Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/833

 826 FEDBEAL REPORTER. �The case îs împerfectly reported, but I gather that one of the questions was whether a suit in tort for damages, which had been instituted by the firm before its bankruptcy, conatituted a part of the assets in bankruptcy. The judge (Blatchford) spoke of the suit as "an action of tort for fraud and deoeit." It was a separate suit, pending independently of the bank- ruptcy proceeding, in another forum; and the bankruptcy court merely held that it could not consider a contingent right for damages, such as was represented by that suit, as part of the partnership assets proper to be estimated in de- termining whether to adjudge a former member of the firm a bankrupt, in a proceeding in involuntary bankruptcy. �In the case of Dutcher, Assignee, etc., 12 Blatchf. 435, the assignee brought suit in equity against the stockholders of the bankrupt institution, to recover of them an amount equal to the par value of their shares, for which a statute of New York made them liable. But that statute, in creating such liability, did not make the amount for which they were thus liable part of the assets of the bank. On this express ground, that the sum recovered by the assignee would not be assets in bis hands, the court held that the assignee had no right to sue, and dismissed the bill. Obviously such a ruling ean have no bearing adverse to the complainants in this cause, who sue for moneys vested by law, if recovered, in themselvea as assets of the estate. �Another case, and one of the highest authority, relied upon by counsel for the defence, is that of Spering's appeal, 71 Pa. St. 11, in which Judge Sharswood delivered the opinion of the court. That was a suit in equity, brought by the assignee, under a voluntary deed of assignment made by a bank, against the direetors, and others alleged to be connected with them, to make good losses caused by an alleged mismanage- ment. The bill was brought in 1867, and was based upon transactions running backas far as 1850. The court refused to hold the defendants liable, on special grounds, one of which was the lapse of time. The bill was dismissed on grounds which do not enter into the case we are now dealing with. But the Pennsylvania supreme court, while so ruling, gave a ����