Page:United States Reports, Volume 2.djvu/132

This page needs to be proofread.

[ ra6 Cass: ruled and adjudged in the rggr. ly": ¥ S¢Pf6IIlb8f TCFID, I I .

==;

]or‘s Ledee, on-fu: Cossanr, et al. |EC'I'a®`I‘ for a houfe, in the ci ofPLilad:1}·}»ia. The E Lelfors of the plaintiff were allignees, underacommill on of bankruptcy ilfued againll one Cbrgfian {Vina, of whom Doékor Cburlu Moon, the landlord of Cyirrt, had purchafed. Upon the general illire, it was contended by the defendants, that the eommillion had ifued irregularly, and was void, for die following reafons : xii. The af.} of bankruptcy, alledged tohave been committed by Wim, was a conveyance of alot of ground, toone ofhis children, by deed, and without a valuable conlideration. This, it was admitted, was fraudulent and void under the llatute of I3 Eli:. but not an a& of bankruptcy. ad. The debt of the petitioniug creditor was not within the af.} for the regulation of bankruptcy, which was palfed the r7th September, r78g; and which provides, that the debts of the petitioning creditor {hall “ have arifen on a contraét, or tranfaélion, fulsfequentto the palling of the a&.” 2 Vari Dall. _n. 369. $:8:3. Now, thedebtdueto the petitioning creditor was on a running account, every item of which was prior to june, 1785, and which was thus indorfed: •• We do acknowledge the within aooount to be juli and true, errors excepted; and alfo excepting all fuch remittances as we have already made, lince rendering the fame, and which had not thcn come to the hands of jay and Hopbinr; andwe promife to pay the ba- lance therecf, being £ggo4 6 ro llerling, tofu; and Hoplinr, in Lamlm, or their order or agents here, with intereli at 5 per cent. {fun: 3, 1788. (Signed) C. Win:. W. Wirtz.” This the de endam’s counfel contended, was no extinguiihment, or fatisfaélion of the original debt; and, therefore, not within the meaning of the a&. luantlvcr to the point, the plaintiE’s counfel inlilted, that every fraudulent conveyance by dud, was an a& of bank- ruptcy. '1`o the jéamd point, it was anfwered, that the endorfe- ment on thc account was a real promiilbry note, which operat- ed as a futisfaftion of the original contraél. But, at all events, it