Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/311

 IB UK WHEELEB. 29d �above-named sums, as they contributed to the aggregation of moneys which composed the sum of $4,000, and cômpleted the scheme of the loan society. As the bankrupt received ail the profits from that scheme, it is but equitable and just that those who contributed the money to produce this resuit should receive their advances, with interest on the same. Interest will be computed on the sumof $738 (advances as aforesaid) frona August 1, 1873, and upon the sum of $G20 the interest ■will be averaged in accordance with the time of payment. �Let a decree be prepared accordingly. As to the costs, we think it wonld be as nearly equitable as we can make it, that they should be divided, each party paying an equal portion of the same. ���In re Whbbler and others, Bankrupts. {Diitriet Oouri,S. D. New York. Jauuary, 1881. �BaSKUDPTCT— DBBT6 PçoVED-pNo ASSIGNEE— PbTITIOiI FOB Dlfl- �jcHARGB— Rev. St. ♦ 6108— Waivino Objection — Costs. �At the time of flling the potition for discharge, withln six months of the adjudication, debts had beea proved against the estate. An assignee waselected at a creditors' meeting, on theday the petition was filed, bat did not qualify or receive his assignaient. un til several days afterwarda. �Held, that the petition must be dismissed, there bëing no assignes duly qualiaed to act when the petition was aled!,'aad, without sucfa Msigaee,it could not be asoertainedwhether auyassets had corne into his hands within the meaning of Rev. St. § 5108. �The crediter having, in his specificatlois against tte disûharge, ob- jected that the petition was prematurely flled, /idd, that he did not wftive the objection by afterwarda taking testimony under the speci- fications. , ' �Also Tietd, that the objection could not be waived, as the court is bound, for the protection of ail the creditors, to see that ail the stat- utory conditions of graating the discMrge arc f olfllled. �, Where much time and money werp consumed in taking testimony under the specifications, held, that no costs should bo allowed on dis- missing the petition, because either party could have sooner brtraght the preliminaty objection to. the attention of the court. ■ ����