i586 Eëd&kal repobxeb. �"No. 573. "Erik. Pa., October 12, 1875, �"Pay to Mr. J. Heffner, or bearer, five dollars in goods, and cbarge to �"$5. Eeie Eolling Mill Co." �The petitioners eacb hold a number of such orders, and they are the basis of their claims to preference. The peti- tioners were merchants at Erie, and upon the presentation to them of the said orders, by the operatives to whom they were issued, paid the latter the amount of the orders in goods. Under this state of faets is the elaim to preference which the petitioners set up well founded. It ia not pre- tended that they themselves are operatives or laborers. Can they be regarded as assignees of the operatives, or entitled to stand in the shoes of the latter by substitution ? It is certain that the petitioners bave no formai assignment of these claims, and there is nothing to show that the operatives intended to assign them. Such intention, it seems to me, is not to to be presumed. To keep such liens alive, in favor of parties paying the orders, might be highly prejudieial to the laborers ; for these orders, in the hands of the merchant pay- ing them, if still alive, might come in competition with the claims of the laborers themselves for preferences under the law. �In my judgment the true view of the case is this, that when the petitioners paid the orders in question by furnishing goods to the operatives, the labor claims were extinguished, and the Erie PioUing Mill Company became debtors to the petitioners, respectively, for the amount of goods furnished to the operatives pursuant to said orders. �And now, to-wit, February 5, 1880, the rules to show cause why the petitioners' claims should not be paid as preferred claims are discharged, and said petitions are dismissed. ��� �
