Vermont watchman and State journal. [volume] (Montpelier, Vt.) 1836-1883, 1843-11-10
have already remarked. upon different iootins.

nave hTeuuy remarked, upon INHERENT lootluB'
To render such conveyance tranduent as n
ganst the bankrupt law, il must he voluntary
well ~ IN contemplation OF bankruptcy. IL is Mt
unlawful though made while in failing circum-
stances, or when actually nsoivent, II made under
pressure by the CREDITOR and in the ordinary
course of business. The cases cited and relied
upon by the opposing counsel are all OF this char
acter. They are cases of transfer or delivery of
n pur only of the effects of the trader, and go to
confirm the general proposition, that the subslan-
tia Distinction in all the cases is between the assign
ment of all, and part only.
In the present case, the assignment was OF all
the partnership properly, including goods, notes,
and demands on book and il does not appear that
the respondents had any sepurote property, ex-
cept their household furniture If not actually
insolvent, it is abundantly evident that they were
deeply indebted md greatly embarrassed. III IS
true, the goods at the time were under MI attach
nien, at the SUIT OF n creditor, for large debt;
and Smith, the assignee OF the properly, for the
purpose OF removing the attachment, executed MS
bond conditioned TO pay the debt, aud COOK the as
Segment to indemnify himself for that and certain
other debts for which he had previously become
holden surety. But this circumstance, though
1t, shows That the security was given under tue
pressure of Iegal process, and for valuable cOu-
sderation, does not take the case out OF the gene
raj rule.
In Butcher vs. Easio, Doug. 295, where trader,
being arrested fui debt by one OF his creditors,
executed nill OF safe Oi All MS tneCN 10 duOHer
creditor, 10 whom he was also indebted, as secu-
rily for both debts und tho latter, on that cund-
ton, hecnmc hail tor him, and he Obtained his dis.
charge, it was determined hnt tie blil Ot sale WINS
fraudulent aud an act OF bankruptcy. SO in .Net0-
Ton vs.. ChdnHer, Enst 1873, bill OF sale 10 par
ucular creditor OF al the fleets OF u trader, was
held 10 bD an act Of bankruptcy, notwithstanding
I it given by the trader when under arrest at tue
snit OF the particular creditor, for Just debit
Lord ElenbOruugn SAID, Ihnt The bill OF sale being
given under the pressure OF legal process, made
no difference, Tor II was rot like the case oil
partial conveyance, only, OF traders properly.
And lie Blank J alter referring 10 the case O
Butcher vs.. Easio, observed that The security being
gwen To the particular creditor, at lime when lie
held the trader under arrest did not distinguish Tie
case from The general class Oi cases, where con-
veJ ace oiulI rnders eli Cts particular credit
or had been uniformly holden 10 he al act oil bank
rupcy.
he present case falls within the principle of
the case just cited ior IN tins, as III ihen though
the assignment made under the pressure OF
legal process, aud the debts secured were bona tue
debts, 1t was an assignment oil all The effects, eX-
ceedng in value The amount OF the debt due the
attaching creditor al least six thousand dollars;
and though il embraced all tie debts OWING by
the respondents, its provisions tor payment Out OF
tie effects IL preference WIS given 10 particular
creditors and classes Vi creditors, to the prejudice
OF other creditors In addition TO the evidence u
preference appearing upon the face OF the assign-
ment Smith testilies that the respondents would
not consent to make the assignment without
providing tor The payment OF Their home creditors
first Here is direct proof, then, that one leading
motive was TO give preference aud all the facts
aud circumstances, collateral as well Othe S,
combine TO bring the case in all particulars, fully
and clearly within The principle established by
the uniform current of Judicial determinations.
But in my Judgment, the case also comes with
I IT.. 81,
bankrupt act, which docures "that all future pay
mentS, icurlties, cnuveyances, or transfers of
property, or agreements, made or given by any
bankrupt in contemplation Of bankruptcy, aud
iUr the purpose OF glviug any creditor, endorser
surrey, or other person, aJy preference or priority
over the general creditors ut such bankrupt; and
| all U,her payments, securities, corveyuuces or
transfers OF properly, or agreements, made Civ
| en- 10y any such bankrupt, III contemplation of
! bankruptcy, TO any person or persons whatever
| not being bona fde creditor Or purchaser for Il
valuable consideration, without notice-shall he
| deemed utterly void, and II fraud upon this act."
| Now, il immediate, absolute bankruptcy was the
necessary consequence of the assignment in this
cuse, we have seen ii was, the ASST ~ nlnst
he taken to be Il transfer OF properly made in con
! temptation Of bankruptcy MS well as Tor the p,r-
| pose OF giving preference, since every man must
bc supposed TO contemplate or intend that which
| is the necessary consequence oil his own act and
| such a trnnsier when made to surely, as this
was, is expressly declared 10y The provision refer
| rcd to, 10 be II fraud upon the act.
Ii is insisted, however, that admitting the as
| Segment to have been act of bankruptcy, yet
| having been made more than two months before
ady proceedings III bankruptcy were instituted,
the Respondents are proieee from the conse-
luences of it by The. proyso TO the clause OF the
| act Just reclled. The provso declares "hal all
| dealings and transactions by and with any bank
rupt, bona fde made aud entered into more than