Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/646

 682 ITEDEBAIt BEFOBTEB. �In re Voetter, Bankrupt. �(District Court, W, D. Pennsylvania, November 23, 1880.) �1. BASKEUPrcY — Sbt-Off. — V. and B. were copartners in the live-stock business. V. was adjudged a bankrupt. At the time of his adjudi- cation he was indebted to B. upon transactions net connected with the partnership. Upon a settlement of the partnership accounts there was a balance thereon due from B. to V. Hdd, that B. had the right to set ofE against the amount due from him to the liankrupt on the partnership transactions the independent debts due from the bankrupt to himself. �£n Bankruptoy. Sur exceptions to register's report upon the elaim of Ira F. Brainard. �Thomas G. Lazear, for exceptions. �Geo. W. Guthrie, contra. �AcHEsoN, D. J. This case cornes before the court upon exceptions to the register's report in the matter of the claim of Ira P. Brainard. The question involved is one of set-off. The bankrupt and Brainard, at and prior to the time of the filing of Voetter's petition to be adjudged a bankrupt, were copartners in the cattle or live-stock business. Upon a settle- ment of the partnership business, since the bankruptcy of Voetter, it appears that a balance is due from Brainard to the bankrupt on the partnership accounts. �At the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings Brainard held two notes of the banrkupt ;' one for $1,000, then past due, and one for $5,000, maturing in 30 days, — the consideration of each note being money loaned by Brainard to Voetter. Brainard was also surety for Voetter upon an- other note not then due. After the bankruptcy Brainard paid on this latter note $3,950. �The leamed counsel for Brainard bas, I think, fairly stated the question for decision thus: Has Ira F. Brainard the right to set off against the amount due from him to the bank- rupt, on a settlement of the partnership business of Voetter & Brainard, the debts due from the bankrupt to himself in transactions not connected with the partnership? The regis- ter decided against the right of set-off in an opinion which ����