170 TEDEBAL REPOBTEB. �In re Ekings, Bankrupt. (District Court, D. New Jersey. February 23, 1881.) �1. BAMKHtrpTCY — Pkoofs of Dbbt— Dischaege— Act of Junb 22, 1874, �Proofs of debt, flled -with the regiater after the application of the bankrupt for his discharge, should be counted, under the provisions of section 9 of the amendaient of June 22, 1874, in ascertaining the assent of one-third in number and one-fourth in value of the bank- rupt's creditors. �2. Same— Pbctiniakt Considebation— Discharge, �A promise by a bankrupt to pay his creditor " all he ever owed him when he got able," upon condition that he would assent to his dis- charge, constitutes 'a pecuniary consideration or obligation sufflcient to defeat the right of the bankrupt to a dischargo. �8. CONTRACT— CONSIDEEATION— MOBAL OBLIGATION. �A moral obligation to pay a debt constitutes a sufflcient considera- tion to support a paroi promise at common law. — [Ed. �Specifications against Discharge. �. Thomas D. Hoxaey, for bankrupt, �H. A. Williams, for creditors. �Nixon, D. J. Yarious specifications are filed against the discharge of the bankrupt, but when explained they all seem to revolve around the methods resorted to, and the expedients adopted by his attorney to procure the requisite one-fourth of his creditors in number, and one-third in value, to consent to the discharge. The application for the discharge was filed June 17, 1879, and the order upon the creditors to show cause why the same should not be granted was returnable on the twenty -second of July following. On the day before the return of the same, to-wit, on the twenty-first of July, four new proofs of claim were made and filed with the register : (1) One by John C. G. Kobertson, who had already put in a proof for upwards of $1,200, and who now proved an addi- tional claim for $300, consisting of two promissory notes and a check, which had been procured without consideration from some faithless creditors, who had not deemed them worth the expense of proving ; (2) one by Joseph Parker, the father-in- law of the bankrupt, and who paid one Thomas Beverage $25 ��� �
