Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/228

 IN BE MARSHALL. 221 �the twentieth of November, 1879, William Bisco proved a debt against the bankrupt, evidenced by a note dated August 21, 1858, and on the same day J. B. Marshall, the father of the bankrupt, proved bis two debts against the bankrupt. These two then consented in writing to the discharge of the bankrupt. These debts were proven after the day set for final hearing upon the petition of the bankrupt for a discharge, •which -was March 23, 1877. The register reported to the court that one-fourth in number of the creditors, and one- third in value of the debts proven, had consented to the bank- rupt's discharge, and the discharge was granted December 17, 1879. J. M. Eobinson & Co., creditors of the bankrupt, flled, January 22, 1880, a petition to amend said discharge, and the specifications were subsequently amended. The bankrupt bas appeared and responded, and the evidence bas been heard. �The counsel for the petitioning creditors insist : First. That when the assignee settled bis accounts, and resigned, the case was closed ; that that was the final disposition of the cause within the meaning of section 5108, and proof taken and consent given after that time is inadmissible. See In re Brightmore, 15 N. B. E. 214. Second. That the assent must be filed at or before the day for hearing application for discharge. Third. That the debt of William Sisco, one of the two con- senting creditors, was contracted before January 1, 1867, and should not bave been considered in the question of discharge. Fowrth. That the father of the bankrupt procured the consent of William Sisco to the discharge by a promise to pay the debt. �It is only necessary to consider the fourth objection. Wil- liam Sisco stated that J. B. Marshall agreed with him, before he proved his debt, that if he would prove, and consent to his Bon's discharge, he would pay him the debt, and the son sub- sequently brought the money for bis father and paid him the debt. The bankrupt statod that he had nothing to do with his father's agreement, and did not know of it until after it was made. He says that it was his father's money with which he paid William Sisco. This, I think, brings this case within section 5110. The eighth subsection of section 5100 says: "No discharge ehall be granted, or, if granted, sball ����