and the courts of the state in which the assignment is made may restrain him from violating his estoppel by actions in the other states. Kendall v. McClure Coke Co., 182 Pa. St. 1 (37 Atl. Rep. 823; 61 Am. St. Rep, 688). "Insolvent laws of one state cannot discharge the contracts of citizens of other states, because they have no extraterritorial operation, and consequently the tribunal sitting under them, unless in cases where a citizen of such other state voluntarily becomes a party to the proceeding, has no jurisdiction in the case. Legal notice cannot be given, and consequently there can be no legal obligation to appear, and, of course, there can be no legal default." Scamman v. Bonslett, 118 Cal. 93 (50 Pac. Rep. 272; 62 Am. St. Rep. 226). Citing, Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223; Rhodes v. Borden, 67 Cal. 7 (6 Pac. Rep. 850); Bedell v. Scruton, 54 Vt. 493; Bean v. Loryea, 81 Cal. 151 (22 Pac. Rep. 513).

Sec. 84. Validity of assignments. The fact that an assignment reserves property from its operation, does not render it void as to property conveyed. Mansur & Tibbitts Imp. Co. v. Wood, 63 Ark. 362 (38 S. W. Rep. 898). A deed of assignment will not be held invalid on account of the omission of property possessing no value, and which if included in the conveyance would prove to be a burden and expense to the trust instead of a profit or benefit. And a debtor may impose upon his creditors the condition that those who participate in the fund shall release him from the residue of their demands, although the deed give preferences. Long v. Meriden Brittania Co., 94 Va. 594 (27 S. E. Rep. 499). Fla. Laws 1889, ch. 3891, prohibits both preferential and partial assignments; and an assignment by a partnership firm of only the joint or partnership property and not embracing the individual property of the members of the firm, is void upon its face. Sheppard v. Reeves, 39 Fla. 53 (21 So. Rep. 774). Particular conveyances held void under Iowa Code, § 2115, declaring that no general assignment shall be valid. unless made for the benefit of all creditors. Elwell v. Kimball, 102 Ia. 720 (69 N. W. Rep. 286). Applying Va. Code, § 2442, it is held that a trust deed for the benefit of creditors is not fraudulent because it provides for the trustee carrying

on the debtor's business and does not in express terms provide for a sale by the trustee of the property conveyed, when required so to do by the creditors secured. Taylor v. Mahoney, 94 Va. 508 (27 S. E. Rep. 107).

Sec. 85. Formal requisites-Construction. Applying the statutory provision of Minnesota, that a widow's right to one-third in the real estate of her husband, is "subject in its just proportion, with other real estate, to the payment of such debts of the deceased as are not paid from the personal estate," it is held that a married man's wife need not join with him in the deed of assignment of all his nonexempt property for the benefit of his creditors; and deeds by the assignee in the execution of such trust conveyed complete title, and the wife has an inchoate interest only in the land, if any, which remains undisposed of after the trust is fully executed. Merrill v. Security Trust Co., 71 Minn. 61 (73 N. W. Rep. 640). A debtor's conveyance of property absolutely to a trustee to be sold for the payment of his debts named and preferred in it, will be treated as an assignment for the benefit of creditors and not as a mortgage. Tuttle v. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 19 Mont. 11 (47 Pac. Rep.203). In construing deeds of assignment for the benefit of creditors, the ordinary rules governing the construction of contracts between parties, apply. Eau Claire Grocery Co. v. Hubbard, 97 Wis. 661 (73 N. W. Rep. 570). A reservation to the assignor of "a homestead exemption such as a bona fide housekeeper with a family would take under the statute laws of Kentucky," does not give him a right to a homestead out of the assigned property where he is not entitled to one under the statute. Russell v. Russell's Assignee, Ky. (38 S. W. Rep. 1011). Particular instrument construed and held to be an assignment by partners. Eau Claire Grocery Co. v. Hubbard, 97 Wis. 661 (73 N. W. Rep. 570).

Sec. 86. Preference of creditors. The validity of an assignment is not affected by the previous conveyance of property by the assignor before the assignment was in contemplation. Lazarus v. Camden Nat. Bank, 64 Ark. 322 (42 S. W. Rep. 412). Where a debtor has first determined to prefer

some of his creditors by a deed of trust which he fully executed, it is not invalidated by his immediately executing a general assignment on account of advice given him by his attorney when executing the deed of trust. Pollock v. Sykes, 74 Miss. 700 (21 So. Rep. 780). See opinion for collation and review of the authorities. Construing and applying Hill's Ann. Or. Laws, § 3173, rendering invalid an assignment by an insolvent for the benefit of his creditors "unless made for the benefit of all his creditors in proportion to the amount of their respective claims," it is held that an assignment is not rendered invalid by the execution of mortgages by the assignor to particular creditors immediately prior to the execution of the assignment, where such mortgages were given to secure bona fide debts, accepted in good faith and at the time of their execution the assignor did not contemplate the making of the assignment. Inman, Poulsen & Co. v. Sprague, 30 Or. 321 (47 Pac. Rep. 826). The court say: "In Perry v. Vezina, 63 Ia. 25 (18 N. W. Rep. 657), a chattel mortgage executed three hours before a general assignment, was held not to invalidate the assignment, it appearing that the debtor did not contemplate making it when the mortgage was made. Indeed, in all cases of this character the true guiding principle of the decision is the intention of the parties. If the instrument giving a preference is executed and received in good faith, with the intention of paying or securing a bona fide debt, and not as a part of a general assignment under the statute, it is valid, however near its execution may be in point of time to a subsequently executed assignment. But when an insolvent debtor has formed the determination to voluntarily dispose of all his property for the benefit of his creditors, and has entered upon the performance of that determination, the number or character of the instruments used by him to accomplish his purpose is wholly immaterial. The law will regard all his acts having for their object the accomplishment of this purpose as parts of one single transaction, and will read into the assignment, when executed, all prior acts of the debtor having reference to the disposition of his property, and, if any preferences are shown to have been given by him to one creditor over another, the assignment will be declared void under the stat

ute.

