498 FEDERAL REPORTER. �ruptcy were contemplated at the time of the sale to Smith. Had the plan alleged by the petitioner been in existence prier to the bank- ruptcy proceedings, viz., a plan to force a settlement at 15 per cent. for the beneot of Shaw, Whiting, and Brown, it is inconceivable that Shaw, after the bankruptcy, should have told Peyser, as the latter testifies, that the assets would pay 30 per cent. Page 453. This fact proves that there was no such plan, and confirms the direct tes- timony that the arrangement for paying the composition originated after the bankruptcy, and grew naturally ont of the situation. �The evidence shows that these two companies found it greatly to their interest to maintain Mr. Shaw's large trade, if possible, as that was the principal outlet for the sale of their manufactures. They had aided Mr. Shaw before, and now, to keep up their business, Mr. Brown and Mr. Whiting, individually, were willing to advance 15 per cent, cash and take the assets for their indemnity. There is no evidence of concealment, collusion, or unfair advantage on their part over other creditors. At a meeting of creditors at the Fif th Avenue Hotel this arrangement was openly discussed. Mr. Whiting and Mr. Brown were desired to name some sum which they would advance and take the assets, and one other crediter is speeificd who was desired by them to join in raising the money, but declined. �A bankrupt from whom a composition is received is necessarily at liberty to deal with his assets as he chooses, — ^that is, his means of payment; and where cash is offered it is to be presumed that it is done by some immediate pledge or transfer of his assets. How or with whom this is eflfected is wholly immaterial to his creditors, so long as no fraud or unfairness is practieed upon them. In re Rei- man, 11 N. B. E. 21, 45; In re Van Auken, 14 N. B. E. 425; Ex parte Ilamlin, 16 N. B. E. 320, 322. �From the known fact that Shaw & Co. had no money themselves; that cash was the offered composition, — from the open talk by other creditors with Whiting and Brown in regard to their advancing the money, and the failure to examine the bankrupts in regard to their means of paying the offered composition, — it may fairly be assumed that the creditors generally either knew that Whiting and Brown were to advance the money, or else were too indifferent to make any inquiry on the subject. There being no fraud and no concealment, they are chargeable with knowledge of what they would easily have ascertained upon inquiry.. And it could not have been supposed that Whiting and Brown would advance some $30,000 to other cred- ��� �
