892 FEDEBAIi BEFORTEB. �In re Keaft and others, Bankrupts. �[District Court, 8. D. Mw Torh. -, 1880., �1. Bakkbuptct — DiscHARGB— EsTOPPEL. — The acceptance of a diyidend under an unlawful assignaient doea not estop a creditor from object- ing to the discharge of the assigner under subsequent proceedings in banliruptcy, where such creditor had no power to dissent from, repu- diate, or avoid such assignaient. �Jos. S. Bosworth, Jr., îoi bànkrupt. �JR. E. Prime, for creditor. �Choate, D. J, In this case a reliearîng has teen granted upon the question of the discharge of the bànkrupt Kraft, upon the suggestion that the court and counsel had entirely overiooked one point in the case, which might be decisive in his favor. The discharge was refused on the ground that the bànkrupt had made a general assignment for the benefit of creditors about two years and seven months before he filed his petition. The point now made is that the opposing cred- itors received dividends under the voluntary assignment, and have thereby affirmed its validity, and are estopped to set it up as a fraudaient conveyance to prevent a discharge. There is some evidence upon which it is claimed that one of the two opposing creditors virtually assented to the assign- ment at or before the time it was exeeuted. This was held not sufficient as showing their assent to it, The case cited upon this rehearing, and hereinafter referred to, might lead to a reoonsideration of this question if it could affect the resuit. But as it is conceded that no such assent, otherwise than by the acceptance of a dividend, is shown against the other opposing creditor, it is unnecessary to consider further the effect of that evidence. The dividend was paid to the opposing creditors about 15 months after the execution of the assignment. Is this such a ratification of the assignment as precludes the creditor from opposing the discharge of the assigner in a subsequent bankruptcy, on the ground of his making the general assignment ? Several cases are cited in ����
