aside summarily on petition, and need not resort to a bill in equity. In re Sims (D. C. 1878) 16 N. B. R. 251, Fed. Cas. No. 12,888. If the bankrupt undertakes to make an assignment of a judgment standing in his name, it passes no right or title available against the trustee. Harris v. England (1880) 1 Ky. Law Rep. 271. Even a transfer of promissory notes by the payee, pending bankruptcy proceedings against him which result in an adjudication and an injunction against disposing of his property, vests no title in the purchaser, though he had no actual notice of the proceedings. In re Lake (D. C. 1872) 6 N. B. R. 542, Fed. Cas. No. 7,992.

All persons are so far affected with constructive notice of a proceeding in bankruptcy that they cannot deal with the bankrupt or his estate to the prejudice of the proceedings or in derogation of the title of the trustee. Page v. Waring (1879) 76 N. Y. 463.

Payment of a debt made to a bankrupt after the commencement of proceedings against him, though made in good faith and in the usual course of business, and without any knowledge or actual notice of the bankruptcy proceedings, is not effectual to discharge the debt, but the debtor may be required to pay the money again to the trustee in bankruptcy, unless, indeed, the bankrupt should surrender the amount of it. Howard v. Crompton (C. C. 1877) Fed. Cas. No. 6,758; In re Hayden (D. C. 1872) 7 N. B. R. 192, Fed. Cas. No. 6,257; Mays v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank (1870) 64 Pa. 74, 3 Am. Rep. 573. See Babbitt v. Burgess (C. C. 1873) 7 N. B. R. 561, Fed. Cas. No. 693; Ex parte Goodwin, 1 Atk. Ch. 100.

The bankrupt has the right to deal as he sees fit with property which is of such a character that it is not affected by the bankruptcy proceedings and does not pass to the trustee. Tallman v. Tallman (1850) 5 Cush. (Mass.) 325. Such is the rule in regard to a right of action for a purely personal tort against the bankrupt, such as libel or slander or malicious prosecution and false arrest. In re Haensell (D. C. 1899) 91 Fed. 355, 1 Am. Bankr. Rep. 286; Stanly v. Duhurst (1793) 2 Root (Conn.) 52; Noonan v. Orton (1874) 34 Wis. 259, 17 Am. Rep. 441, 12 N. B. R. 405; In re Crockett (D. C. 1868) 2 N. B. R. 208, Fed. Cas. No. 3,402; Dillard v. Collins (1874) 25 Grat. (Va.) 343.

The individual bankruptcy of a person who is a stockholder and director and officer of a corporation (which is not in bankruptcy) does not prevent him from voting on stock still standing in his name, nor incapacitate him from exercising his functions as such officer of the corporation, nor render void as to third persons the acts and conveyances of the corporation done

and executed through him as its representative. Atlas Nat. Bank v. Gardner (C. C. 1879) Fed. Cas. No. 635; State v. Ferris (1875) 42 Conn. 560.

2. Duties of bankrupt with relation to estate. Prior to the appointment of a trustee, the bankrupt has sufficient title to the personal property included in his schedule of assets to enable him to bring, and in case the trustee neither sues nor intervenes, to prosecute to judgment, a suit for damages occasioned by the alleged unlawful judicial sale of such property after he had filed a claim of exemption. Johnson v. Collier (1912) 222 U. S. 538, 32 Sup. Ct. 104, 56 L. Ed. 306; Hickcock v. Bell (1877) 46 Tex. 610.

A corporation in bankruptcy must deliver to its trustee its corporate records and stock books, and the court of bankruptcy has power to compel it to do so, there being no adverse holding, on petition and rule to show cause. Babbitt v. Dutcher (1910) 216 U. S. 102, 30 Sup. Ct. 372, 54 L. Ed. 402. A bankrupt refusing to turn over his books of account to his trustee may be punished as for contempt. In re Wilson (D. C. 1902) 116 Fed. 419, 8 Am. Bankr. Rep. 612.

The court of bankruptcy has jurisdiction to require the bankrupt to do whatever is necessary to make valid and effectual the legal transfer of his property to the trustee. In re Lattimer (D. C. 1909) 174 Fed. 824, 23 Am. Bankr. Rep. 388; In re Hudson River Water Power Co. (D. C. 1906) 148 Fed. 877, 17 Am. Bankr. Rep. 778. The bankrupt may be compelled to join in an application for the transfer of a liquor license formerly belonging to him and sold by the trustee. In re Wiesel (D. C. 1909) 173 Fed. 718, 23 Am. Bankr. Rep. 59. Or in such proceedings as are necessary to transfer a seat on the stock exchange. In re Hurlbutt, Hatch & Co. (1905) 135 Fed. 504, 68 C. C. A. 216, 13 Am. Bankr. Rep. 50. Where a devise has been made to a bankrupt and accepted by him, it is a fraud upon his creditors for him to disclaim or renounce it, and the court of bankruptcy will compel him to do all acts necessary to perfect his title to the devised estate. Ex parte Fuller (C. C. 1842) Fed. Cas. No. 5,147.

The fact that no trustee has yet been appointed will not relieve the bankrupt from the duty, or deprive him of the right, of objecting to the allowance of any false or unjust claim against his estate, or of moving for its expunction. In re Ankeny (D. C. 1900) 100 Fed. 614, 4 Am. Bankr. Rep. 72.

cannot be allowed by the court, though

it may be allowed by the creditors as an act of grace on their part. In re Barnes (D. C. 1874) Fed. Cas. No. 1,013.

A bankrupt is under no obligation to render services, in his capacity as an attorney at law, in proceedings to realize his estate for the benefit of his creditors, and if he does so, he will be entitled to the payment of a fair compensation therefor out of the funds so secured. Blythe v. Thomas (1893) 55 Fed. 961, 5 C. C. A. 356.

II. SCHEDULE OF ASSETS AND
LIST OF CREDITORS

4. Schedule of assets-Preparation and filing.-Under General Order in Bankruptcy No. 8, where a partnership and one member of it are adjudged bankrupt, and the other member is not so adjudged, the latter must file a schedule and inventory within ten days. Armstrong v. Fisher (1915) 224 Fed. 97, 139 C. C. A. 653.

Where proceedings in bankruptcy against a corporation are pending in the federal court in one state, and the treasurer of the corporation, who alone is competent to prepare its schedules, resides in another state, ancillary proceedings may be instituted in the latter state to compel him to prepare and file such schedules. In re Brockton Ideal Shoe Co. (1912) 200 Fed. 745, 119 C. C. A. 189.

The court may compel the bankrupt to file satisfactory schedules by withholding his discharge until this is done. In re Walther (D. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 941, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 702; In re Schulman & Goldstein (D. C. 1908) 164 Fed. 440, 20 Am. Bankr. Rep. 76. 5. Privilege against self-crimination. A bankrupt is not relieved from the duty of filing a schedule on the ground that its contents would tend to incriminate him, or could be used in evidence against him in a criminal prosecution; but even though he is under indictment at the time, he is required in good faith to make an effort to file a schedule which will comply with the requirements of the bankruptcy act, up to the point where the court can see that further obedience would violate his constitutional privilege. But he will be excused from making any statement in his schedule with reference to a transaction between himself and a third person, where it is apparent that there is immediate danger of a criminal prosecution against the bankrupt arising out of such transaction. In re Podolin (D. C. 1913) 202 Fed. 1014, 29 Am. Bankr. Rep. 406.

Where bankrupts sent through the mail in June, 1911, a false financial statement, and, after proceedings in bankruptcy were instituted, they were indicted for misuse of the mails in sending out such statement, there was no such connection between their con

dition in June and that in October, when they were adjudged bankrupt, as would entitle them to refuse to file schedules in bankruptcy, on the theory that to do so would tend to incriminate them. Where a bankrupt claims that to furnish information will tend to incriminate him, it must appear from the character of the information sought that his claim is justified, or he must produce facts on which he bases such claim, that the court may judge of their sufficiency. Podolin v. Lesher Warner Dry Goods Co. (1914) 210 Fed. 97, 126 C. C. A. 611, affirming judgment In re Podolin (D. C. 1913) 205 Fed. 563.

6. Form and contents of schedule.— Corporate stock standing in the name of a bankrupt should be included in his schedule, although hypothecated for its full value. In re Hirsch (D. C. 1899) 96 Fed. 468, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 715. Growing crops unmatured must be entered on the schedule. In re Schumpert (D. C. 1873) 8 N. B. R. 415, Fed. Cas. No. 12,491. So also must a claim of the bankrupt for damages on a contract for the sale of goods. In re Orne (C. C. 1867) 1 N. B. R. 57, Fed. Cas. No. 10,581. If the bankrupt has property in his possession and has the actual use of it as his own, although his title to it may be defeasible, he must set it out in his schedule and turn it over to his trustee. In re Beal (D. C. 1869) 2 N. B. R. 587, Fed. Cas. No. 1,156. The bankrupt's willful omission from his schedule of his interest in a vested estate in remainder to take effect in possession after the termination of a precedent life estate, is such a fraud as will vitiate his discharge. Edwards v. Gibbs (1860) 39 Miss. 166. A grantor in an unrecorded deed, who becomes bankrupt, properly includes in his schedule the property conveyed thereby. Davis v. Pursel (Colo. 1913) 134 Pac. 107.

Where the bankrupt has no property except what he claims as exempt, and his creditors are all of one class, he is required, in making up his schedule, to use only such forms as are appropriate to and descriptive of the debts and property he is required to list. Anonymous (D. C. 1867) 1 N. B. R. 122, Fed. Cas. No. 457.

Property or rights of action which are of such a character that they will not vest in the trustee are not to be included in the schedule of the bankrupt. 804.

In re Brick (D. C. 1880) 4 Fed.

As the schedule speaks from the date of the filing of the petition, the bankrupt is bound to set forth in it only such property as he has a right or interest in at the commencement of the proceedings. Ex parte Robertson (C. C. 1873) Fed. Cas. No. 11,921. The proceedings in bankruptcy are not constructive notice to any one of facts not necessary to appear therein, and this is true of a statement in the bankrupt's

formerly, but Page v. War

schedule as to property not then, owned by him. ing (1879) 76 N. Y. 463. Property which the bankrupt has transferred, assigned, or conveyed away with a fraudulent design to hinder or defraud his creditors is not to be included in his schedule, since, as to the bankrupt himself, such a transfer or assignment is valid and binding. In re Crenshaw (D. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 632, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 623; In re Schreck, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 334; In re Warne (C. C. 1882) 12 Fed. 431; In re Freeman (D. C. 1870) 4 N. B. R. 64, Fed. Cas. No. 5,082; Ex parte Robertson (C. C. 1842) Fed. Cas. No. 11,921. But compare In re Skinner (D. C. 1899) 97 Fed. 190, 3 Am. Bankr. Rep. 163.

Where a proposed voluntary bankrupt, who has no property except such as is exempt, borrows $50 wherewith to pay the fees and costs of his attorney, just before filing his petition, he is not required to list the sum so borrowed in his schedule of assets, and his omission to do so is no ground of opposition to his discharge. Sellers v. Bell (C. C. A. 1899) 94 Fed. 801, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 529. An interest in the net profits of a business as additional compensation for the services of a bankrupt need not be scheduled by him. In re Brown (D. C. 1842) Fed. Cas. No. 1,978.

Money received from the United States as a pension, and remaining in the pensioner's hands at the time of filing his petition in bankruptcy, should be listed in his schedule of assets under the heading of "cash on hand," with a statement that he claims it as exempt. If omitted without fraudulent intent, he may be permitted to insert it by amendment. In re Bean (D. C. 1900) 100 Fed. 262, 4 Am, Bankr. Rep. 53.

The fact that property of the bankrupt, when previously sold at judicial sale, was bought by members of his family does not afford presumptive evidence of an ownership remaining in the bankrupt which will require him to account for the property in his schedule. In re Bailey (D. C. 1842) 18 Fed. Cas. No. 726; In re Pomeroy (D. C. 1868) 2 N. B. R. 14, Fed. Cas. No. 11,258; In re Hummitsch (D. C. 1868) 2 N. B. R. 12, Fed. Cas. No. 6,866.

The schedule should set forth the separate items of household furniture and wearing apparel, but a defect in this particular may be remedied by amendment. In re Hill (D. C. 1867) 1 N. B. R. 16, Fed. Cas. No. 6,481. See Sellers v. Bell (C. C. A. 1899) 94 Fed. 801, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 529. Judgments in favor of the bankrupt should be entered under the heading "personal property" in the schedule, and not under the head of "unliquidated claims." In re Sallee (D. C. 1868) 2 N. B. R. 228, Fed. Cas. No. 12,256. In setting forth interests in real es

tate, it is not necessary that the schedule should describe the property with all the particularity of a deed or mortgage, but there must be a sufficient description to fix the location of the property and enable the trustee to identify it with certainty. See In re Shenberger (D. C. 1900) 102 Fed. 978, 4 Am. Bankr. Rep. 487; Woods V. Little (1905) 134 Fed. 229, 67 C. C. A. 157, 13 Am. Bankr. Rep. 742; In re Gailey (1904) 127 Fed. 538, 62 C. C. A. 336, 11 Am. Bankr. Rep. 539; In re Frisbee (D. C. 1842) Fed. Cas. No. 5,130; In re Dodge (D. C. 1842) Fed. Cas. No. 3,946a.

7. Mistakes and omissions in schedule.-If an omission or other error in the bankrupt's schedule was the result of mere mistake, accident, or inadvertence on his part or of the attorney who prepared the schedule, without fraudulent design, it will not sustain a prosecution against him nor be a reason for refusing his discharge. In re Crenshaw (D. C. 1899) 95 Fed. 632, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 623; In re Hirsch (D. C. 1899) 96 Fed. 468, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 715; Sellers v. Bell (C. C. A. 1899) 94 Fed. 801, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 529; In re Bushnell, 1 Nat. Bankr. News, 528; In re Winsor (D. C. 1877) 16 N. B. R. 152, Fed. Cas. No. 17,885. Nor can a criminal prosecution or the refusal of a discharge be based on the omission of property from the schedule, when the bankrupt's reason for not including it was his honest, though mistaken, belief that he had no title to it or interest in it, or that it was worthless, or that the incumbrances upon it were so great as to leave no margin of value for the general creditors. In re Barrow (D. C. 1899) 98 Fed. 582, 3 Am. Bankr. Rep. 414; In re Hirsch (D. C. 1899) 96 Fed. 468, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 715; In re Winsor (D. C. 1877) 16 N. B. R. 152, Fed. Cas. No. 17,885; In re Cushman (D. C. 1874) Fed. Cas. No. 3,512. But if the bankrupt describes a claim as worthless when he knows it to be of considerable value, or has reason to believe it valuable, a purchase made by him, or for his benefit, of his assets for a nominal sum, even after his discharge, at a sale by the trustee, would be considered fraudulent and void. Phelps v. McDonald (1876) 2 MacArthur (9 D. C.) 375. An erroneous claim of certain articles mentioned as exempt does not affect the truth of the affidavit to the schedule which states that it contains a statement of all the bankrupt's estate. In re Whetmore (D. C. 1869) Fed. Cas. No. 17,508.

Neither the adjudication of bankruptcy nor the decree of the court upon the bankrupt's application for discharge can be impeached collaterally by reason of anything contained in the schedule or anything omitted from it, as the jurisdiction of the court is not founded upon it. Fuller v. Pease (1887) 144

Mass. 390, 11 N. E. 694; Graves v. Wright (1884) 53 Mich. 425, 19 N. W. 129.

