HALL ·v. camirrzsaun. 23
 crue within 10 years before the commencement of this suit; and the
replication in question to avoid this plea alleges, in substance, that the
defendants were,ion July 7, 1874, adjudged bankrupts by the United
States district court of this district; that plaintiffs proved their said debts
against the estate of the defendants in such bankruptcy proceedings on
the twentieth day of August, 1874, and that, from that time until the ~
twentieth day of May, 1882, when said district court refused to grant
the defendants a discharge, the plaintiffs were prohibited from bringing
suit on the causes of action in question; and excluding this period of
time when plaintiffs were so prohibited by law from maintaining any
' suit on these claims, the said causes of action did accrue to the plaintiff
within 10 years. '
Section 23, c. 83, Rev. St. Ill., which is the limitation act ofthe state
of Illinois, provides that when the commencement of an action is stayed
by injunctionfor order of a judge or court, or statutory prohibition, the
time of the continuance of the injunction or prohibition is not zpart of
the time limited for the commencement of the actions. V `
Thequestion presented, then, is, were the plaintiffs prohibited- by the
bankrupt law from bringing suit against the defendants upon these causes
of action pending the defendants} bankruptcy proceedings, and until their
right to a discharge from their debts by said proceedings was determined?
Section 5105 ofthe Revised Statutes of the United States, (title ‘-‘iBank-
ruptcy,") as amended by the seventh section of the act of June 22,1-874,
(18 StL? 179,) reads as follows: ,
“N0 creditor proving his debt or claim shall be allowed to maintain any
suit at lawzor in equity therefor against the bankrupt, but shall be deemed to
have waived all right of action against them; and all proceedings already com-
, l menced, or unsatisfied judgments already obtained thereon against the bank-
rupt, shall bedeerned to be discharged and surrendered thereby. But a cred-
itor proving his debt or claim shall not be held to have waived his right of
action or suit_ against the bankrupt, where a discharge has been refused, or
the proceedingshave been determined without a discharge." ' ` U _
I do not find that the express question raised by this demurrer has
ever been passed upon by the supreme court, but it seems to melan-
guage could hardly be plainer or more dehnite than this as the section
now stands amended. The amendment of 1874 consisted innadding to
the original section the last sentence, commencing with the word ‘fbut,"
after the word "thereby;" and whatever may have been the construc-
tion given by the judges to the original section 21 of the bankrupt law
of which section 5105 is a part, I think there can be no doubt that con-
gress intended to make it clear beyond question that a creditor who had
proved his claim against the bankrupt’s estate was not precluded from
maintaining an action against the bankrupt on that debt, or the unsat-
isfied portion of it, if the bankrupt should be denied a discharge, or if
the proceedings in bankruptcy should be determined without granting
a discharge.
Counsel for the defendants rely, in support of their demurrer, upon
Boynton v. Ball, 121 U. S. 457, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 981, a careful reading