Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/225

 218 FEDEBAI. BEPOBTEB, �position proceedings did not affect his daim, and that whero in such proceedings the statement of liabilities representa a claim as being fuUy secured, and the crediter is ia attendance but does not participate in the proceedings nor raise any objection to such representations, the daim is not discharged by the composition, but the creditor is entitled to the per- centage agreed upon in such proceedings, on any deficiency left unpaid, whenever ascertained. In Ex parte Hodgkinson In re Bestwick, 1 Law Eeports, Chancery Division, 702, it •was held under the English composition proceedings that a secured creditor is entitled to abstain from proving his debt or taking any part in the composition proceedings, and when he has realized his security he may claim from the debtor payment of the composition upon the balance which may then remain unsatisfied of the debt. �In the present aspect of the case it must be held that the composition proceedings did not operate to deprive complain- ant of the right, after exhausting her security and ascertain- ing the amount unpaid, to assert against the bankrupts a daim for such deficiency; and I think such claim may be enforced through the instrumentality of an execution issued against the property of the debtors upon the deficiency judg- ment. Complainant's right being limited to the collection of such a percentage of herjudgment as has been paid to other creditors, upon, the composition and at a subsequent stage of any proceedings that may be taken on execution to enforce payment of the same, it may be the duty of the court to pro- vide, by suitable order, for enforcement of the execution only to the extent whieh has been indicated. �As the case now stands, the exceptions to the answer must be sustained. At the hearing it was suggested that in case the view of the court should be as now expressed the defend- ants would desire to amend their answer so as to make it ae&rmatively allege that the indebtedness secured by the trust deed held by complainant was the individual indebtedness, and not the copartnership indebtedness of Bassett and Bea- ver. Though it is not now apparent to the court how such ����