8. List of creditors.-If the names and addresses of creditors are so illegibly written that the referee cannot determine with certainty who are the persons entitled to notice of the first meeting and where they are to be served, it is his duty to refuse to take any action until he has been furnished with a fair and legible copy of the list. In re Hall (D. C. 1868) 2 N. B. R. 192, Fed. Cas. No. 5,922.

A debt of a bankrupt due William J. Davidson is not discharged by scheduling it in the name of William F. Davison. Collins v. Davidson (1908) 34 Ohio Cir. Ct. R. 668.

The listing of a creditor by an initial instead of by his Christian name is not such an insufficient compliance with the requirements of the bankruptcy act as to deprive the bankrupt of the benefit of the order discharging provable debts. Kreitlein v. Ferger (1915) 238 U. S. 21, 35 Sup. Ct. 685, 59 L. Ed. 1184.

The list is to be deemed sufficient if the exercise of reasonable intelligence and common sense, brought to bear upon it, will prevent mistake as to the persons of the creditors or their addresses. Gatliff v. Mackey (1907) 31 Ky. Law Rep. 947, 104 S. W. 379; In re Orne (D. C. 1867) Fed. Cas. No. 10,582.

A creditor objecting that the bankrupt does not set forth a full list of his creditors, with their residences and the amounts due, must point out the omission. In re Plimpton (D. C. 1842) Fed. Cas. No. 11,227.

Under section 17 (post, § 9601), relating to the effect of discharge, held, that notice to mortgage creditor, who was not included in the bankrupt's schedule, by a third person, was not such as to discharge the debt. Wheeler v. Newton (1915) 154 N. Y. S. 431, 168 App. Div. 782.

A bankrupt is not estopped from alleging the invalidity of a judgment because he has placed it on his schedule in the list of claims against him. King v. Pickett (1880) 32 La. Ann. 1006. 9. Addresses of creditors.-The statements of the residences of creditors in the bankrupt's list should be such as will insure due delivery of notices to them by mail or service in person. In re Pulver (D. C. 1867) Fed. Cas. No. 11,466.

A schedule listing a creditor's residence as "Indianapolis, Ind.," without giving a street and house number, is prima facie at least a sufficient compliance with the requirement of the act in regard to showing the residences of creditors in the list, and such omission does not, as a matter of law, render the bankrupt's discharge inoperative. Kreitlein v. Ferger (1915) 238 U. S. 21, 35 Sup. Ct. 685, 59 L. Ed. 1184.

A question of diligence in ascertain

of

10. Statement and description debts.-The statement of the amount due to each creditor is sufficient if the sum and the date of the debt or judgment is given. In re Hill (D. C. 1867) Fed. Cas. No. 6,481.

A judgment due to a firm should be listed in the firm's name, without setting forth the names of its members, but giving their individual names will not vitiate the list. Anonymous (D. C. 1867) 1 N. B. R. 122, Fed. Cas. No. 457. And see New York Institution for Instruction of Deaf and Dumb v. Crockett (1907) 117 App. Div. 269, 102 N. Y. Supp. 412.

In listing a debt due to a newspaper, the name of its proprietor should be given, and not merely the name of the newspaper. Anonymous (D. C. 1843) 2 N. B. R. 141, Fed. Cas. No. 462.

Where a bankrupt in his schedule sets forth a debt represented by a promissory note to be due to one who is the equitable owner thereof though not the legal payee, it is sufficient. Ross-Lewin v. Goold (1904) 113 Ill. App. 499.

Where a judgment previously recovered against the bankrupt still appears of record as an unsatisfied obligation against him in favor of the judgment creditor, it is rightly included in his schedule as a debt due to that creditor, although it has actually been sold to another creditor, and the bankrupt is chargeable with knowledge of the sale. Sellers v. Bell (1899) 94 Fed. 801, 36 C. C. A. 502, 2 Am. Bankr. Rep. 529.

The bankrupt must state whether or not any note has been given, or any judgment rendered, for each of the debts listed, and whether or not any person is liable with him as a partner or joint contractor. In re Orne (D. C. 1867) Fed. Cas. No. 10,582.