Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/165

 158 FEDERAL REPORTER. �assets of eaeli concern to which the indebtedness represented by that note is entitled. If the indorser bas not paid the note he cannot present it against the maker's estate, but the holder is entitled to the entire dividend. Neither can the indorser present it indirectly by using the dividend which he bas paid upon it as a set-off to diminisb the assets of the maker's estate. No debt is to be proved twice. So, then, if each of the estates in this case were in bankruptcy, neither could present its unpaid indorsementa or the dividends which had been paid thereon against the other, It is true that Hamill's estate is not in bankruptcy in New York, and it is not proved to be in bankruptcy in Arkansas, but the receiver had no right to present against the bankrupt's estate the notes which Hamill had indorsed, because Hamill had paid nothing and was not the owner. If the receiver had paid simply a dividend on these notes to the holders, it would seem that the principle of the English rule would be appli- cable, and that the amount of the dividend could not be pre- sented against the bankrupt's estate, because the notes had been presented once and had drawn their full proportion of the assets of the estate. �HamiU's claim, then, against the bankrupts' estate was the price of the iron and the cash loaned. The remaining question is, should the composition, being $12,871.34, which was paid upon the notes, amounting to $85,839.77, of which Hamill was maker, be deducted from the composition which is due to HamiU's estate, or should it be deducted, if deducted at ail, from the principal of the Hamill debt ? �The theory of a composition is that the cash value of the bankrupts' estate is substantially divided among the creditora in proportion to their respective debts. The bankrupts owed to Hamill, and to the owners of the Hamill notes, debts of at least $171,679.54, and showed assets sufficient to pay 15 per cent, thereof, and had agreeed to pay that percentage. Upon the theory of Holmes & Lissburger this obligation is satisfied by the payment of 15 per cent, upon $85,839.77, and by pocketing the other 15 per cent., whereas, by the payment of ����