Casavant v. BorekaCasavant v. Boreka
This is an action of contract in which an attachment was made of chattels which the sheriff still holds. The defendant showed that pending the action he had been petitioned into involuntary bankruptcy; that before any adjudication of bankruptcy he had offered a composition, under § 12 of the bankruptcy act (U. S. C. Title 11, § 30); that the composition was confirmed by the bankruptcy court as provided in that section; and that the plaintiff filed a proof of claim for the full amount of her claim and accepted her dividend under the composition.
The plaintiff concedes that she cannot obtain a judgment enforceable against the defendant personally. Section 14 of the bankruptcy act (IT. S. C. Title 11, § 32 [c]) provides that “The confirmation of a composition shall discharge the bankrupt from his debts, other than those agreed to be paid by the terms of the composition and those not affected by a discharge.” In re Kornbluth, 65 Fed. (2d) 400. But she contends that she is entitled to a judgment which can be enforced against the attached chattels. The judge,
It is true that a debt is not extinguished by the confirmation of a composition any more than by an ordinary discharge in bankruptcy. In re Kornbluth, 65 Fed. (2d) 400. The bankrupt may waive his discharge, a surety is not discharged, and a valid lien securing the debt may be enforced. McClintic-Marshall Co. v. New Bedford,
But it does not follow that an attachment is unaffected by the composition. The lien of an attachment against an insolvent is lost if the defendant is adjudged bankrupt upon a petition filed within four months after the attachment. Bankruptcy act, § 67 (f) (U. S. C. Title 11, § 107 p]). Straton v. New,
There is no suggestion in the record or in argument, that the defendant was not insolvent when the attachment was made (Liberty National Bank v. Bear,
Order dismissing report affirmed.