bolder of the bill, and the otber proof by the acceptor of the bill on the contract of indemnity. » * » • The princi- ple itself — that an insolvent estate, whether wound up in chancery or in bankruptey, ought not to pay two dividends in respect of the same debt — appears to me to be a perfectly Sound principle. If it were not so a creditor could always manage, by getting bis debtor to enter into several distinct contracts with different people for the same debt, to obtain higber dividends than the other creditors, and perhaps get bis debt paid in full. I apprehend that is what the law does not allow; the true principle is that there sball only be one dividend in respect of what is in substance the same debt, altbough there may be two separate contracts." (pp.102-103.) In the case now before me, from the course of dealing between the Calvert Sugar Eefining CJompany and the bank- rupts, it would appear that in advance of the delivery of the cargoes of sugars, and upon an estimate of their quantihies, subject to correction when actually delivered, and subject to otber adjustments of cost, the corporation was in the habit of banding over to thebankrupts its notes in round amounts, > intended to be about equal to the price of the sugars. It is obvions that this was done for the accommodation and con- venience of the bankrupts, for the sugars were frequently not delivered until a considerable period afterwards, and were at the time still iiable for the duties and under pledge to the bankers. When it so bappened that the bankrupts were unable to deliver the sugars, it would seem that the primary obligation resting upon them was to return ail the promis- sory notes received by them for which they had not delivered sugars. This they would not bave been able to do, because they had passed the notes oii and they were out of their pos- session and control. It then, as i.t seems to me, became their duty to pay the notes when they maturcd, for the purpose of ��� �