15G FEDERAL REPORTER. �The receiver takes no exception. I tliink that the commis- BÏoner made a clerical error of $100 in the amouut paid to the Shoe & Leather Bank, and there is a slight discrepancy between his figures and those furnished to me as correct, of the amount which was paid upon the composition. �The receiver admitted, in his proof of debt, that Hamill promised to pay his own notes at maturity, and that the Holmes & Lissburger notes had been used by Hamill for his own benefit. The Citizens' Bank of Waterbury recovered judgment against Hamill upon some of their last meutioned notes, and upon the proceedings under their judguieut Mr. Sinclair was appointed receiver. The errors which are al- leged by Holmes & Lissburger are substantially as follows : �1. An error of $68,000 in not deducting that sum from the amount charged to Holmes & Lissburger for the iron, for the amount of notes advanced by Holmes & Lissburger to Hamill, when they received the iron from him, which Hamill had dis- counted for his own use, receiving the proceeds thereof. �2. An error of $50,000 in charging Holmes & Lissburger with the iron at $134,214, instead of at $84,724.71, its value at the time of the filing of the petition to have Holmes & Lissburger adjudicated bankrupts. �3. An error in allowing the credit for the 15 per cent, paid on Hamill's notes to the amount of $85,808.93, since the pro- ceedings in bankruptcy were commenced, by way of compo- sition, as a reduction of the principal debt on which the com- position is computed, instead of allowing it as a payment of Bo much of the composition itself. �The second error has been disposed of by the findings of fact. In regard to the first alleged error it is to be noticed that the notes for $68,000 were not given in paymeut for the iron. Like ail the other notes, they were accommodation notes loaned to Hamill. By the agreement which was en- tered into about August 25, 1874, if there ever had been an idea that these notes were to be set off against the iron, that idea was abandoned, and ail the notes were treated as ex- change notes. �The third error involves a question of law. The rule ����
