674 PEDBBAL BEPOBTEE. �is more than a questionable resultant from ail the proofs in the case. We bave examined them carefully since the argu- ment, and our estimate of their import is that they fall short of establishing an illegal intent on the part oî the respondent in taking a conveyance from the bankrupt. �We do not deem an analysis of the proofs necessary. It is enough to say that "they are insufficient to make out a f act essential to the complainant's right to a decree, and his bill must be dismissed, with costs. ���Smith and others v. Moegansteen and another. �(OircuU Court, W. B. Pennsylvomia. June 7, 1880.) �Bankrtjptct— Composition— Bankrtipt Act, } 29.— The amended sec- tions of the bankrupt act, relating to composition, are within the pur- view ol section 29 of the bankrupt act. �Bill of review in bankruptcy. �Malcom Hay, for complainants. �Sol. Schoyer, Jr., for bankrupts. �McKennan, C. J. This bill brings up for review an order of the district court dismissing objections filed by the com- plainants to the discharge in bankruptcy of the respondents. The motion to dismiss the objections is in the nature of a demurrer, assigning as the only reason for it their insufficiency in law to prevent the discharge, and so it was dealt with by the court below. The objections set up a pecuniary arrange- ment with certain of the bankrupts' creditors, as the consider- "■".ion of their assent to a proposition of composition, and their approval of a resolution to that effect. The composition failed for want of the assent of the required number of cred- itcrs, and so the bankruptcy proceeding went on in regular course. �To enforce a distribution of a bankrupt debtor's property among his creditors, upon a basis of equality, and to relieve him from further liability for his debts, are the fundamental ����
