Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/720

 708 FBDBBAL BBPOKTEB. �bankrupts had paid no part of their composition, an order was entered setting it aside, with an adjudication of bank- ruptcy and appointing an assignee. On the sixth of Novem- ber, 1879, this last order was vacated and set aside, stva de- cared null and void so far as it set aside the composition, on the ground that it had been entered without notice to the creditors. On the twenty-ninth of December, 1879, an order was made requiring the two judgment creditors, who had received the money from the sheriff, to pay the same, with interest, into the registry of the court, subject to the further order of the court, and with leave to apply for repayment of the same upon showing their right thereto. The money was so paid in, and the creditor Hellman now applies to have the amount paid in by him repaid. �It is not now claimed on behalf of the petitioner Hellman that the issue of the execution to the sheriff, after the filing of the petition, gave him any new claim to or lien upon the goods. His claim is that the final order in composition dis- Bolved the injunction and left the money in the hands of the sheriff, the absolute and unencumbered property of the alleged bankrupts, subject only to the rights of the judgment creditors, whatever they may have been ; that it was property which the bankrupts could, with the consent of those creditors, have de- manded of the sheriff and used in their business, or applied to the payment of their composition notes, or to the payment of these particular debts. And it is further contended that the bankrupts, having known of the disposition made of the money by the sheriff, and acquiesced therein for nearly two years, must be deemed to have approved of and ratified the use made of their money. There is, however, an obvions answer to this argument. In the first place, the holding of the mouey by the sheriff at the time of the final order in composition was in direct violation of the order of the court. The consent of certain parties to waive the deposit of the money in the trust company, which the court had ordered, could not have the effect of dispensing with the deposit, even if the consent had been given by ail the parties in interest. It is for the court to judge where money shall be placed in ��� �