Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/529

 m BB NBW BBDN8WI0S CABPET CO. 515 �and transactions with the creditor; and praying that the proof of debt might be disallowed and expunged from the list of claims filed with the assignee. �An answer to the petition was filed by the bank on the sev- enth of August foUowing, and thereupon a reference 'was made, by consent, to William Patterson, Esq., a United States commissioner, for the taking of testimony. A large amount haa been taken, of extraordinary character, exhibiting such groBS irregularities in the method of transacting busi- ness by the principal ofiScers of the respective corporations that it is doubtful whether the parties themselves would be able to determine with any accuracy how the accounts stand between them ; much less can Etrangers, however anxious to arrive at the truth, come to any satisfactory conclusion. �In the proof of debt, as originally filed, the claimants charged the bankrupt corporation with the sum of $2,105,- 043.21 as the gross sum alleged to bave been furnished by the bank to the carpet company during the years 1872-8, and they credited the bankrupt with |1,444,150.08 as the amount that had been paid during the same time — charg- ing that the difference between these sums was the amount remaining due to the bank on the thirtieth day of August, 1873. �The assignee, in his petition, insists that the exhibits and vouchers accompanying the claim do not substantiate it, but, on the other hand, that the charge of $2,105,043.21 is $198,444.32 in excess of the sum properly chargeable against the company; and that $1,444,150.08 is $638,» 803.95 less than the real amount for which the company should be credited in its dealings and transactions with the bank. It is the province of the witnesses and the duty of the court, from the testimony, to reconcile, if possible, these widely-conflicting claims. There is no difficulty about the principle which should govern the court in determining the case. These corporations are to be held responsible for the acts of their officers so long as they are within the line of the business entrusted to them. But when they use their officiai position merely as a cloak for their personal ends, — both par- ties knowing that the respective corporations can have no ����