BOHIiER ». TAPPAN. +6!> �I am clearly of opinion tliiit a creditor who bas a provablo debt bas the right to oppose the bankrupt's discharge, and this whether or not he bas proved bis debt. In re Sheppard, 1 B. E. 439; In re Boutelle, 2 B. R. 129; In re Mwrdoch. 3 B. E. 146; Bump (lOtb Ed.) 273-4. �Tbe bankrupt's counsel insists that the order asked for îs too broad, but I do not think so. I am of opinion that Mr. Carter bas the right to examine the bankrupt in respect to any matters, whether jurisdictional or otherwise, which touch the question of the bankrupt's discharge, as fuUy as any creditor -who may bave proved bis debt. �And now, to-wit, March 20, 1880, upon due consideration, leave to amend the petition of William T. Carter is refused, the said petition is dismissed, and the rule granted thereon, upon Samuel W. Groome, to show cause why bis adjudication in bankruptcy should not be vacated and set aside, is dis- charged. �It is further ordered that the said William T. Carter, who is shown to be a creditor of the said bankrupt, and having a provable debt, bave leave to take part in the examination of said bankrupt, before the register in bankruptcy, in any hear- ing upon said bankrupt's application for bis discharge ; and said bankrupt is required, upon reasonable notice, to attend Buch examination before said register, and to submit to an examination by said Carter, or bis counsel, in respect to ail matters, whether jurisdictional or otherwise, which touch the question of the bankrupt's discharge. ���BoHLEE, HusE & Co. V. Tappan. �(District Court, E. B. Arkansa». 1880 �Partnership — Sole Sukvivino Pabtner — Pledgb op Perbokai. Peop. EBTY FOR fARTNEB8Hip Debï. — A sole surviving partner may transfei the choses in action and other personal eflects of the partnership, by way of pledge or mortgage, to secure a partnership debt, and when 8uch transfei' is made in good faitb it is elïectual againstall the othei credltors, as well as the representatives of the deceased partner. ��� �
