Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/362

950 FEDERAIi BEFORTEB. �was flled, and, having so taken it, he took it subject to ail perfected liens then existing, and is estopped to set up the general assignment to defeat the lien of the judgment crediter. �Sureties for judgment debtors, who, after the attaching of a lien in favor of the judgment creditor, have b^en compelled to pay a part of the judgment debt, are thereupon entitled to be subrogated to the rights of the judgment creditor, in respect to the lien, to the extent to which they have paid the debt, and therefore, in this case, the bank- nipts' sureties who had paid, after judgment against them, part of the judgment against the bankrupts, are entitled to the beneflt of tho judgment creditor'a lien to the amount paid hj them. �E. Seymour, for petitioners. �Geo. Bell, for assignee. �Choate, D. J, This is an application by a judgment cred- itor for payment of his judgment out of the proceeds of real estate sold by the assignee under the order of the court. The ground of the application is that the judgment was a lien on the real estate at the commencement of the bankruptcy pro- ceedings. �Prior to March, 1872, the five bankrupts and their father, Henry Lawrence, were partners in business under the firm name of Henry Lawrence & Sons. The real estate in ques- tion then stood in the name of Henry Lawrence, but was, in fact, partnership property. By his will Henry Lawrence devised it to his five sons, the bankrupts, who continued to hold the legal title as tenants in common till their bankruptcy in May, 1878, except so far as it may have been affected, if at ail, by the general assignment hereinafter referred to. After the death of Henry Lawrence the five bankrupts continued the same business under the same firm name, till their fail- ure, using and treating the real est",te as part of their part- nership assets, taking ail the assets of the old firm, and assuming ail its liabilities, arranging with the executors of Henry Lawrence to have his interest and capital in the con- cern, or a large part of it, remairi as a loan to the new firm. The old firm of Henry Lawrence & Sons had dealings with the firm of Merrifield & McDowell, holding notes of that firm, and having a balance of account against them for goods sold. In 1874 the bankrupts sued the firm of Merrifield & McDowell, joining as defendant one Edward L. Merrifield, claiming that ����