298 FEDERAL REPORTER. �facts to be stated in any particular manner, but under the equity System adopted for the United States courts. Eev. St. § 913. This was the English chancery System in use when the adoption took place. Under that System the facts stated as affording grounds for relief were to be or might be stated according to their legal effect. In this case the fact ■was well stated as constituting payment, and the objection to relief on that account cannot be sustained. These same considerations answer the objection to going back with the transactions into the partnership business. The successive notes represented the debts justly due, and no more. The partnership business came to the bankrupt as survivor. He became entitled to and held the whole as survivor, subject only to accountability to the representatives of his copart- ner. He had the right as survivor to have the partnership debts brought within their legal limits, and his obligations given for them reduced to what they should be. Each debt was a continuous thing, and the last of the notes given in renewal of each debt represented only what was justly re- maining due upon that debt. Upham v. Brimhall, H Met. 576; Nat. Bank v. Lewis, 75 N. Y. 516; Heath v. Griswold, 5 Fed. Ebp. 573. �There is no other party to whom the defendant can be liable for this excess. Ail rights of action belonging to the partnership vested in the bankrupt, as survivor, and so fully that he could join them with causes of action in his individual right. The assignee succeeded to his rights in his estate, and has the same right to have the claims upon the estate reduced to their just proportions that he had. This was held in favor of assignees in bankruptcy as long ago as Bosan- quett V. Dashwood, Cas. Temp. Talb. 38. It has been held that the equitable jurisdiction in bankruptcy goes further than either courts of law or equity in such cases. Ex parte Scrivener, 3 Ves. & B. 14. Bosanquett v. Dashwood was like this case in many respects. The orator does not go quite so far in his asking in this case as the court went in that. �As these debts were kept separate and distinct from each other, and interest was paid expressly upon each and not in ��� �
