694 FEDERAL REPORTER. �solvent partner, to go on and administer the assets, lie thereby waives his privilege. �3. Same— Laches — Btatitte of Limitations — Use of Assets of Oi,d �FlEM. �A flrm holding assets of prior flrms, in 'which the plaintili was a partner, as liquidators, became bankrupt. The plaintili, with full knowledge of the bankruptcy and of the adverse claim of the assignee to the assets, demanded, after about two years, an aocounting and set- tlement of his intereat in the old flrms. Held, upon this suit, brought 10 years after the bankruptcy, claiming for the flrst time his right to administer the assets as sole solvent partner : �(1) That independently of the statute of limitations he had lost the right to administer by laches. �(2) That his claim upon any part of the collections made by the assignee from the assets of the flrm was barred by Rev. St. } 6057. �(3) That the new flrm having, with the plaintifE's consent, taken and used ail the as?ets of the prior flrms as their capital in business, the property was subject to the debts of the new flrm. �Charles F. Blake, for plaintifF. �Henry F, Wing, for defendant, �Sarrd. B. Clark, Asst. U. S. Dist. Att'y, for the United States, a preferred crediter. �Choate, D. J. In February, 1871, Theodore H. Vetterlein and Bernard T. Vetterlein were adjudicated bankrupts in this court, and in April, 1871, the defendant, Demas Barnes, was duly appointed their assignee in bankruptcy and qualified as such. The bankrupts traded under the firm name of Th. H. Vetterlein & Sons, in New York, and under the firm name of Vetterlein & Co. in Philadelphia. The original bill in this case was filed in November, 1879. Both plaintiff and defend- ant are citizens of the state of New York. The bill alleges that the plaintiff was a partner in two other firms preceding the firm of Th. H. Vetterlein & Sons of New York. The first of these was a firm alleged to consist of Theodore H. Vetter- lein, one of the bankrupts, B. Vetterlein, Henry Thurman, and the plaintiff, doing business under the firm name of Th. H^. & B. Vetterlein & Co., which was dissolved April 30, 1865, in which the plaintiff's interest is claimed to have been, though not so alleged in the bill, from about the year 1862 to April 30, 1864, one-sixth part of Theodore H. Vetterlein's share of the profits, which was 37|- per cent., and from April ��� �
