VETTEBLEIN V. BAENES. 693 �The case of In re King, S Ped. Ebp. 839, cited and relied on by the petitioners, was a case of fraud «nd deceit on the part of the purchaser. It disclosed a purpose to defeat a former and regular judicial sale of the interest of the assignee by a title made under what purported to be a second sale, procnred by deceitful practices. The case is no precedent for setting aside this sale, which, so far as the petition shows, was in perfect good faith, so far as the purchaser is concemed, and not subject to the objection taken in the case referred to, that it was without any consideration, or was in derogation of a former regular judicial sale. �The former order of the court in the present case, setting aside an earlier sale upon an early application of a creditor, on the ground that the assignee had withheld from the court information in his possession affecting the value of the prop- erty, which, if communicated, might have induced the court to make a different order as to the mode of sale, is also, as a precedent, inapplicable to this case. In fact, the court hav- ing the whole of that former proceeding before it adopted the mode of sale direeted by this ordeir as mosi likely to effect a satisfactory sale of the interest vested in the assignee. I see no ground for the suggestion of inadvertenee or improvidenoe, as applied to this order, not is Buch a suggestion of any force a» against a hona fide purchaser. �On these grounds the motion to dismiss the petition inust be granted. ���Vetterlein V. Barnes, Assignee, etc. {Cireuit Court, 8. B. New York. December 18, 1880.) �1. RiGHT OF Soi.vBajT Paktnbb TO Administbk Absbts of the Fibm. �The sole remaining solvent partner has the right to demand and take from his insolvent copartner the liquidation of the allairs of the firm. �2. Bamb— Watvbr of. �This right to administer is a personal privilege, and if the solvent partner permit hi? insolvent partner, or the representative of his in- ��� �
