IN EB TOWNSEND. 561 �part 3, p. 180,) has the foUowing provision, viz.: "And in case of voluntary bankruptcy no discharge shall be granted to a debtor whose assets shall not be equal to 30 per centum of the claims proven against his estate, upon which he shall be liable as principal debtor, without the assent of at least one-f ourth of his creditors in number and one-third in ralue ; and the provision in section thirty-three in said act of March the second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, requiring 50
- per centum of such assets, is hereby repealed."
�In section 21 of the same last-cited act (18 U. S. Statutes, part 3, p. 186) is found this provision, viz. : "That all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act be and the name are hereby repealed." �There has been a difference of opinion in the United States courts as to the fuU efïect of this latter law of June 22, 1874, on the law as laid down in both of the U. S. Eevised Stat- utes of 1874 and 1878; some of the judges holding that it effected a full repeal of the law, and let in all creditors, with- out regard to the time of contracting their debts, to add their claims to the aggregate liability of the bankrupt, and thus create the neoessity for him to produce a greater amount of assets than he would otherwise be required to do to obtain his discharge, and also let them in with subsequent creditors to give their assent to the discharge of the bankrupt in case there were no assets, or ]ess than the required amount. �Other judges hold that the act of June 22, 1874, parts of which are above recited, only repealed that part of the former law which required 50 per cent, of assets, in the bankrupt, of the proven debts against him, and a majority in value and number of the creditors who had proven their claims, and Bubstituted in lieu thereof the 30 per cent, of assets, and, in default of that, the one-fourth in number and one-third in value of creditors whose assent was necessary to justify a discharge, without the requisite amount of assets, and that the latter clause in the two Revised Codes, viz. : "but this pro- vision shall not apply to those debts from which the bankrupt Beeks a discharge, which were contracted prior to the first �v.2,no.6— 36 ����
