Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/819

 IN TXE eRIOK. 805 �The bankrupt bas answered the petition denying that he haà any beneficiai interest therein, whieh was assignable under the provisions of the bankrupt act, and farther submitting, if he had, that it was a partnersbip asset, and did not go to his assignee for the benefit of his individual creditors. �The facts are substantially as foUows : The bankrupt was engaged in business, in the year 1875, with one William H. Campbell, under the fiïm name of E. A. Brick & Co., and in the month of July of that year made sale to the Peekskill Iron Company of 600 tons of pig iron for $13,222, and received and accepted in payment therefor six promissory notes of the Com- pany, maturing in course in the months of October and Novem- ber following. The sale was negotiated by Brick, on the part of the partnership, and Fowler, on the part of the iron Com- pany, he being its vice-president and trustee. A few weeks after the completion of the transaction by the delivery of the iron and the acceptance of the ûotes the company stopped payment on its liabilities, became hopelessly insolvent, and paid nothing on account of the purchase. Brick & Co. claimed that Fowler was personally liable for their loss, on account of his wilful misrepresentations of the pecuniary condition of the company made by him to Brick while the negotiations for the sale were going on. He was accordingly sued in an action of tort, ia the supreme court of New York, for his false and fraud- ulent representations of the solvency of the company, and, while this action was pending, the partner Brick filed his indi- vidual petition in bankruptcy in this court for his discharge from his personal debts. In bis schedules no reference was made to any partnership assets or partnership liabilities, nor to this claim for damages against Fowler. �It is insisted in the petition to vacate the discharge that such an omission by the bankrupt is proof (1) that he wil- fully swore falsely to the truth and correctness of his sched- ules ; and (2) that he concealed his assets from his creditors- �The first reason assigned by the counsel of the bankrupt why the discharge should not be set aside on the ground that the schedules did not contain ail the assets of the bankrupt, is based on the proposition that where an individual member of ����