Some of the principles already stated, as to real property, apply equally to personal property, (c)l Thus, the assignee takes

(c) We collect in this note a few of the more instructive cases, in regard to the transfer of personal property in possession, in addition to those cited in the preceding section: Jewett v. Preston, 27 Maine, 400; Griswold v Pratt, 9 Met. 16, cited altter to another point; Carr v. Crisp, 1 Salk. 108; Billon v. Hyde, 1 Ves. Sen. 328. In this case Lord 'Hardwicke said: "By the act of bankruptcy, all the real and personal estate vested in the assignees, and the property vested in them from the time of the act committed, and that may go back to a great length of time; and it overcharges all those acts, without regard to the fairness or fraud in them, so that a sale of goods by the bankrupt after the act committed is a sale of their property, and for which they may maintain trover." In Cooper v. Chitty, 1 Burr. 31, Lord Mansfield said: "This relation the statutes of bankruptcy introduced to avoid frauds. They vest in the assignees all the property that the bankrupt had at the time of what I may call the crime committed (for the old statutes consider him a criminal); they make a sale by the commissioners good against all persons who claim by, from, or under the bankrupt, after the act of bankruptcy, and against all executions not served and executed before the act of bankruptcy." Kitchin v. Campbell, 3 Wilson, 304; Lazarus v. Waithman, 5 J. B. Moore, 313; Balme v. Hutton, 9 Bing. 471; Rouch v The Great Western Rail way Co. 1 Q. B 51; Winks v. Hassall, 9 B. & C. 372; Kynaston v. Crouch, 14 M. & W. 266; Pearson v. Graham, 6 A. & E. 899; Har-wood v. Bartlett, 6 Bing. N. C, 61; Stephens v. Elwall, 4 M. & S. 259; Coles v. Wright, 4 Taunt. 198; Tope v. Hockin, 7 B. & C. 110; Ward v. Dalton, 7 C. B. 643; Acramaa v. Morrice, 8 id 449; Tooke v. Hollingworth, 5 T. R. 215; Valpy p. Sandars, 5 C. B 886; Wilkins v. Brom head, 6 Man & G. 963; Carvalho v Burn, 4 B. & Ad. 382; Dangerfield v. Thomas, 9 A. & E. 292, Anderson v. Miller, 7 Smedes & M. 586; Ex parrte Cotterill, 3 Mont. & A. 376; Belcher v. Campbell, 8Q.B.1.

1 Money awarded to a person subsequent to his bankruptcy, by the court of commissioners of Alabama claims, for the previous destruction of his property by a rebel cruiser, passes to his assignee. Leonard v. Nye, 125 Mass- 455 Where, however, Congress, in order to dispose of a balance of the award paid by England, reimbursed those who had paid insurance premiums for war risks, it was held by several State courts that an award made to a person subsequent to his bankruptcy under this'law did not pass to his assignee. Kingsbury v. Mattocks, 81 Me. 310; Brooks v Ahrens, 68 Md 212; Heard v. Sturgis, 146 Mass. 545; Newell v. West, 149 Mass 520, Taft v. Marsily, 120 N. Y. 474. But since the decision of the Supreme Court in Williams v. Heard, 140 U. S. 529, reversing the decision in Heard v. Sturgis, supra, these cases can no longer be considered law. A claim against the United States by a British subject resident in this country, designated as " worthless " in his schedule and sold by him for a small sum, but afterwards recognized and paid, passes to the assignee Phelps v. McDonald, 99 U S. 298. So an outlawed claim for cotton captured by United States troops. Erwin v. United States, 97 U. S. 392. A seat in a stock exchange,

* no chattels or choses in action held by the bankrupt only in a fiduciary capacity; but if any be held by him partly for the benefit of others and partly for his own benefit, his own personal interest, if it be severable, would pass to the assignee, (d) So. all the contracts of the bankrupt which relate to personalty, may be assumed and executed by the assignee for the benefit of the fund, unless the services to be rendered, or the work to be done, could be only performed by the bankrupt individually, and not by any other person in his stead, (e)1

