744
91
FEDEll:t"-L.REPORTER.
, In re SUGENBEIMER. (District Court, S. D. New. York. January 9,1899.) BANKRtiPTCy,:,;.-RllOOF OF CLAIMS SUPREME COURT RULES. FOREIGN CONSUL POWER OF ATTORNEY-
In vle vv pf. the provision of. section 20 of the. bankrupt act of 1898, .a]lowing· oaths' to be administered by diplomatic or consular officers in ·'any' foreign- country, held, that an acknOWledgment of a. power of attorney bet6rea 'foreign consul wassuflicient to authol'lze the proof of the creditor's claim before the refereeirule21 of the supreme court (18 Sup. a case; also that a power duly to either of three persons as substitutes,. but acknowledged before one ot them, might be lawfully executed by either of the other two.
In Bankruptcy. ",';F:W. & A.E;Hinr!chs, for neorge O. Mecke.& 00; ".,,' , , ' ; "
.tJiStrict The referee in charge .has certified to the 'eourt for decision ,the question whether certain powers of attorney had been properly executed so as to allow a vote' by proxy upon of George C" Mecke & Co,"ofBremen, Germany. ban'krupt:, Thecredit.6rftrm executf;!d the United StatelllfOI\sul l:i.t BrelDeI\ on February 12, 1897, .a very broad power of ,attorney, which I find was sufficient to authorize, proof, of their clttim !in'bankruptcy, linda vote in the bankruptcy proceedings, either by the attorneys, or by their substitutes, if the were properly eiteeuted. It that rule 21 of the, supreme court in bankruptcy (18 Sup., Qt. :vii.) l!\ubd. 5,provides only that "the execution of any letter of attorney to, represent a creditor * · · may be proved or acknowltdged, before a referee or .a ,United States commissioner, or a notary; public;" but does not admit proof or aclmowledgment before a foreigh -eonsuI. The langUage of the rule, it will be observed, is· not exclusive, and the different clauses taken togetherseern to indicate that the proof of claims of fqreign creditors was not within the contemplation of the court in framing this part of the.twel;lty-first rule.. Section 20 of the actof congresJl, provides that "oaths" required by the act may be administered ,,* · · (3) by diplomatic or consular. ,officers of the United States in any foreign country." It is hardly to be supposed that the COUil't could have intended to exclude the proof of foreign letters of attorney before such officers as United States consuls, when these are JXpressly empowered by th.e act to administer oaths in bankruptcy,proceedings. I therefore decide that the acknowledgment of this power of attorney was sufficient. 2. Macke & Co. of New York, the attorneys named in the abo've power of attorney, by Hugo Volkening, one of its members, executed on December 28, 1898, in New York, a letter of attorney appointiJig three substitutes to vote at creditors' meetings as proxies for the Bremen firm, and acknowledged it before E. A. Pfeffer, one of the 'substitutes. This power authorizes the three substitutes or "either one of them" to vote at creditors' meetings upon the claim of the
IN RE CAMP.
745
Bremen firm. I think the acknowledgment before Pfeffer was irregular as respects him. I see no reason, however, why it should not be valid as respects either of the others, so that either of the other two substitutes may lawfully act under it. Ordered accordingly. In re CAMP et al. (DIstrict Court, N. D. Georgia. February 9. 1899.) 1. BANKRUPTCy-ExEMPTIONS-SETTING APART BY TR{;STEE.
Under Bankruptcy Act 1898, § 47, it is the duty of the trustee to Bet apart the bankrupt's exemptions as soon as practicable after his appointment, without waiting until such exemptions shall have been allowed and set apart by state officers, according to the procedure prescribed by the laws of the state.
2.
SAlilE-PARTNERSHIP ASSETS.
In Georgia, in case of the bankruptcy of a firm, a partner who has no individual property Is entitled to exemptions out of the partnership assets,provided he has an Interest in such assets to the amount and extent of the exemption claimed, although the firm property Is not sufficient to pay the firm debts. On the question of the right of a partner to have set apart to him, out of the partnership assets, the exemptions allowed by the law of the state, the federal court, sitting in bankruptcy, wlll follow the rule settled and established by the decisions of the supreme court of the state.
8.
SAME-FOLLOWING STATE DECISIONS.
4.
SAME-JURISDICTION OF EXEMPT PROl'EHTY.
When the bankrupt's exemptions have been set apart by the trustee, and his action thereon approved by the bankruptcy court, that court has no further control over the exempt property, and wlll not retain jurisdiction over it for the purpose of enforcing the rights of a creditor holding a note In which the bankrupt has waived his rights of homestead and exemption.
In Bankruptcy. On exceptions to ruling of referee in the bankruptcy of H. A. & B. T. Camp. Alex. & Victor Smith and Maddox & Terrell, for petitioning creditors. I H. A. Hall, for bankrupts. NEWMAN, District Judge. The trustee in this case set apart to B. T. Camp, one of the above·named bankrupt firm, out of the part· nership personal property, certain articles valued at the amount allowed by the state exemption laws as his exemption under the provisions of the bankrupt law. This action was approved by the ref· eree. Exceptions were filed to the action of the referee, and the matter is brought before the district court for determination. Several questions are involved, and must be determined before a proper disposition of this matter can be reached. The first question is as to whether the exemption allowed by section 6 of the bankrupt act is to be set apart by the trustee originally, or whether it must have been first set apart, in this state at least, in accordance with the provisions of the state law, by the ordi,· nary of the county. While this question might be one of some difficulty under section 6 of the bankrupt act, which provides that "this· act