Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/796

 •784 FEDERAL REPORTER �oî tbeslaughtered animais had been paid over to the bank rupts, to-wit, on the thirteenth of July, 1877, caused a writ of attacbmeat to issue, out of the Bupreme court' of New York against Ponnelly & Hughes,, directed to the sberiff of the city and county of New ïork, who, subsequently made a retum that by virtue of the said attachment he collected certain moneys that appeared to belong to the debtors, Donnelly & Hughes; that wbilst holding the same a judgment was ob- tained by the plaiutiff in attachment, in.whiqh a writ of exe- cution was isBued September 20, 1877; that, before he paid, said moneys to the plaintiff, one John P. Brothers claimed that the defendants bad been adjudicated bankrupjts, as, of the twentietb of July, 1877,. and that he bad been duly ap- pôinted assignee in bankiruptoy, and that, as sucM assignee, demaïided ail the moneys in bis' bàhdsv^ffiebbeh'ad bol- leoted in said attachment proceedings ; th^t the said Brothers afterw^rds made application, to the court for an ordex upon the sberiff raquifing him to pay oversaid moneys, and that, pending the sàid application, the shefiff paid into the court 12,130.08, the amount of the judgment in attachment, and the acfîrued interest ttf the date of said payment, Novem- ber'22, 1877. �It furtber appearS that Judge Lawrence decided that the assignee was entitled to the moneyas assets of the bank- rupt's estate; that ali appeal was taken to the general term from bis decision; but, before, any hearing upon the appeal, the same was witbdrawn by consent, and the respective par- ties entered into a written agreement that out of the moneys in controverfiy there shijuld be first paid to Dudley, the peti- tioner, the suttt of $380 for the costs and espenses of the attaobmeiit pr0ceeding6, an^ that the reteidue tbereof, amount- iûg to $1,800.08, sbo'uld be paid to Brothers aa .tbe assignee of Donn^ly & Hugbps; but the said paymenta were made upon the: express understandirig and agreement "that the ar- rangement should in, tiQ manner or way prejudice any rights, claim,, or ownership whiob; the plaintiff, Willard E. Dudley, rnàyl^ay^ upon or to the siaid $ly800.08," and upon the etip- ulatiow on the part of the assignee that the question of the ����