partners to receive a discharge. (In re Scofield et al, 3 N. B. R. 137; Fed. Cas. 12509.) A discharge in bankruptcy granted to a member of the firm is a release of joint debts as well as the separate debts, and binds copartners. (Wilkins v. Davis, 15 N. B. R. 60; 2 Lowell, 511; Fed. Cas. 17664.) Where a partnership petitions for a composition, the vote upon the resolution may be taken generally, or, upon demand, will bə taken separately of the individual and of the partnership creditors (In re Spades, In re Muir and Foley, 13 N. B. R. 72; 6 Biss. 448; 8 Chi. Leg. News, 33; Fed. Cas. 13196); but a special partner has no right to vote in composition proceedings by the firm. (In re Henry, 17 N. B. R. 463; 9 Ben. 449; Fed. Cas. 6370.) A partner will not be allowed to have a composition set aside and his firm put into bankruptcy by setting up his own fraud in effecting the composition. (In re Hamlin et al., 16 N. B. R. 522; 8 Biss. 122; 10 Chi. Leg. News, 131; Fed. Cas. 5994.) Where a firm and one member commit an act of bankruptcy, and involuntary proceedings are commenced against the firm and its individual members and adjudication is had, the individual member may properly propose a composi tion to his creditors and the firm creditors, and such composition will be valid if accepted by the requisite number. (Pool v. McDonald et al., 15 N. B. R. 560; 9 Chi. Leg. News, 322; 4 Law & Eq. Rep. 27; 2 Cin. Law Bul 151; Fed. Cas. 11368.)

c. The court of bankruptcy which has jurisdiction of one of the partners may have jurisdiction of all the partners and of the administration of the partnership and individual property.

[Act of 1867. SEC. 36. If such copartners reside in different districts, that court in which the petition is first filed shall retain exclusive jurisdiction over the case.]

Jurisdiction. In the event petitions are filed against the same person, or against different members of a partnership, in different courts of bankruptcy, each of which has jurisdiction, the case must be transferred, by order of the court relinquishing jurisdiction, to and be consolidated by the one of such courts which can proceed with the same for the greatest convenience of parties in interest. (Sec. 32.) In general, a firm can only be sued in their domicile and only place of business. (Cameron v. Canieo & Co., 9 N. B. R. 527; Fed. Cas. 2340.)

Where a firm does business and one member lives in the United States, the court has jurisdiction as to him in involuntary proceedings in bankruptcy, though another member of the firm does not reside in this country. (In re Burton et al., 17 N. B. R. 212; 9 Ben. 324; Fed. Cas. 2214) A member of a firm residing in one state and doing business in another may have proceedings in the district of his domicile stayed

and have exclusive jurisdiction allowed to the court of the district in which the joint business is carried on and in which his partner resides, against whom proceedings have also been instituted. (In re Smith, 3 N. B. R. 15.) In a case where a petition in bankruptcy was filed against the members of a firm, who were two of the three members of a firm against whom a petition had been filed in another district three weeks previously, and upon which an assignee had taken possession, the second petition was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. (In re Leland, 5 N. B. R. 222; Fed. Cas. 8228.) Where a petition is filed asking to have a firm declared bankrupt, if all the members of the firm do not join in or assent to the petition, notice of its filing must be given to such members as do not join in it or assent to it in like manner as if the proceedings were on an involuntary bankruptcy against the members of the firm. Until such notice is given there is no authority to the court to make an adjudication against the firm. (In re Lewis, 1 N. B. R. 19; 2 Ben. 96; Fed. Cas. 8311.) An adjudication obtained by one member of a firm without giving notice to the other member is void. In re Temple, 17 N. B. R. 345; 4 Sawy. 62; Fed. Cas. 13825.) On a voluntary petition for the adjudication of a firm, the court has jurisdiction to determine the question of who constitute the firm, and an adjudication is valid, based on the determination of such fact, until set aside or reversed. (In re Griffith et al, 18 N. B. R. 510; 26 Pittsb. Leg. J. 140; Fed. Cas. 5820.)

d. The trustee shall keep separate accounts of the partnership property and of the property belonging to the individual partners.

