In re FobsïîB, Banirupt. �{Œrcuît Court, D. Indiana. December 7, 1880.) �1. Bankrdpt— DiBCHAEGE. — The discharge of an assignee in bankruptcy wiU not necessarily deprive the bankrupt of the right to a subsequent discharge. In re Oanady, 2 Biss. 75, �Petition for discharge after assignee has been discharged. �Robert E. Jenkins, for bankrupt. �No appearance for creditors. �Drbmmond, C. J. On the thirty-first of Angust, 1878, the petitioner filed his petition in the district court, nnder the bankrupt law. On the fourteenth of December following he ■was adjudged a bankrupt, and on January 22, 1879, an assignee was appointed. The petitioner had no assets, and no claim was filed against him. On July 19, 1879, the assignee made application to the. register to be discharged, Btating that there were no assets belonging to the estate, and no claims had been proved; and on the nineteenth of July, 1879, the register, stating that there was no interest oppoe- ing, and that the assignee had performed ail the duties required of him, and that the estate had been fully admiriîs- t«red, discharged him from ail liability as such assignee. In June, 1879, the petitioner wrôte to the clerk of the court, mak- ing inquiry as to whathad been done in his bankruptcy case. He received no answer to his letter, and in August he wrote again,repeating his former inquiry, and in answer to his second letter the clerk informed him that the estate had been settled, and it was too late to make his application for a discharge. On October 16, 1879, the bankrupt filed a petition in the dis- trict court, alleging the facts, and also stating that he believed his creditors were willing that he should be discharged, and that he had done no act to prevent his discharge, unless the omission to make application before the assignee was dis- charged from ail liability had that effect. �The petitioner did not employ counsel on filing his original petition, nor in the application that was made to the district ����
