of the facts. Depositions to prove debts existing in open account shall state when the debt became or will become due; and if it consists of items maturing at different dates the average due date shall be stated, in default of which it shall not be necessary to compute interest upon it. All such depositions shall contain an averment that no note has been received for such account, nor any judgment rendered thereon. Proofs of debt received by any trustee shall be delivered to the referee to whom the cause is referred." 239 U. S. 623; Flower v. Commercial Trust Co., C. C. A., 223 Fed. 318; Re Hudson Porcelain Co., 225 Fed. 325. It has been held that the failure to insert, at the head of the proof of claim, the title of the court is not a fatal defect. Re Blue Ridge Packing Co., 125 Fed. 619. Different claims by the same creditor need not be in

cluded in the same proof. Re Ball, 123 Fed. 164. The holder of several notes made by a bankrupt should prove them as a single claim, Frederick v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, C. C. A., 231 Fed. 667. A claim in the form of a petition which sets forth the matter required by the statute and order, when duly verified was allowed, Kilpatrick v. U. S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., C. C. A., 228 Fed. 587; but not a claim in the form of a letter to the receiver in bankruptcy; Re Thompson, 222 Fed. 167. A claim for interest owing at the time when the petition was filed may be included, Re McAusland, 235 Fed. 173; J. & S. Ferguson v. Lyle, C. C. A., 267 Fed. 817. If no date of a payment on account of the debt is specified, Fed. Prac. Vol. III-80

it will be presumed not to have been made within the period allowed by the statutes of limitations, Re Ballantine, 232 Fed. 271. The claim must be specific, and, if for several services or payments, it must be itemized. Re Scott, 93 Fed. 418; Re Globe Boat Co., 190 Fed. 92; Re United Wireless Telegraph Co., 201 Fed. 445. Under the Act of 1867, it was held: that a general statement of the consideration for goods, wares and merchandise" or "for hay, barley and board" was not sufficient; but that the kinds of goods, the quantity, the price, the approximate date of the sale and the time or period of the delivery should be stated. Re Elder, Fed. Cas. No. 4,326, 1 Sawy. 73. The statement that there was a consideration for a note is insufficient. Re Coventry Evans Furniture Co., 166 Fed. 516. So, where the sole statement of consideration was stated to be for "services, mdse., etc.," "bal. of wages," "for goods sold and delivered,'' and the like. Re Morris, 154 Fed. 211. A proof of claim was held to be insufficient when it set forth that the consideration was for legal services during several months, during which the claimant appeared for the bankrupt and prepared the schedules filed, without showing the time consumed, the nature of the other services rendered or anything from which their value could be determined. Re Hudson Porcelain Co., 225 Fed. 325. It has been held: that, where the bankrupt is charged as an indorser, notice of dishonor and any other facts necessary to establish his liability must be stated. Re Stevens, 104 Fed.

323; criticised in Remington on Bankruptcy, § 602; and that, where the claim is for a balance due on various collateral notes, upon which the bankrupt was naker or indorser, some of which became due after discount, the date of the discount, the amount advanced and the person to whom the advancement was made must be stated in the proof. Re Stevens, 104 Fed. 323. A mortgagee of property sold free of his encumbrance, who intervenes to prove his lien upon the proceeds, is not bound to prove his claim in the same manner as if it were one against the general estate of the bankrupt; but he need only plead and prove his debt and security in the manner required in an ordinary suit in equity. Re Goldsmith, 118 Fed. 763. The same rule seems to apply to a claimant for taxes. Re Kallak, 147 Fed. 276. 4 A proof of claim may be amended by leave of the court or of the referee, upon proof of an error or omission, due to inadvertence or to a mistake of fact or law. Hutchinson v. Otis, 190 U. S. 552, 555, 47 L. ed. 1179, 1181; Re Baxter, 12 Fed. 72; Re Myers, 99 Fed. 691; Re Roeber, C. C. A., 127 Fed. 122; Re Haskell, 128 Fed. 819; Re Robinson, 136 Fed. 994; Re Salvator Brewing Co., C. C. A., 193 Fed. 980; Re McCarthy Portable El. Co., 205 Fed. 986; § 646, infra. But see, Booth, 216 Fed. 57. Or because a preference has been set aside, Re Hamilton Automobile Co., C. C. A., 209 Fed. 596. By such an amendment, a claim may be increased, Re

Shiebler, 165 Fed. 363; Re Hamilton Automobile Co., C. C.. A., 209 Fed. 596; Re Soltmann, 238 Fed. 241; or the benefit of a lien preserved, Re Falls City Shirt Mfg. Co., 98 Fed. 592, contra, Re Wilder, 101 Fed. 104; an application may be made of the funds of the bank. rupt in the hands of claimant, Re Myers, 90 Fed. 691; or a claim for security, Re James Carothers & Co., 182 Fed. 501; Re Fisk & Robinson, 185 Fed. 974; or set off included, Re Progressive Wall Paper Corp., 240 Fed. 897, infra, § 648; or a new claimant may be substituted for one who made proof on his behalf, Re A. J. Ellis, Inc., 252 Fed. 483; or the claim may be conformed to the proof, Re Watertown Paper Co., C. C. A., 169 Fed. 252. A claim may be amended after the referee has recommended that a composition be accepted, Re Soloway & Katz, C. C. A., 211 Fed. 333. A claim may be amended more than a year after the adjudication. Re Faulkner, C. C. A., 161 Fed. 900; Re Kessler, C. C. A., 184 Fed. 51; Re Fairlamb, 199 Fed. 278; Re Basha, 200 Fed. 951. But an amendment bringing in a new cause of action cannot, under ordinary circumstances be made more than a year after the adjudication. Re McCallum v. McCallum, 127 Fed. 768 (where it was sought to amend a claim upon a promissory note, made by the firm, so as to charge, upon his indorsement thereof, the individual estate of one of the partners). See Hutchinson v. Otis, 190 U. S. 552, 555. Permission was given after the ex

as

piration of the year, to amend a claim in the form of a book account, so to base this upon promissory notes of the bankrupt. Brown v. O'Connell, C. C. A., 200 Fed. 229. A letter to a receiver or his attorney cannot be treated as an informal proof of a claim which can be supplemented by an amendment more than one year after the adjudication, Re Thompson, C. C. A., 227 Fed. 981; but the filing of an assignment within the statutory period was held to be sufficient for this. Bennett V. Am. Credit Indemity Co., C. C. A., 159 Fed. 624.

5 There is no need of filing checks with which loans were made, Re Keller, 252 Fed. 942; or book accounts, Re Gottlieb & Co., 245 Fed. 139. Where the payee of a note of the bankrupt, upon which payments by an endorser were endorsed filed such note with his proof of claim it was considered to have been filed on behalf of the endorser as well, Re Keller, 252 Fed. 942. It has been held that the fact that a written instrument is not filed with a proof of claim raises no presumption against its existence, when it is not required by the statute or general orders. Be Dresser, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 495. See

Kelsey v. Munson, C. C. A., 198 Fed. 841. Where no objection to a claim was made upon the ground that the original notes and mortgages, which were the basis thereof, were not attached thereto; it was subsequently presumed that the original securities were presented at the trial, or that their presentation was waived. Re Carter, 138 Fed. 846.

6 Re Loden, 184 Fed. 965; Re Strickland, 167 Fed. 867.

7 It has been held that the creditor may move to compel the referee to accept the claim, and that the formalities of an order and petition of review are unnecessary. Re John A. Baker Notion Co., 180 Fed. 922.

8 There is apparently a distinction between the proving of a claim under section 57a of the Bankruptcy Act and its allowance under section 57c, resulting in the right to prove a secured claim when the ultimate necessity for its allowance appears reasonably possible, even though it may turn out to be unnecessary because the security proves adequate to pay the debt in full." Emerine v. Terault, C. C. A., 219 Fed. 68, 71. Where in a consolidated proceeding against a

firm and one of the partners, the referee entered a general order allowing numerous claims without specifying whether the allowance was against the firm or the individual or both; this did not operate as an allowance against the former of a claim which in the proof was made against the latter alone, Adams v. Brown, C. C. A., 226 Fed. 688. The order of a referee allowing or disallowing a claim is a final judgment in the absence of review, Stearns Salt & Lumber Co. v. Hammond, C. C. A., 217 Fed. 559. The disallowance of a claim is res adjudicata against a subsequent suit thereupon, HargadineMcKittrick D. G. Co. v. Hudson, C. C. A., 122 Fed. 232; supra § 186j. But see Stearns Salt & Lumber Co. v. Hammond, C. C. A., 217 Fed. 559. An allowance of a claim against the individual estate of a partner is not a determination of priorities as between firm and individual creditors. International Agr. Corp. v. Cary, C. C. A., 240 Fed.

101.

9 Before the election of a trustee, objection to a claim may be made by any creditor, Re Lafferty & Bro., 122 Fed. 558. See Re Lipman, 94 Fed. 353; Re Sully, C. C. A., 152 Fed. 619; or by stockholders of a bankrupt who are liable to an assessment, Rosenbaum v. Dutton, C. C. A., 203 Fed. 838; or by the bankrupt, Re Ankeny, 100 Fed. 614; Re Lane, 125 Fed. 772; Re French, 181 Fed. 583; but not by a debtor of the estate, Re Sully, C. C. A., 152 Fed. 619. The referee may disal

low the claim of his own motion, Re James Dunlap Carpet Co., 171 Fed. 532. It has been held that, after the election and qualification of the trustee, all objections and applications for the re-examination of claims should be made in his name, Re Lewensohn, C. C. A., 121 Fed. 538; Re Knox Automobile Co., 229 Fed. 241. Where no objection was raised by the claimant because the petition was made by creditors instead of the trustee, until subsequent to the order of the referee, it was not disturbed, Re Canton Iron & Steel Co., 197 Fed. 767. See Re Mexico Hardware Co., 197 Fed. 650. Defects in the form of objections and applications for the reconsideration of the claim, are waived by the taking of the testimony without objection. Orr v. Park, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 683; Re Effinger, 184 Fed. 724; Re Canton Iron & Steel Co., 197 Fed. 767. Upon the refusal of the trustee to move for the re-examination of a claim he may, in a proper case, be ordered to do

So.

Chatfield v. O'Dwyer, C. C. A., 101 Fed. 797; McDaniel v. Stroud, C. C. A., 106 Fed. 486; Re Stern, C. C. A., 144 Fed. 956. It has been held that, in such a case, the creditor may himself proceed, Re Little River Lumber Co., 101 Fed. 558; Re Sully, C. C. A., 152 Fed. 619, upon indemnifying the trustee against his costs; Chatfield ▼. O'Dwyer, C. C. A., 101 Fed. 797; Re Sully, C. C. A., 152 Fed. 619; Re Bailey, 151 Fed. 953; but the proper practice seems to be for the creditor to make his objections or

application in the name of the trustee by leave of the court. McDaniel v. Stroud, C. C. A., 106 Fed. 486; Re Sully, C. C. A., 152 Fed. 619; Re Bailey, 151 Fed. 953; Re Mexico Hardware Co., 197 Fed. 650, holding that a creditor may move in his own name for a reconsideration of the claim. A claim may be disallowed, or if allowed may be reexamined and expunged, because it is barred by the statute of limitations, Re Lipman, 94 Fed. 353; and because the claimant has joined with it other claims that are fraudulent, Re Flick, 105 Fed. 503; but not, it has been held, because it was acquired from the original claimant after the adjudication of bankruptcy for the purpose of controlling the proceedings, Re Headley, 97 Fed. 765. It is the better practice to make objections to claims in writing; Re Royce Dry Goods Co., 133 Fed. 100; but this is not indispensable, Re Cannon, 133 Fed. 837; unless the referee so requires, Re Cannon, 133 Fed. 837. An oral objection is sufficient when a claimant makes no objection to the form thereof, Orr v. Park, C. C. A., 183 Fed. 683. They need not be under oath, Re Wooten, 118 Fed. 670. They should be sufficiently explicit to indicate to the claimant the nature and character thereof," Royce Dry Goods Co., 133 Fed. 100, 101; they may be amended; Re Royce Dry Goods Co., 133 Fed, 100; and an amendment may be allowed to conform to evidence, which has been admitted without objection. Ibid. The statute of limitations may be interposed against the allowance of a claim by the trustee, Re Wooten, 118 Fed. 670; or, it

Re

seems, by any creditor, Re Lafferty & Bros., 122 Fed, 558; Remington on Bankruptcy, § 786. The inclusion of a claim in Schedule A by bankrupt does not take it out of the statute of limitations, so far as the trustee and other creditors are concerned, Re Lipman, 94 Fed. 353; Re Resler, 95 Fed. 804; Re Wooten, 118 Fed. 670. A creditor may attack a judgment as fraudulent and collusive, when proof of these is of fered, Chandler v. Thompson, C. C. A., 120 Fed. 940. The presentation of a deposition proving a debt, in accordance with the rules and the statute, establishes a prima facie case; Whitney v. Dresser, 200 U. S. 532, 50 L. ed. 584, affirming Re Dresser, C. C. A., 135 Fed. 495; West v. W. A. McLaughlin & Co.'s Trustee, C. C. A., 162 Fed. 124. See Re Halsey El. Generator Co.. 163 Fed. 118; Re Elk Valley Coal Mining Co., 210 Fed. 386; Re United

Wireless Telegraph Co., 201 Fed. 445; Board of Commerce of Ann Arbor, Mich., V. Security Trust Co., C. C. A., 225 Fed. 454; International Agr. Corp. v. Cary, C. C. A., 240 Fed. 101; Re Arthur E. Pratt Company, 252 Fed. 917; except perhaps when made by the bankrupt's wife, Re Crumbling, 214 Fed. 503; but see Moore v. Crandall, C. C. A, 205 Fed. 689; or near relation, Re Blanchard, 253 Fed. 758; when no documentary evidence is therein contained; but not a prima facie case for the allowance of a priority, when that is claimed, Re Jones, 151 Fed. 108, 18 Am. B. R. 206. If the claimant is present, subject to cross-examination, no testimony by him, in addition to his deposition, is required,