[Act of 1867. SEC. 36.

the assignee

shall also keep separate accounts of the joint stock or property of the copartnership and of the separate estate of each member thereof;

nership

Trustees' accounts.-The trustee must keep a separate account of the joint stock of the copartnership and of the individual estate of each member, but the expenses and disbursements are taken out of the property received by the assignee without reference to the fact whether it was collected from the partnership or the separate estate. (Atkinson v. Kellogg, 10 N. B. R. 535; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 9; Fed. Cas. 613; Amsink et al. v. Bean, Ass., 11 N. B. R. 495; 22 Wall. 395.) Though the assignees in bankruptcy of the joint stock and property of a copartnership are required to administer the separate estate of the individual members of the firm as well as the described estate of copartnership, the same rule does not apply where an individual member of a copartnership is adjudged a bankrupt without such decree against the copartnership. (Id.)

Assignees' title.- The assignee of a bankrupt firm takes by the assignment all the property of the firm and of the individual members thereof, even though part of the property may be out of the district in which the bankrupts reside and owned in part by partners who are not joined in the bankruptcy proceedings. (In re Leland, 5 N. B. R. 222; Fed. Cas. 8228.) He may recover property transferred by one partner in violation of the Bankrupt Act (Barnewall & Gaynor, Ass., v. Jones, Dunn & Crawford, 14 N. B. R. 278; Fed. Cas. 1027; Phipps et al. v. Sedgwick, Ass., etc., 16 N. B. R. 64; 95 U. S. 3; In re Tomes et al., 19 N. B. R. 36; Fed. Cas. 14984), or money taken from the partnership assets and paid as money of the copartnership, if it can be recovered. (Amsink et al. v. Bean, Ass., 11 N. B. R. 495; 22 Wall. 395.) Where at the time a firm is adjudged bankrupt there is pending an action for accounting by one partner against the other, the right to continue the suit passes to the assignee. (In re Clark & Bininger, 3 N. B. R. 123; 4 Ben. 88; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 189; Fed. Cas. 2798.)

An assignee of the estate of an individual partner has no such title as will enable him to call third parties to an account for partnership property, and he cannot recover back money previously paid to a creditor of the partnership upon the ground that the money was paid to such creditor in fraud of the other creditors of the firm. (Amsink et al. v. Bean, Ass., 11 N. B. R. 495; 22 Wall. 395; In re Shepard, 3 N. B. R. 42; 3 Ben. 347; Fed. Cas. 12754; Hudgins v. Lane & Smithson, 11 N. B. R. 462; 2 Hughes, 361; Fed. Cas. 6827; Forsaith, Ass., v. Merritt, 3 N. B. R. 11; 1 Lowell, 336; 2 Amer. Law T. 123; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 168; Fed. Cas. 4946; Withrow v. Fowler, 7 N. B. R. 339; 6 Alb. Law J. 422; Fed. Cas. 17919.) But where a surviving partner is adjudged a bankrupt as such, and as an individual, his assignee is entitled to the partnership assets. (In re Temple, 17 N. B. R. 315; 4 Sawy. 62; Fed. Cas. 13825.) Though the assignee of a bankrupt partner has no authority to call third parties to account for partnership property, the bankrupt's share in the joint estate vests in his assignee though the firm is not declared bankrupt (Wilkins v. Davis, 15 N. B. R. 60; 2 Lowell, 511; Fed. Cas. 17664); and the assignee may recover from a solvent partner, either at law or in equity, what is due under the articles of copartnership. (Id.)

e. The expenses shall be paid from the partnership property and the individual property in such proportions as the court shall determine.

Expenses of administration.- Where there are assets of the firm and of one or more individual members, the joint estate and the individual estates must each pay its proportion of the expenses of administration. (In re Smith and Smith, 13 N. B. R. 500; Fed. Cas. 12987; Atkinson v. Kellogg, 10 N. B. R. 535; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 9; Fed. Cas. 613.) Except in

the matter of expense, it is of no consequence whether there are two proceedings or only one by or against partners, for the rights of creditors and others are the same. (In re Morse, 13 N. B. R. 376; Fed. Cas. 9854.)

f. The net proceeds of the partnership property shall be appropriated to the payment of the partnership debts, and the net proceeds of the individual estate of each partner to the payment of his individual debts. Should any surplus remain of the property of any partner after paying his individual debts, such surplus shall be added to the partnership assets and be applied to the payment of the partnership debts. Should any surplus of the partnership property remain after paying the partnership debts, such surplus shall be added to the assets of the individual partners in the proportion of their respective interests in the partnership.

