, 1892-02-23

ASRVe I9 AAGEe OF AEWS tee to Beal
Estate Of Insolvent and Subject.
Ing Such Property TO Payment
ENotice-AH decisions of the supreme
court will appear in THE DAILY AM
WEEKLY TRIBUNE.I
II. J. Nyman, appellant, VS.. John w
Berry respondent.
The decision Of this case seems to be left
by the parties, to depend upon a single
question: viz: whether in this state a com.
mon law assignment, made May 22d 1890
by an nsolYent corporation, of all its prop.
erty, to trustee for the benefit of all its
creditors, was valid and sufficient to vest
in the trustee the title to real estate of the
lnsolYent so as to prevent a Judgment
creditor Of the corporation, who obtained
ms ludgmedt after the date of the
deed, from sublectlng such real estate
to the payment Of his judgment. No
question is made but that were it not foI
the existence of the insolvent debtors sec
tlons of the code of 1881, (chapter 143) such
an assignment could be made by a cor
poratlon; and no suggestion is offered that
the deed IN question would not have been
good and sufficient general assignment at
common law.
The respondent, it is true, seems to have
been somewhat doubtful Of his position.
and has from time to time resorted to pro
ceedlngs IN the superior court which could
only have justification on the theory that
a ne was acting under the insolYent law, but
MS nnal appeal is to his rights under his
deed, and we certainly think he must
stand there, as in no respect whatever did
Ihe assigning corporation. comply with the
lnsolyent law or place itself or its property
within the jurisdiction of the court.
The inquiry here is, then, simply wheth-
er the lnsolyent law of the code applied to
a corporation.
This law was a state voluntary bank
fcuptcy act, and resulted, in the absence of
fraud, IN the final discharge Of the debtor.
which is not usual as applied to insolyent
corporations. Every insolvent debtor
may be discharged from his debts'' is the
provision ot the first section. The reason
iOr this arbitrary release Of debtors, is that
70 IS not deemed good public policy that
men who, while they have failed in bust
ness, have dealt honestly, should be kent
IN perpetual fear, in their future efforts "a
recover themselves financially, by the
threats of unsatisfed creditors, But this
reason has no application to a corporation.
the existence of which is based upon capi-
tal and property. and has no future when
these are swept away by Insolvency and the
surrender OF its assets for distribution Ia
creditors. lt may live for some purposes
put there IS no object in keeping it alive
and freeing it from debt as in the case Of q
natural person.
Further, in the BODY of this act We find
numerous provisions which are nsnGla tory1 tllrI
upon the debtor, but which seem to he I'M IN
possible of compliance bv cornoration
The various oatns, one Of which Is set ont
in exact words in Sec. 2,017 must he ta Zen zen
by the debtor, and the paners mnst ha
signed BY him. No person An anni~ foT ~
recognition as an insolyent throTnP@RT az al
agent or attorney in fact. Sec. 2.045 Vet .
corporation can act in no other 'a3 we1 {5Sn
by agents. Exemptions and hopcs+node cod,
are provided for (Sec. 2OI91 which a Con-
poration does not have. When char@as o so1 IF
fraud are made against the debtor be n9au ~
be interrogated, and must answer i, MI
ing; and when the debtor after an assi@pae a."
has been appointed refuses fo raiiuaT ~
any part Of his propertv III 40 ba ~
prisoned until the deIiyery ie yoffaotad "a
Neither Of these nTouisions oIIld 20 ~
piled to a Corporation nor i tpero trt
plication that thev could he n1ade to co1rn,
any of its agents " S0l
Section 2051 seems to make tba oroatos+
extension of the purpose Of tbe act
ed wherein it authorizes one IF
firm to execute partnersbin ~ :
No mention Is made of corndrations H9r ~
seem intended e oompTebend 90 T dus Inf6a t6en Woe5a
cept the use Of tie word etdabtori, 0f