Wadham v. Marlowe, 1 H. Bl. 437-439, note, s. c 8 East, 314-316, note (a), Philips v. Hunter, 2 H. Bl. 402 Before the time of the American Revolution, the English courts held a different doctrine, adopting the view which prevails at this day in the American courts. Clave v. Mills, before Lord Mansfield, 1 Cooke, B. L. 303. In Chevalier v. Lynch, the same doctrine. A creditor of the bankrupt, in that case, against whom a commission had issued in England, attached a sum of money in the hands of a debtor of the bankrupt in St Christopher, an island within the British dominions. The court held this attachment good. Lord Mansfield: " If a bankrupt has money due to him out of England, the assignment, under the bankrupt laws, so far vests the right to the money in the assignees that the debtor shall be answerable to them. But if, in the mean time, after the bankruptcy, and before payment to the assignees, money owing to the bankrupt out of England, is attached bona fide, by regular process, according to the law of the place, the assignees in such case cannot recover the debt." Doug. 170; Waring v. Knight, I Cooke's Bankrupt Law, 307; Story on Conflict of Laws. tit. Bankruptcy. See the English, 8cotch, and Irish authorities collated and examined in 2 Bell, Com. 681. The remarks of Story, J., in his Conflict of Laws, on this subject, are of great value to the inquirer. The same view was recognized and adopted by the learned Chancellor Kent, in Holmes r. Remsen, 4 Johns. Ch. 460; so in Bird v. Pierpoint, 1 Johns. 118, the language of Livingston, J., tends to show that the court at that time entertained a similar view. Goodwin v. Jones, 3 Mass. 517, Parsons, C. J.; Bird v. Caritat, 2 Johns. 342. See a tendency to the same doctrine, but with limitation,"in Ingraham v. Geyer, 13 Mass. 147. But these cases oppose the great weight of American authority. See infra.

(x) The two leading principles which govern the English courts in their administration of the law of bankruptcy in cases of foreign assignment, have been set forth and illustrated ante. The grounds on which the application of each of them in this country has been denied, may be shown from the language of two emineut judges. In Saunders v. Williams, 5. N. H. 215, Mr. Chief Justice Richard ton , said: "The rule which must give effect here to a bankrupt law of a foreign country, is a mere rule of amity, and not of international law, and in the present circumstances of this country, it is thought that no rule of amity can require us to give effect to a foreign law of bankruptcy here, in such a manner as to deprive our own citizens of the remedy which our own laws give them against the property of their foreign debtors, which may be found in this coun-try," And in Milne v. Moreton, 6 Binn. 369, Mr. Chief Justice Tilghman said: "It was remarked, during the argument, that no good reason can be assigned, why an assignment by the bankrupt himself should prevail, and not the present one, as made by the commissioners, which ought to be considered as equivalent thereto, and be deemed a voluntary conveyance made by the bankrupt himself, for a valuable consideration. The difference appears to me sufficiently obvious. Effect is given to the fair assignment of the bankrupt himself, because it is the spontaneous act of the party, having the full dominion over the property, transferring an equitable if not a legal title thereto, after which his interest therein necessarily ceases, and is no longer subject to an attachment. It is wholly superfluous to cite Justinian, lib. 2, tit. 1, § 40, to show, that nothing is more conformable to natural equity, than to confirm the will of him who' is desirous to transfer his property to another. But effect cannot be given to the assignment by the commissioners unless we adopt the British statutes of bankruptcy, as laws binding on ourselves, although they were not considered to affect us, when we were the colonies of Great Britain; and this, too, when their operation would manifestly interfere with the interests of our own citizens." So in Holmes v. Hem-sen, 20 Johns. 229-265, in which case the decision of Chancellor Kent, above cited, was reversed, the judge, delivering the opinion of the court, said. "It is an established and universal rule, that, independent of express municipal law, personal property of foreigners, dying testate or intestate, has locality. Administration must be granted and distribution made in the country where the property is found; and as to creditors, the lex rei sitie prevails against the law of the domicil, in regard to the rule of preferences In principle, I can perceive no substantial difference between that case and the present. Why should not a liberal comity, also, demand that the first grant of letters of administration should draw to it the distribution, among creditors, of the whole assets, wherever situated? The plausible reason for the distinction may be, that the interests of commerce require a discrimination in favor of the assignees of bankrupts. But in practice I believe it will be found that commerce is equally affected by the rule in both because the rule, in either case, can seldom be applied, except to merchants and traders. And whether administration be committed to the executors or administrators of a dead man, or to the assignees of a bankrupt, is not very material to the point before us. Anomalies are inconvenient in the law, and should not be allowed without strong reason."

(y) The case of Harrison v. Sterry, 5 Cranch, 289, was decided by Marshall, C. J., in 1809. It is there said: "The bankrupt law of a foreign country is incapable of operating a legal transfer of property in the United States." In his opinion in Holmes v. Remsen, above cited, Chancellor Kent said, that the decree of the court in that case, and on courts can hardly deny that the foreign assignee has acquired an inchoate title, and a right to perfect his title by possession as soon as he can. And if he thus perfects his title, having, to use the language of the civil law, not only the jus ad rem, but the jus in re, the property should be held to be his by legal title as complete and consummate as sale with delivery could give, (z)