IN DP RINÔ* ; 853 �assignee in bankruptcy, made; fais officiai report ihat the remaining assets of Simeon HyiQ were of uncertain value, and oiight to be disposed of at publiq sale, without further expanse or delay, and, acoording to the rules of the court, he advertised them for sale. Among the assets thus advertised was the following: "His residuary interest in an assignment to James N. Hyde, in 1836." The advertisement referred to the inventory on file as setting forth the assets. The schedule of the bankrupt thus referred to, after enumerating the inter- est in the Hunter purchase, as given above, and some other assets, contained a statement that aU the bankrupt's interest in said property, and also hia claim against Henry King, were assigned by him, in 1836, to James N. Hyde, as security, etc. The assets thus described were hid off by one Hallahan at the sale for ,$1.50. He neyer caUed for a conveyance, or made any claim against Mr. Ogden, as regards this property. It haabeen made a question in the case whether Hallahan paid the, priee bid. In proof pf it^ among other evidence, the petitioners have offered the testimony of a witness aa to the contents of a bookof aocount kept by the assignee. It is insisted that as this book is one whioh the assignee was. required to keep.itis in the nature ofa public record, like the: files of the court in the proceeding,. and that evidence is admissible of its contents. ■; '} :[ ■ �I do not see, however, any principle upon which this book of aocount can be excepted out of the general rule that a writing, if in existence, must be itself produced. But rejeot- , ing this evidence I think there is proof enough that the priee was paid by Hallahan. The sale was for cash, and there were no subsequent proceedings on the part of the assignee indicating that the sale was defeated by the default of the purchaser; and the presumption is that the assignee did his duty and coUected the purchase money of the person to whom the sale was made. There is also some evidence, from an employe in the office of the assignee, tending to show that in aU cases the price was paid. This case does not differ, therefore, in this respect from that of the sale of the interest of the bankrupt King to Burnham. The sale exhausted the ����
