16 rmnnnu. nnronrna
2. SAME-!-’ow1m or Fmumziu. Cormrs moan Brun S·rs·rcrm—Pnocsnunm.
Federal courts have authority to take possession of property so assigned, and
dispose of it in accordance with the provisions of the state statute; and where
a form of procedure is prescribed by the state statute, which may be pursued
by the statecourts of general jurisdiction, it may also be pursued in the cor-
responding federal courts. _ _ .3*
3. BAN1E—RlT»DUUDION or CLAIM ro JUDGMENT Urmnomsssnr.
It is not necessary in such cases, to entitle a creditor to equitable relief in a
. federal court, that he should reduce his claim to judgment.
In Equity. Demurrers to bills.
Both bills allege an assignment by an insolvent debtor of all his
assets to =a single creditor, with the purpose of giving the assignee an
unduepreference over other creditors, and of hindering, delaying, '
and defrauding the latter. In the first case, the assignment was in
the form of a chattel mortgage, but was not, it is alleged, intended
, to operate as such, but as an assignment. The complainants seek
to have said conveyances declared assignments for the benent of all
creditors, within the meaning of section 354- of the Revised Statutes
of Missouri, which provides that "every voluntary assignment of
lands, tenements, goods, chattels, effects, and credits, made by a
· debtor to any person in trust for his creditors, shall be for the benefit
of all the creditors of the assignor in proportion to their respective
claims." » . _
G. Porter, W. D. Anderson, and McKeh;han eéJones, for complain-
ants in the first case; and Mills eé Fletcraft, for complainants in the
_ second.
‘Hug0 Mhench, for defendants in the iirst case. John D. Johnson
and Smith P. Galt, for defendants in the second.
Bnnwnn, J. These cases were argued together. Both stand on
demurrer to the bill. Both involve the same questions, and will
therefore be disposed of by the same opinion. In them are presented
three questions: ~ ,
First. Where a debtor who is insolvent transfers all his property to
a single party, and under such circumstances that it is obvious that
there was no intention of merely giving security, and with the idea
of paying the debt and reclaiming the property, must such transfer,
no matter by what form of instrument, whether that of a chattel
‘ mortgage or otherwise, and whether made to the c1·editor directly or
to a trustee, be treated as a general assignment, and for the bene-
fit of all creditors ? This question was fully considered by this court
in the case of Martin v. Hausman, 14: Fnn. REP. 160, and after a
V full examination of the statutes of Missouri and the decisions of its
supreme court, it was answered in the aihrmative. The opinion in
that case was written by Judge Kamen, and was concurred in by my
, predecessor, Judge MCCRARY. That opinion was followed in Dahl--
man v. Jacobs, 15 Frm. REP. 863, in Kellogg v. Richardson, an un·
reported case in the Western district, and also, I am·informed, in
other cases in this court, as well as in some of the district courts of