IN BS HAMIIiTON. 801 �the estate of a bankrupt, where a dividend has been declared in favor of such crediter, under a trust for the beneflt of creditors, prior to the flling of the petition in bankruptcy. �Bamb— Proof ci- Claim — Dbclahation of DrvroEND Under Trust Aftbb Pkoof of Debt. — Nothing less, however, than the payment of a sum of money, or the present right to receive such money before the proof of debt is made, will prevent a creditor Irom proving for the whole amount of his daim. �BAME — BAME— PRAtroULENT CONVERSION OF FiRM PrOPEBTT BY B ANKBUPT �Partners. — If a partner has fraudulently converted property or money of the firm to his own use there would seem to be no reason why proof on behalf of the joint estate should not be allowed in respect of such property against his separate estate and in competition with his separate creditors. �Sake— Same— When Abstraction of Ftinds not Fr AtronLENT.— In order to constitute fraud, however, in such a case, there must be something more than a mere abstraction of the funds without the knowledge of the copartner, particularly if it bedone by one having the sole manage- ment of the business. �In Bankruptcy. �Beown, J. This case arisea upon petitions of the assignee to expunge certain proofs of debt made by Swearingen & Biggs, the Bank of Kentucky, and William Hughes, trustee. The material f acts of the case are as foUows : On the fifteenth of September, 1875, Swearingen & Biggs, a firm of distiller s> composed of George W. Swearingen and Andrew Biggs, en- tered into a temporary partnership with Andersen, Hamilton & Co., a firm engaged in a general provision business, com- posed of William B. Hamilton, the bankrupt, W. T. Hamil- ton and D. M. Andersen, to pack pork together on general account for the season of 1876-6. The profits and losses of this business were to be divided in the proportion of three- fourths to Anderson, Hamilton & Co., and one-fourth to Swearingen & Biggs. No firm name was agreed upon, but for convenience it will be designated in this opinion as the conjoint firm. �The money to carry on its operations was to be raised by paper bearing the name of Swearingen & Biggs as drawers, and Anderson, Hamilton & Co. as acceptors. William B. Hamilton also became an indorser of such paper in his indi- vidual charaçter. �v.l.no.lO— 51 ��� �
