Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/833

 818 FEDERAL REPORTER. �The objections to the proof of these claims are — �(1) Payment. (2) The statute of limitations. (3) The reception of a pref- erence against the provisions of the act of congress which they have not sur- rendered to the assignee for the beneflt of the general creditors. �We do not think this plea of payment has been sustained. The declarations to that effect by one of the partuers of the firm of Swan, Clark & Co., on the supposition that they had made a valid purchaso of certain loan stock, is not enough. Such a declaration mast have been made on the supposition that the sale had been a valid one, and as such had paid and wiped ont thedebt due on the promissory notes and book account. Now, that sale was set aside as void by the circuit court. If Swan, Clark & Co. have any merits on other grounds, and desire to corne in on these claims pari passu with the other general creditors, they should not be prohibited because of the fact that they were mistaken in the supposition that they had made a valid purchase ■which had satisfied these notes and the book account. The court decided that no value passed by the transfer of the loan stock to Swan, Clark & Co., therefore there could not have been any payment in this mode of the notes and book account. We think this plea has not been sustained. �The statute of limitations hiis been urged as a bar to the proof of these notes and book account before the register in bankruptcy. It will be seen that these notes and bill of goods sold were not barred by the statute of limitations at the time of the adjudication of bank- ruptcy, that having been made on the twenty-ninth day of September, 1873. If they were so barred at that time, it is admitted that the bar remains in force, and they cannot be proven ; but if the bar has not already operated to prevent proof, does it run, or is it sus- pended by the bankruptcy and the appointment of the assignee ? �On one side it is urged that the United States courts will follow the state law in applying the statutes of limitations as they are applied in the states when the United States courts sit, and as six years bars the proceeding on notes, and three years on book account, it is alleged by the petitioners that these claims should not be proven. On the other hand, it is nowhere said in the Kevised Statutes that claims barred by the state laws shall not be proven before the reg- ister in bankruptcy; and such being the case we inquire whether, iu the administration of the bankrupt laws, it is consistent with their intention to apply the state limitation laws? ��� �