Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/370

 368 PEDEEALi BEPOBTEB. �since reoeived a dividend of 10 per cent, upon those claimB proved after the second dividend, and which have had no dividend; fourth, the balance remaining, pro rata, among those creditors who bave reoeived no more than 10 per cent. �To this order of distribution certain creditors exeepted, and the question is certified to tbis court for decision. �"In the disposition of property among creditors equality is equity. It was the genius and purpose of the statute to secure tbis resuit as far as possible." Bank v. Sherman, 101 U. S. 406. Applying this principle to this case, the f unds in the hands of the assignee should be distributed — First, to the payment of the costs ; second, to those who bave received no dividend, 10 per cent. ; tkird, to those who received and bave received 10 per cent., 17 per cent., to make them equal to those who bave received 27 per cent. ; fourth, the residue, if any, pro rata among ail the creditors. �There is nothing in the orders of the register, at the times the several dividends were declared, which px'events such dis- tributions. The reservations were not for any particular crediter, but for ail such uudetermined claims as by reason of the distant residence of the crediter, or for other suËScient reason, had not been proved. For augbt that appears in this case, ail the claims now presented, and upon which no dividends bave been paid, may not have been proved for the very reasons set fôrth in the statute. It cannot, tberefore, be olaimed that this reservation shall enure to the benefit of such of the creditors who had in fact proved their claims at the date of the former distributions ; for it is expressly for those who had not proved their claims. It is said, however, that inasmuch as some of them had proved their claims at the dates of the distributions, that a dividend should have then been ordered to be paid upon them. This may bave been so; but this was not done, and we cannot now make such an order; for certainly they bave acquired no right in the fund, by their having first proved their claims, which would justify us in creating such an inequality by requiring them to be first paid. Section 5097 provides : "No dividend already declared shall be disturbed by reason of debts being subsequently ����