113 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Wheeler, J. One Alden J. Adams and the defendant Union Adams were partners, and the defendant Lynch had a partnership debt against them. The interest of Alden Adams in the partnership assets was transferred to Union Adams, for which the latter became indebted to the former in the sum of $6,000. Union Adams became insolvent, and assigned,his property to the defendant Woolton, for the ben- efit of his ereditors. Afterwards he was adjudged a bankrupt and the defendant Mitchell became his assignee in bank- ruptcy, and as such recovered the property. Lynch assigned his debt against Union Adams to the defendant Quimby, and both the latter and Alden Adams proved their claims against the estate of Union Adams in bankruptcy. Quimby has received a dividend upon his claim, and Union Adams has reeeived a discharge. A dividend to Alden Adams upon his claim has been ordered and is still in the hands of the assignee. �Quimby commenced suit in his own name, under the laws of New York, in the courts of New York, against Alden Adams, recovered judgment therein, took out execution on the judg- ment and placed it in the hands of the defendant Carpenter, who is sheriff of Westohester county, and of the defendant Connor, sheriiï of New York county, who bave claimed to attach thereon the dividend of Alden Adams in the hands of Mitchell, assignee. The orator has proeeeded in the same manner with his debt against Alden Adams, but the attachment in his case is subsequent to Quimby's. He claims that heis an individual creditor of Alden Adams, and that as such he is entitled to have his debt satisfied out of the individual prop- erty of the debtor in preference to Quimby, who is a partner- ship creditor, and has brought this bill to have application of the dividend to Quimby's debt restrained, and application of it to his debt decreed. The defendant Quimby insists that th e div- idend represents Alden Adams' share in the partnership assets, asto which the orator is uot entitled to any priority; that he is entitled to precedence because of the priority of his attach- ment; and that the fund is not so before this court that it ��� �
