MAIN V. BEOMLET, 477 �this is done by indirect and evasive methods, the resuit in equity must be the same as if direct means were resorted to. �In Beau v. Lajlin, 5 N. B. E. 333, it was held that au indorser of a note who receives none of the proceeds of the same, and whose contingent liability never becomes absolute, cannot be compelled to pay to the bankrupt's assignee the amount of the note paid by the bankrupt to the holder. But in this case the maker of the note paid it at maturity without calling on the indorser or surety, and was .then carrying on bis business, and so continued for a considerable time there- after ; and, moreover, the surety was net a participant in any Bcheme for the appropriation of the bankrupt's property to save himself from ultimate obligation to pay the note. It may be added, further, that some of the doctrine of the opin- ion in this case is quite irreconcilable with prinoiples laid down in Bartholow v. Bean, supra. As bearing upon the ques- tion under consideration, and as tending to sustain the views which have been expressed, the cases of Ahl y. Thorner, 3 N. B. E. 118, and Cookinham t. Morgan, 5 N. B. E. 16, are not without force. �I thiuk the bill should be answered. Demurrer uverruled. ���Main, Assignee, etc., v. Beomlbt and othera. �{District Court, W. D. Wiseonsin. — — , 1881.) �L Assignee m Bankruptct— Void Sale— Suit to Enjoin AcnoK Bbtwebn Creditors in State Coubt. �A suit to set aside a sale, void under the lankrupt law, and to enjoin the vendee from prosecuting a suit in the state court against the attaching crediter of the bankrupt vendor for the taking of the goods sold, cannot be maintained by an assignee in bankruptcy, where he haa obtained possession of the property, and is no party to the proceedings in the state court. — [Ed. �In Equity. �Finches, Lynde e Miller, for assignee, �F. J. Lamb, for defendants. ��� �
