The term " contract express or implied," in section 63 of the present Federal Bankruptcy Act,1 has been held to include not only genuine contracts, but also obligations of a quasi-contractual character.2 This includes cases in which the creditor was induced by the fraud of the bank-nipt to enter into a genuine contract. In a case of this sort the claim of the creditor is a provable debt and is, accordingly, barred by a discharge in bankruptcy.3 It also includes cases in which the debtor and creditor have entered into a genuine contract under which the debtor has acquired possession of property belonging to the creditor, and the debtor has thereupon wrongfully and fraudulently converted such property to his own use.4 A liability of this sort is barred by a discharge in bankruptcy, even though the creditor subsequently brings an action in trover on the theory of a wrongful conversion.5 In determining whether such an obligation is a so-called implied contract or not, the bankruptcy court is not bound by the decisions of the state court in which the cause of action has arisen, even though the state court holds that the right of action is in tort and not in quasi-contract.6 A claim of a creditor against the bankrupt for money wrongfully embezzled from the creditor by the bankrupt, is a claim based upon a so-called implied contract and is a provable debt.7