Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/903

 896 FEDERAL REPORTER. ' ' �Erie R. Co. 3 Cliff. 339, decided in Septemter, 1871,) and afterwards in a stay of proceedinga in the other twô districts, There had been no supersedeas in either case, and Charles S. Bradley and others were appointed assignees in each of them. The assignees took no active steps in the administra- tion of their trust until the circuit court here had afarmed the decree below, but they received proofs of debt. �In July, 1871, before the circuit court had decided the case, the Adams Express Company, acting in good faith, sold the shares of the railroad company in the market of New York, with the written assent of the president of the company, but without notice to the assignees. They received the highest market price at the time. The stock afterwards sold for a higher price, and, still later, fell again and could not bave been sold at any price, �The express company applied to prove their debt, after giving credit for the amounts received before the failure, and that received for the stock ; and the register suspended their proof, on the ground that they had not complied with the law, Eev. St. § 5075. They then applied to the district judge, by petition, to conflrm the sale, nunc pro tmc, and to admit the proof; and, their prayer having been granted, they brought the case to this court. �C. S. Bradley and J. G. Grey, Jr., for assignees, cited and commented on the foUowing cases: Lee v. Franklin Ave. German Sav. Inst. 3 N. B. E. 218; Re Herriek, 17 N. B. E. 336; Re Miller, 19 N. B. E. 78; Hem v.La Societe Française, 16 N. B. E. 385. �A. S. Wheeler and E. W. Hutchins, for the exj^ress com- pany, discussed the same cases. �LowBLL, G. J. The language of the law (Eev. St. § 5075) is relied on by the assignees, and doea seem very explicit, that a secured creditor shall not prove any part of his debt unless he has either delivered up his aecurity altogether, or agreed upon its value with the assignees, or ascertained such value by a sale, under the order of the district court. In this district it haa been considered that this section, in- tended for the protection of the general creditors, was not ����