(d) Carpenter v Marnell, 3 B & P. 40; Copeman v. Gallant. 1 P. Wms. 314; Ex parte Gillett, Er parte Bacon, 3 Madd. 28; Joy v. Campbell, I Sch. & L. 328; Winch v. Keeley, IT. R 619; Ex parte Martin, 19 Vea. 491; Gardner v. Rove, 2 Simons & S. 346; Ex parte Chiou, 3 P. Wms. 187, n. (a); Walker v Burnell, Doug. 317; Collins v. Forbes, 3 T. R. 316.

(e) Whitworth v. Davis, 1 Ves. & B. 545: Sloper v. Fish, 2 id 145; Sharpe v. Roahde, 2 Rose, 192; Goodwin v. Light-body, 1 Daniell, 153; Butler v. Carver, 2 Stark. 433; Brooke v. Hewitt, 3 Ves. 253; Weatherall v. Geering, 12 id. 513; Smith v. Coffin, 2 H. Bl. 444; Moyses v. Little, 2 Vern. 194; Drake v. Mayor of Exeter, 1 Ch. Ca. 71, I Eq. Ca. Abr. 53; Valpy v. Oakeley, 16 Q. 6 941, 6 Eng. L. & Eq. 168; Alder v. Keighley, 15M.& W. 117; Hill v. Smith, 12 id. 618; Gibson v. Carruthers, 8 id. 321; Boorman v, Nash, 9 B. & C. 145; Splidt v. Bowles, 10 East, 279, Kymer v. Larkin, 5 Bing 74; Ak-hnrst v. Jackson. 1 Swanst, 85, Flood v. Finlay, 2 Ball & B. 9; Ev parte Goodall, 2 Glyn & J. 281 And see other cases cited ante, § 6, n. (p.) p. *465. The statute of 1867 expressly enumerates "patents and patent rights; "but it was held, under the English law, that a patent right would pass. Hesse v. Stevenson, 3 B. & P. 565. Lord Aluanley, C J , said: " It is contended that the nature of the property in this patent was such that it did not pass under the assignment; and several cases were cited in support of this proposition. It is said, that although, by the assignment, every right and interest, and every right of action, as well as right of possession and possibility of interest, is taken out of the bankrupt and vested in the assignees, yet that the fruits of a man's own invention do not pass. It is true that the schemes which a man may have in his own head before he obtains his certificate, or the fruits which he may make of such schemes, do not pass, nor could the assignees require him to assign them over provided he does not carry his schemes into effect until after he has obtained his certificate. But if he avail himself of his knowledge and skill, and thereby acquire a beneficial interest, which may be the subject of assignment, I cannot frame to myself an argument why that interest the constitution of which provided that on a member's insolvency his seat should be sold and the proceeds be applied first to paying other members of the exchange to whom he was indebted, was held to pass to the assignee of an insolvent member, subject to these conditions. Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. 8. 523. But where an assignee, not wishing to pay the debts of other members of the exchange which exceeded the value of the seat at the time, refrained for ten years from making a claim, it was held, that the insolvent who had subsequently redeemed his seat from the claims of his fellow-members, was entitled to retain it. Sparhawk v Yerkes, 142 U.S 1. See also Fish v. Fiske, 154 Mass. 302. A certificate of membership in a board of trade was 'treated like membership in a social club, and held not to pass to an assignee, in In re Sutherland, 6 Bissell, 52. A policy of insurance payable to the insured at a certain future dav, or if he dies before them, to his children, passes to the assignee, though the insolvent's death before the policy is payable will defeat the assignee's right. Brig-ham v. Home Life Ins. Co. 131 Mass. 319; Bassett v. Parsons, 140 Mass. 169. Letters-patent pass to an assignee in insolvency. Barton v. White, 144 Mass. 281; Ex parte Reach, 14 R I. 571. A purely voluntary gift does not pass. In re Wicks, 17 Ch. D. 70: In re Webber. 18 Q. B. D 111.