[Act of 1867. SEC. 36. and after deducting out of the whole amount received by such assignee the whole of the expenses and disbursements, the net proceeds of the joint stock shall be appropriated to pay the creditors of the copartnership, and the net proceeds of the separate estate of each partner shall be appropriated to pay his separate creditors, and if there shall be any balance of the separate estate of any partner, after the payment of his separate debts, such balance shall be added to the joint stock for the payment of the joint creditors; and if there shall be any balance of the joint stock after payment of the joint debts, such balance shall be divided and appropriated to and among the separate estates of the several partners according to their respective right and interest therein, and as it would have been if the partnership had been dissolved without any bankruptcy; and the sum so appropriated to the separate estate of each partner shall be applied to the payment of his separate debts; and the certificate of discharge shall be granted or refused to each partner as the same would or ought to be if the proceedings had been against him alone under this act.]

General rule of distribution.- Where there are individual creditors and partnership creditors, and individual assets and partnership assets, the individual creditors must resort to the individual assets and the joint creditors to the partnership assets. (In re Jewett, 1 N. B. R. 131; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 294; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 7; Fed. Cas. 7309; In re Byrne, 1 N. B. R. 122; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 499; 1 Amer.

Law T. Rep. Bankr. 122; 15 Pittsb. Leg. J. 315; Fed. Cas. 2270; In re McLean et al., 15 N. B. R. 333; Fed. Cas. 8879.) This rule only applies where both estates are before the court for distribution. (United States v. Lewis et al., 13 N. B. R. 33; Wkly. Notes Cas. 31; 22 Int. Rev. Rec. 39; 32 Leg. Int. 371; 23 Pittsb. Leg. J. 34; Fed. Cas. 15595; In re Pease, 13 N. B. R. 168; Fed. Cas. 10881.) Though it has been held that where there is no joint estate, the joint creditors can receive no dividends until the individual creditors have been fully paid (In re Byrne, 1 N. B. R. 122; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 499; 1 Amer. Law T. Reg. Bankr. 122; 15 Pittsb. Leg. J. 315; Fed. Cas. 2270), the later cases deny this doctrine, and it seems not to be the present law. (In re Knight, 8 N. B. R. 436; 30 Leg. Int. 338; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 43; Fed. Cas. 7880.) But where a partnership has been dissolved, and one of the copartners purchases all of the assets of the firm, agreeing to pay all of the debts; and both partners subsequently become bankrupt and are individually put into bankruptcy so that there is no solvent partner and no firm property, the creditors of the firm, and the individual creditors of the partner who assumed to pay the firm debts, are entitled to share pari passu in the estate of such partner. (In re Downing, 3 N. B. R. 182; 1 Dill. 33; 17 Pittsb. Leg. J. 169; 3 Amer. Law T. 165; 2 Chi. Leg. News, 265; 1 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 207; Fed. Cas. 4011; In re Collier, Taylor & Co., 12 N. B. R. 266; Fed. Cas. 3002; In re Rice, 9 N. B. R. 373; 21 Pittsb. Leg. J. 159; Fed. Cas. 11750.) The individual and partnership creditors share equally in the distribution of assets where both classes of debts have been incurred upon the strength of the possession of the property owned by a member of the firm. (In re Goelde & Co., 6 N. B. R. 295; Fed. Cas. 5500.) And where there are both individual and partnership creditors of a bankrupt, and the ass ts are individual only, but mainly consist of goods purchased by the bankrupt from the partnership on its dissolution prior to bankruptcy, and are the same goods in the purchase of which the partnership debts originated, the partnership creditors will be entitled to be paid pari passu with the individual creditors. (In re Jewett, 1 N. B. R. 180; 7 Amer. Law Reg. (N. S.) 291; 2 Amer. Law T. Rep. Bankr. 7; Fed. Cas. 7209) Again, when all the assets of a bankrupt firm are expended in the payment of costs, and there is no fund to be divided among the firm creditors, the firm and individual creditors must be paid pari passu out of the separate estate of each partner. (In re McEwen & Sons, 12 N. B. R. 11; 6 Biss. 294; 7 Chi. Leg. News, 231; 2 Cent. Law J. 233; Fed. Cas. $783.) A promise by a partner to pay all the firm debts may be enforced by the firm creditors, although they were not cognizant of the promise when made, and although the consideration did not move from them. (In re Collier, Taylor & Co., 12 N. B. R. 266; Fed. Cas. 3002.)

It has been held that the rule preferring partnership property to the payment of partnership debts is for the benefit of the partners and they