Charges for rent of offices used by the assignee will only be allowed so far as they were necessary in the conduct of the business of the estate. Ibid.

The court allowed the expenses of the assignee in finishing the goods for sale when it was clear that the estate would be benefited thereby and that the work would be done in a reasonable time. Foster v. Ames, 1 Low. 313; 9 Fed. Cas. 527.

Under the Act of 1867 an assignee was only allowed to charge for professional and clerical services upon an allowance by the court. In re Noyes, 6 N. B. R. 277; 18 Fed. Cas. 465.

An allowance for services will only be made upon the presentation of a bill after they have been rendered. In re Hughes, 2 Ben. 85; 12 Fed. Cas. 829.

Fees for the services of an attorney may be allowed but not without satisfactory evidence showing that they were actually rendered and that there was a necessity for legal aid. In re Tully, 3 N. B. R. 82; 24 Fed. Cas. 315; In re Cook, 17 Fed. Rep. 328.

It is discretionary with the court whether it shall allow the assignee additional compensation for his services as attorney where such services were rendered in preserving the estate for the creditors. In re Welge, 1 Fed. Rep. 216.

It was held, under the Act of 1867, that where creditors brought a suit against the assignee and were defeated and the estate was insufficient to pay both their costs and the costs and counsel fees of the assignee, the latter was entitled to preference, notwithstanding the creditors proceeded in good faith. Gazin v. Norton, 38 Fed. Rep. 200.

A creditor on whose petition a debtor is adjudged bankrupt is entitled to receive the amount paid his attorney for prosecuting in the proceedings out of the assets of the estate before a dividend is declared; but he is not entitled to expenses for time and money spent in traveling to and from the court and attending the trial. In re King, 4 Biss. 319; 14 Fed. Cas. 503. [Notes respecting the expenses of administering estates will be found under section 64.]

PROVABLE CLAIMS.

63. Debts Which May be Proved. (a.) Debts of the bankrupt may be proved and allowed against his estate which are (1) a fixed liability, as evidenced by a judgment or an instrument in writing, absolutely owing at the time of the filing of the petition against him, whether then payable or not, with any interest thereon which would have been recoverable at that date or with a rebate of interest upon such as were not then payable and did not bear interest; (2) due as costs taxable against an involuntary bankrupt who was at the time. of the filing of the petition against him plaintiff in a cause of action which would pass to the trustee and which the trustee declines to

prosecute after notice; (3) founded upon a claim for taxable costs. incurred in good faith by a creditor before the filing of the petition in an action to recover a provable debt; (4) founded upon an open account, or upon a contract express or implied; and (5) founded upon provable debts reduced to judgments after the filing of the petition and before the consideration of the bankrupt's application for a discharge, less costs incurred and interests accrued after the filing of the petition and up to the time of the entry of such judgments.

(b.) Unliquidated claims against the bankrupt may, pursuant to application to the court, be liquidated in such manner as it shall direct, and may thereafter be proved and allowed against his estate.

Claims Which Can be Proved.

A claim for infringement of patent is provable in bankruptcy. In re Boston Iron Works, 29 Fed. Rep. 783.

Liability for stock subscription is a provable debt in bankruptcy against the subscriber. Glenn v. Abell, 39 Fed. Rep. 10.

Rent accrued at date of filing the petition may be proved as a debt against the estate. From that time to the surrender of the possession, the assignee should pay the rent. In re Hufnagel, 12 N. B. R. 554; 12 Fed. Cas. 819.

Under the circumstances of the case cited the landlord was permitted to prove against the estate of his tenant's assignee in bankruptcy damages for the breach of the covenant of the lease to pay rent subsequent to adjudication. In re Orne, 12 Fed. Rep. 779.

A debtor in contemplation of bankruptcy procured a friend to buy up a part of his indebtedness at ten cents on the dollar. Held, that the creditors could prove up such claims against the bankrupt's estate, notwithstanding these transactions. In re St. Ins. Co., 16 Fed. Rep. 756.

The bankrupts themselves, as administrators of an estate, may prove an equitable debt arising from a loan of funds from the estate of their decedent, notwithstanding the loan was unlawfully made; and the amount for which the administrators are liable should first be ascertained by a proceeding in probate. Warner v. Spooner, 3 Fed. Rep. 890.

Dealing in "puts" being held in Illinois to be gaming, money actually paid to the bankrupt for "puts" was held to be recoverable on proof of claim in bankruptcy. Ex parte Young, 6 Biss. 53; 30 Fed. Cas. 828 (1874).

The United States court for Maine allowed the proof of a claim for liquor sold to the bankrupt in New York to be resold by the bankrupt in Maine in violation of the prohibitory liquor law, notwithstanding the claim could have been recovered in the courts of Maine. In re Murray, 1 Hask. 267; 17 Fed. Cas. 1041.

The bankruptcy court has nothing to do with rent which accrued after

the bankruptcy. For that which accrued before the commencement of proceedings, the same being a provable debt and secured by lien, the court should entertain jurisdiction. Wylie v. Smith, 2 Woods, 673; 30 Fed. Cas. 732 (1875).

Every debt which a person can, either in his own name or in the name of any other person, recover at law or in equity is a provable debt in bankruptcy. In re Jordan et al., 2 Fed. Rep. 319.

A balance found due on accounts current between merchants is a debt that may be proved in bankruptcy. In re Stanton, 22 Fed. Cas. 1064. Where a dividend has been declared in favor of a creditor, and he has received it, or has a present right to receive it, under a trust for the benefit of creditors prior to the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, he can prove the full amount of his claim against the estate of the bankrupt. In re Hamilton, 1 Fed. Rep. 800.

A debt arising from the fraud or embezzlement of the debtor is provable in bankruptcy. In re Rundle, 2 N. B. R. 115; 1 Chi. Leg. News, 30; 21 Fed. Cas. 5 (1868).

The purchaser of claims against a bankrupt who bought them with the intention of stopping the proceedings, and to give the debtor further time, may prove such claims and participate in the dividends. It is necessary, however, that he should take an assignment; a receipt of payment is not sufficient. In re Strachan, 3 Biss. 181; 23 Fed. Cas. 212. Subscriptions in aid of a college may be proved in bankruptcy where the donee had performed its part of the undertaking. Sturges v. Colby et al., 2 Flip. 163; 23 Fed. Cas. 308.

A wife may share in the estate of a bankrupt husband for money that she had allowed him to use in his own business. Van Kleeck v. Miller et al., 19 N. B. R. 484; 28 Fed. Cas. 1025.

It was held in Massachusetts that a woman who lived in that state separate and apart from her husband could become guarantor as to a debt not connected with her business, and that the debt could be proved against her in bankruptcy. In re Ruddell, 2 Low. 124; 20 Fed. Cas. 1305. Held, under section 19 of the Act of 1867, that a bill for merchandise might be proved, although the debt were contracted by fraud and would not be covered by a discharge under section 33. In re Rosenberg, 3 Ben. 14; 20 Fed. Cas. 1194.

The foundation of voluntary proceedings is indebtedness due and payable under the Act against the debtor. Whatever debts may be proved in voluntary, may be proved in involuntary cases. In re Nickodemus, 2 Chi. Leg. News, 49; 18 Fed. Cas. 222.

After, and not before, the original debt has been proved, the creditor may prove the costs of an attachment suit commenced in good faith, and with no intention to defeat the Act, before the filing of the petition; but costs incurred after the commencement of the bankruptcy proceedings were disallowed. In re Preston, 5 N. B. R. 293; 19 Fed. Cas. 1289.

The claimant had entered into a contract to serve the bankrupt company for ten years, and had taken a bond in the sum of $10,000 for the

performance of the contract on the part of the corporation. It was held that he could have his damages proved and allowed against the estate of the company in bankruptcy, and that it was no objection that they were difficult of assessment. Ex parte Pollard, 2 Low. 411; 19 Fed. Cas. 942. A debt existing at the time of the adjudication, though not then due, was held to be provable under the Act of 1867. Phelps v. Clasen, Woolw. 204; 19 Fed. Cas. 445.

A creditor was allowed to prove a claim in bankruptcy that he had set up in defense to an action brought against him by the bankrupt, in which action he offered no evidence in support of his defense, and the bankrupt recovered judgment. In re People's Safe & Savings Inst., 10 Ben. 38; 19 Fed. Cas. 212.

The father-in-law of the bankrupt undertook to buy up all of the claims against him to prevent further proceedings. Failing in this, he offered to prove up one of the claims that he had purchased, and the court allowed him to prove it. In re Pease et al., 6 N. B. R. 173; 19 Fed. Cas. 67.

A bankrupt having been discharged by a composition, subsequently gave a note to one of his creditors for his old debt. Having contracted new debts, and gone into bankruptcy again, it was held that the former debt was discharged by operation of law, and hence was a sufficient consideration for the new note; and that the holder of the note should participate in dividends equally with new creditors. In re Merriman, 18 N. B. R. 411; 17 Fed. Cas. 131.

An equitable debt was held to be provable in bankruptcy, under the Act of 1867. In re Blandin, 1 Low. 543; 3 Fed. Cas. 669.

The plaintiff deposited some wheat with the bankrupt before the filing of his petition, and the latter converted it to his own use. Such a debt is a claim or demand provable against the bankrupt's estate, and for which the assignee, as such, cannot be sued, except the same be rejected by the district judge on objections by the assignee, as prescribed in section 23 of the Bankrupt Act of 1867. Adams v. Meyers, 1 Saw. 396; 1 Fed. Cas. 137.

The wife of the bankrupt had received money from her father's estate and placed it in her husband's hands. Subsequently she drew all but $700. Under the circumstances of the case, it was decided that she could prove a claim for that amount, but without interest. In re Bigelow et al., 3 Ben. 198; 3 Fed. Cas. 347.

An insuree of a fire insurance company is entitled to share in the dividends for any loss occurring before the final dividend, notwithstanding the loss occurred after adjudication. In re American P. G., etc., Ins. Co., 12 N. B. R. 56; 1 Fed. Cas. 716.

An insurance policy contained a covenant to repay part of the premium in the event of the cancellation of the policy. A claim founded upon this covenant was held provable in bankruptcy. In re Independent Ins. Co., 2 Low. 187; 13 Fed. Cas. 20.

An administrator who had used the funds of the estate in business of

the firm died, and the firm became bankrupt. Thereafter an administratrix de bonis non was appointed. It was held that she could prove the claim against the separate estate of the former administrator, and against the firm. In re Jordan et al., 2 Fed. Rep. 319.

Where the funds of an estate were used by a partnership of which the administrator was a member, with the knowledge of the other partners, it was held that the firm and its members became jointly and severally liable for such funds. Ibid.

A partner who has received a preference may nevertheless be allowed to make proof of firm debts that he has paid or assumed. In re Stephens, 3 Biss. 187; 22 Fed. Cas. 1275.

A firm may prove against the separate estate of one of the members a claim for property of the firm fraudulently converted by such partner; but to warrant such proof there must be something more than a mere abstraction of funds. In re Hamilton, 1 Fed. Rep. 800.

A firm indorses the note of one of its members and becomes bankrupt before its maturity. Held, that no protest or notice of protest is necessary to make the note provable in bankruptcy against the firm, on the ground that the knowledge of the maker is notice to all the parties. In re Paul, 16 N. B. R. 476; 21 Fed. Cas. 30 (1877).

A member of a former copartnership can prove a claim for the fraudulent misappropriation of firm funds as if no partnership existed. Sigsby v. Willis, 3 Ben. 371; 22 Fed. Cas. 112.

The circuit court for the district of New York decided that the owner of several notes all made for firm debts, but some executed by the firm and indorsed by the partners, and others made by the partners, may prove the former against the firm, and the latter against the individual assets. Mead v. National Bank of Fayetteville, 6 Blatchf. 180; 16 Fed. Cas. 1277.

Whether or not there are any firm assets, a copartnership debt can be proved against a single member of the firm on his separate petition. In re Freear, 2 Ben. 467; 9 Fed. Cas. 738.

A. held a note of a bankrupt firm, which it had secured by delivering to him notes of third persons, indorsed by the bankrupts, for an amount greater than the secured note. The firm, and the makers of the notes given as security, became bankrupts. The court decided that the holder might surrender the note of the bankrupt firm, and prove on their indorsements of the collateral notes for the amount of the debt of the bankrupts to him. He might also prove the full amount against the makers of the collateral notes, receiving in dividends only the amount due on the original note. Ex parte Farnsworth, 1 Low. 497; 8 Fed. Cas. 1055.

The general rule in bankruptcy is that there can be no proof of claims between the joint and separate estate of partners, unless there is a surplus of the joint estate to be divided. In re Lane et al., 2 Low. 333; 14 Fed. Cas. 1070.

A married woman furnished the money which was her husband's contribution to the capital stock of a partnership. Under the terms of the