The term "provable debts" includes all liabilities which arise on contract if the amount thereof is fixed at the time of the proceedings in bankruptcy, or if the amount thereof can be liquidated.1 The term "provable debts" includes amounts due under contracts,2 such as loans 3 and liabilities on negotiable instruments.4 The fact that the party who has lent money to a bankrupt has borrowed such money from a third person, does not prevent the claim from being a provable debt belonging to the party who lent to the bankrupt.5 The amount which is due under a contract for buying and selling goods and for dividing the profit and loss between the parties is a provable debt if such amount is susceptible of liquidation.6 Liability for breach of a contract is a provable debt if the amount thereof can be liquidated.7 Accordingly, a right of action for breach of an express warranty in a sale of personalty is a provable claim.8 The liability of the bankrupt upon a warranty contained in a deed of realty is a provable claim if such covenant is broken at the time of such proceedings in bankruptcy.9 Judgment in an action for breach of promise is a provable claim.10 If the bankrupt has entered into a contract to deliver certain property on demand in the future, his bankruptcy prevents him from performing such contract;11 and accordingly such obligation is regarded as a provable debt on the theory that bankruptcy is a breach or a renunciation of such promise.12 On the other hand, a contract by which one of several persons who purchase timber land together, warrants the other purchasers that there is a certain quantity of timber thereon, does not amount to an implied promise on his part to reimburse them against loss in case there is less than the specified amount of timber on such land; and accordingly such claim is not a provable debt in bankruptcy.13

1 United States. In re Silverman, 101 Fed. 219; In re Stern, 116 Fed. 604; James v. Gray, 131 Fed. 401, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 321; In re Neff, 157 Fed. 67, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 349; Ohio Valley Bank v. Mack, 163 Fed. 155, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 184; In re Lyons Beet Sugar Refining Co., 192 Fed. 445.

Alabama. Pearce v. Fisher, 170 Ala. 456, 54 So. 164.

Kentucky. Dycus v. Brown, 135 Ky. 140, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 190, 121 S. W. 1010.

Indiana. Sweaney v. Baugher, 166 Ind. 557, 77 N. E. 1083.

Texas. Blackwell v. Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 454.

See also, Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U. S. 340, 47 L. ed. 1084; Crawford v. Burke, 195 U. S. 176, 49 L. ed. 147; Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird Co.; 212 U. S. 445, 53 L. ed. 591; Zavelo v. Reeves, 227 U. S. 625, 57 L. ed. 676; Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U. S. 549, 59 L. ed.

713; Sibley v. Nason, 196 Mass. 125, 12 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1173, 81 N. E. 887.

"Within the intendment of the law, provable debts include all liabilities of the bankrupt founded on contract, express or implied, which at the time of the bankruptcy were fixed in amount or susceptible of liquidation." Williams v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 236 U. S. 549, 59 L. ed. 713 [citing, Dunbar v. Dunbar, 190 U. S. 340, 47 L. ed. 1084; Crawford v. Burke, 195 U. S. 176, 49 L. ed. 147; Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird Co., 212 U. S. 445, 53 L. ed. 591, and Zavelo v. Reeves, 227 U. S. 625, 57 L. ed. 676].

2 In re Glick, 184 Fed. 967.

3 Coder v. Arts, 152 Fed. 943, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 372; Ohio Valley Bank v. Mack, 163 Fed. 155, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 184.

4 In re Kyte, 164 Fed. 302; Black-well v. Farmers' & Merchants' National Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 76 S. W. 454.

Equitable obligations may be provable debts,14 including a loan made by a married woman out of her separate estate to a partnership of which her husband was a member;15 and the bankruptcy court will allow such claim, although the state courts may not recognize its existence.16

If the principal of the debt is a provable debt, the interest thereon is also a valid claim.17

5 Ohio Valley Bank v. Mack, 163 Fed. 155, 24 L. R. A. (N.S.) 184.

6 Dycus v. Brown, 135 Ky. 140, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 190, 121 S. W. 1010.

7 Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird Co., 212 U. S. 445, 53 L. ed. 591; In re National Wire Corporation, 160 Fed. 631.

8 Frederic L. Grant Shoe Co. v. W. M. Laird Co., 212 U. S. 445, 53 L. ed. 591.

9Sweaney v. Baugher, 166 Ind. 557, 77 N. E. 1083.

10 Bond v. Milliken, 134 la. 447, 120 Am. St. Rep. 440, 109 N. W. 774.

11 See Sec. 2938.

12 In re Swift, 112 Fed. 315; In re Pettingill, 137 Fed. 143; In re Neff, 157 Fed. 57, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 349.

13 Switzer v. Henking, 158 Fed. 784, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1151.

14 James v. Gray, 131 Fed. 401, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 321.

15 James v. Gray, 131 Fed. 401, 1 L. R,.A. (N.S.) 321.

16 James v. Gray, 131 Fed. 401, 1 L. R. A. (N.S.) 321.

17 Coder v. Arts, 152 Fed. 943, 15 L. R. A. (N.S.) 372.