Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/607

 592 FEDERAL REPORTBB. �against a bankrupt, the question of a payment is raised and litigatea between the plaintiff in such judgment and the assignee in bank- ruptcy, the federal court of bankruptcy is bound by the judgment; though this may be doubtful. No such case is presented here. �The question of payment was not raised, and was, of course, not decided ; and, for reasons already stated, I hold that it was not the duty of the assignee to raise it in that case. I find no errer in the judgment of the district court, and the same is aecordingly affirmed. ���In re Smith, Bankrupt. {District Court, D. New Jersey. December 22, 1881.) �1. DiSCHAHGE. �A bankrupt's application for a discharge is seasonable if made before the dis- charge of the assignee. �2. Same — Tbansfbrs. �A year before his failure the bankrnpt made a transfer of some of his prop- erty without consideration. Held, ou the evidence, that it was not made in con- templation of bankruptcy �In Bankruptcy. �Coult e Howell, for bankrupt. �Henry Huaton, for creditor. �Nixon, D. J. Thirteen specifications are filed against the bank- rupt's discharge. On the argument only the third, sixth, seventh, eighth, eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth were relied upon by the opposing creditor. The third alleges that the bankrupt did not apply for his discharge within a reasonable time. Before the act of July 26, 1876, the law required that the bankrupt, having no assets, should apply for his discharge within one year after the petition in bank- ruptcy was filed. That act extended the time "to the final disposi- tion of the cause," which bas been held to mean the final disposition of the administration of the estate, including the discharge of the assignee. There is no proof before me that the assignee bas been discharged. The sixth and seventh allege that the bankrupt allowed fictitious claims to be proved against his estate, severally specifying the proofs of debt made by Abraham Smith, his father, and Jacob Guild, his brother-in-law. The testimony put in by the opposing creditor shpws that both of these persons had valid and subsisting claims against the bankrupt. The eighth was that the bankrupt did not keep proper books.of aooount. It was in evidence that he failed in business in the year 1874; that he had books of account while the ��� �