Nelson v. Garey, 15 Neb. 531 (19 N. W. Rep. 630);"

Preston v. Spaulding, 120 Ill. 208 (10 N. E. Rep. 903); Benham v. Ham, 5 Wash. 128 (31 Pac. Rep. 459; 34 Am. St. Rep. 851); Root v. Potter, 59 Mich. 506 (26 N. W. Rep. 682); Root & Co. v. Harl, 62 Mich. 420 (29 N. W. Rep. 29); Burnham v. Haskins, 79 Mich. 35 (44 N. W. Rep. 341); Lumber Co. v. Ott, 142 U. S. 622 (12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 318); Perry v. Holden, 22 Pick. 269."

Construing and applying Tenn. Laws, 1881, ch. 121, providing that trust deeds, etc., taken within three months of a general assignment and in contemplation of it, shall be void, it is held that such deeds are not invalid unless made in contemplation of a valid assignment, which is executed within three months, and they are not affected by an ineffectual attempt to make a general assignment within that time. Jones v. Cullen, 100 Tenn. 1 (42 S. W. Rep. 873). R. I. Pub. Stat. ch. 237, § 15, as amended by Pub. Laws 1882, ch. 274, construed and applied-validity of preferences made within 60 days-rights and duties of assignee. Colt v. Sears Commercial Co., 20 R. I. 64 (37 Atl. Rep. 311); Colt v. Sears Commercial Co., 20 R. I. 323 (38 Atl. Rep. 1056).

Sec. 87. Rights of creditors. In a contest between the creditors of an assigning debtor, they should contribute ratably to the satisfaction of his wife's dower interest. Hendrick v. McElroy, Ky. (38 S. W. Rep. 846). A creditor setting aside a deed of trust, executed for the benefit of creditors, under Va: Code, § 2460, as to certain debts secured thereby, does not acquire a prior lien as against creditors whose debts are valid. Craig v. Hoge, 95 Va. 275 (28 S. E. Rep. 317). Where real estate was sold by a corporation assignee discharged of liens, not under its general power as assignee, but by virtue of an order of court, it is held that the assignee received and held the proceeds in trust for the lien creditors, in the order of the priority of their liens; and as to any balance after the payment of liens, for the general creditors. The creditors whose liens were discharged were required to look to the fund and interest on their claims ceased on the date of the confirmation of the sale. In re Wilhelm's Estate, 182 Pa. St. 281 (37 Atl. Rep. 819). In proceedings under a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, the

court may properly permit a mortgage creditor who has not filed his claim to bring a separate action to foreclose his mortgage on a portion of the assigned property. Hoyt, C. J., dissenting. Penn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Fife, 15 Wash. 605 (47 Pac. Rep. 27).

Sec. 88. Title, rights and liabilities of an assignce. An assignee in bankruptcy takes only the title which his assignor had at the time he is adjudged bankrupt, and can convey no better title. Lockwood v. Noble, 113 Mich. 418 (71 N. W. Rep. 856). He does not occupy the position of an innocent purchaser for value. Walker v. Walker's Assignee, Ky. (41 S. W. Rep. 315). An assignee stands in the place of the insolvent, and, in the absence of fraud takes his estate subject to all equities, liens and incumbrances, whether created by operation of law or by the act of the insolvent which had a valid existence against the property in the hands of the insolvent. Laughlin v. Reed, 89 Me. 226 (36 Atl. Rep. 131). An assignee for the benefit of creditors is the owner of his assignor's real estate; and upon selling it, is subject to the liabilities of a grantor in regard to the payment of taxes as provided by Wyoming Laws 1888, ch. 69, § 3. The claim of the state for taxes against the assignor's property, which is made a perpetual lien by statute, is not affected by Sess. Laws 1890, p. 87, § 13, providing the manner in which the assignee may discharge incumbrances and the duties of lienholders as to the enforcement of their claims. Carey v. Foster,

Wyo. (51 Pac.

Rep. 206). An assignee who recognizes the validity of a previous mortgage executed on the property by his assignor, by a sale of the property subject to the mortgage, cannot afterwards avoid it. Colt v. Sears Commercial Co., 20 R. I. 64 (37 Atl. Rep. 311). An assignee of an insolvent lessee, who takes possession of the lease-hold before the landlord levies any distress warrant, has priority over, the latter's claim for rent, and such claim stands as the claim of any other creditor. Rand v. Francis, 168 Ill. 444 (48 N. E. Rep. 159). He may foreclose a mortgage give to his assignor. Thompson v. Browne, 10 S. Dak. 344 (78 N. W. Rep. 194). may maintain an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance of his assignor. Applegarth v. Wagner, 86 Md. 468 (38

He