The Newtown bee., 1899-01-27

I
 aside by the trustee appointed under vol. untary or involuntary proceedings. Shipman v. Aetna Ins. Co.,, % Conn. 245; Gaylor v. Harding, 37 Conn. sos. In ease of voluntary assignment in insolvency the right to reclaim property fraudulently sold is conveyed to the trustee by an assignment to him of all the debtors property Filley v. KioR, 49 Conn. 211. There seems to be no diff ference in principle between the power of the trustee under general assignment in insolvency who is seeking to hold land claimed by the debtors grantee under an unrecorded deed, provided such deed is invalid as against such trustee. | Whether we regard him as an agent of the debtor, of the creditors, or of the law, we think the tru stae in this case is clothed with the same pow and charged with the same duty by our insolvent law, to take and dispose of the land in ques- 1 tion for the benefit of the creditors of Lawrence, if the assignment was volun- tary, as in the case of compulsory in solvencv.
 Has the plaintiff under the $3 900 mort gage valid title to the land in question as agalnst the trustee in in. olvencEP + is conceded that the defendant Kelly has no greater right than the trustee. The facts are not those showing an attempt oy the plaintiff to establish an quitable mortgage, or to enforce ar equitable right. The plaintiffs only claim of title is by deed duly executed, and which it claims is valid under the statute against trustee in insolvency. It's validity ss against the grantor is not questioned. Whether it is also valid as against the trustee in ineolvency depends upon the construction to be placed upon our statute concerning unrecorded deeds, and the interpretation of our law regard ing the powers of such trustee and his relation to the irsolvent and his creditors. The right of the plaintiff to 8 judgment of foreclosure depends entirely upon the question of whether, as against this trustee, the mortgage in question is valid in law.
 Section 2961 of the General Statutes, provides that ''no conveyance shall be effectuaI to hold lands against any other person but the grantor and his heirs, un- less recorded on the records of the town in which the lands lie.'
 The mortgage deed in question was executed in 1892, and, through the neeli- nT Sha Ia;r s% never been recorded, and has become lost.
 The defendant Hart was appointed trustee in 1894, and soon after his ap- pointment was informed that in addition to the 1000 mortgage, the real estate of the insolvent was incumbered by mort. gage to the amount of $3,00O. It does not appear that any of the creditors he'd notice of the existence of the S3, 900 mortgage.
 Though differing from the rule in some of our States, it is the law of Connecti- cut that the lien acquired by the attach ment of creditor of the grantor of a deed not recorded within & reasonable time, is superior to the title of the gran tee of such deed in the absence of notice of the attaching creditors of the ex~ istence of such deed. Moore V. Walton, l Root, 389; Welch v. Gould, 3 Root, 2S7; Carter V. Champion Conn. 548,559; Wheaton V. Dyer, l5 Conn. 307; Hill v. Meeker, 24 Conn. 2l1; Bar nam V. Landon, % Conn. 136; Bissell V. Mooney, B Conn. All; Theal V. Dis brow, 39 Conn. 318; Pond V. Skidmore, 40 Conn. 213; Goodsell V. Sullivan, 40 Conn. 83.
 The creditors of Lawrence are credit ors without notice, notwithstanding the notice given to the trustee after his ap- pointment. National Cash Register Go. V. Woodbury, 70 Conn. 321.
 Had there been 10 proceeding in insolvency the creditors of Lawrence could have attached this land, and by levy of execution appropriated it to the payment of their respective claims. This right of creditors to 80 avail themselves of this property has been suspended by the appointment of trustee in insolven. cy. New Haven Wire Go. Gases, 57 Conn. 352, 1887. By the proceedings in insolvency the creditors of Lawrence have not only been deprived of this right of attachment, but s'all attachments and levies of executions not completed made within sixty days next preceding'' the commencement of such proceedings, il any such have been made, have been dis solved.
 It was not the purpose of our insolvent law that the appointment Of trustee should place beyond the reach of credit ors property of the debtor, which, in the absence of insolvency proceedings, could have been lawfully appropriated by at
 tachment and execution to the payment
 of his debts. The liens by attachment
 and execution are dissolved to proven
 one creditor or class of creditors iron
 gaining an undue advantage over others
 and from thereby defeating the real ob lject of the insolvent law, namely, tn,
 equal distribution of the estate of th
 debtor among all of his creditors. E,
 the process of attachment and execution
 that part of the debtors property attach
 ed is appropriated to the payment of th
 claim of the attaching creditor. By th
 process of the insolvency all the proper Gy of the debtor is seqaestered for tn payment Of the claims Of all the creditors
 AS proceedings by insolvency are onl ar other method than attachment flo
 appropriating the debtors property fo
 the payment of his debts, all the right , of creditors to take his estate by attach ment can be enforced by such proceed ings, and all the property of the debtol with the exceptions named in the statute a is thereby placed in the hands Of tn