1 But see Chipman v. Manufacturers' Nat. Bank, 156 Mass. 147,148.

*We should limit this, however, to cases in which the assignee had not previously obtained possession. Our this point wants explanation, "and we do not know the grounds of the decision It is never, however, to be presumed, that any court intends either to establish or reject a litigated point of law, of great importance, merely by a dry decision, unaccompanied with argument or illustration." Yet of this case it may, with respect to so great a name as Chancellor Kent, be observed, that this opinion, although unaccompanied with argument or illustration, was essential to the decision of the case, and can by no means be regarded as an obiter dictum, and that every court must be presumed to intend to establish every point of law passed upon essential to the decision of the case. The doctrines of this case have been universally followed, so far as we know, in this country, with the limitation set forth in the following note. Blake v. Williams, and Marshall, Trustee, 6 Pick. 286. In that case, the question was, whether Marshall, a debtor of Williams, should be held as his trustee, and to pay to the plaintiff the debt he acknowledged to be due to the principal defendant. The trustees answer disclosed, that a commission of bankruptcy had issued against Williams in England, where he resided, and did business as a banker, on the 27th of October, 1825. in consequence of an act of bankruptcy previously committed by him; and in pursuance of the commission, the commissioners of bankruptcy proceeded to assign over to the assignees all the property of Williams, including the debts due him. It appeared, further, that the trustee had received no formal notice of the assignment by the commissioners in England, at the time of his being summoned, on the 3d of December, 1825, but that such notice was subsequently given; and the assignees, by a person authorized by them for this purpose, had demanded of him that he should pay over to them the amount of the debt due from him to Williams. Upon these facts, the court said they saw no reason why the trustee should not be charged. Parker; C. J.: "Does, then, a commission of bankruptcy in England, and an assignment of the bankrupt's effects under it, so transfer a debt due to the bankrupt from a citizen of this State to the assignees, that another citizen who is a creditor of the bankrupt, cannot seize it on a trustee process, and secure it to himself? We think it very clear that this question has not been settled in the affirmative in this State, nor in any other State in this Union, nor in the Supreme Court of the United States; but, on the contrary, that, whenever the question has been raised, it has been determined in the negative. With respect to our own State, the question has not been settled either way directly, though there are some cases in which it has incidentally occurred; but from them nothing favorable to such assignments can be Inferred" Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat 213; Dawes v. Head, 3 Pick. 128; Dawes v. Boylston, 9 Mass. 337: Milne v. More-ton, 6 Binn. 353; Blanc hard v. Russell, 13 Mass 1; Harrison v. Sterry, above cited, again reported, Bee. 244; the comments of Parker, C. J., on Goodwin v. Jones, 3 Mass. 514, in 6 Pick. 305;, Platt, J , reversing the decision of Kent. Ch., in Holmes v. Remsen, 4 Johns Ch 460; Wallace v. Patterson, 2 Harris & McH. 463; Ex parte Franks, 1 Cooke's Bankrupt Laws, 336; Burk v. M'Claiu, 1 Harris & McH. 236; Mawdesley v. Parke, in the court of Rhode Island, cited in Sill v Worswick, 1 H Bl 680: Topham v. Chapman, 3 Consist R 285; Jones v. Blanchard, cited in the last case; Taylor v. Geary, Kirby, 313 , Ex parte Blakes, I Cox, 398, a case in Virginia, cited in Waring v. Knight, 1 Cooke's B. L 307; Richards v. Hudson (in Virginia), cited 4 T. R. 187; Ward v Morris, 4 Harris & McH 330, in the notes See also the intimations of the courts in the early American cases, Van Raugh v. Van Arsdaln, 3 Caines, 154; Bird v Pierpoint, 1 Johns. 118; Proctor v. Moore, 1 Mass. 198; Baker v. Wheaton, 5 id 509; Watson v. Bourne, 10 id 337; Iugraham v. Geyer, 13 id. 146; Walker v. Hill, 17 id 383; the comments of Parker, C. J., on these cases in Blake v. Williams, above cited; Smith v. Smith, 2 Johns. 235; Bird v. Caritat, id. 342; Abraham v. Plestoro, 3 Wend. 538; Johnson v. Hunt. 23 id. 90; Lord v. Brig Watchman, Ware, 232; Borden v. Sumner, 4 Pick 265; Saunders v. Williams, 5 N. H 213; Mitchell v. M'Millan, 3 Mart. (La.) 676; Olivier v. Townes, 14 id. 93, Norria v Munford, 4 id 20; Fall River Iron Works v Croade, 15 Pick. 11; Fox v. Adams. 5 Greenl. 245 Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, admits that his opinion in Holmes v. Remsen cannot now be held to be the law in America. 2 Kent, 408, in the note; Merrick's Estate, 4 Ashm. 485; Lowry v. Hail, 2 Watts & S. 129; Mulli* kin v. Anghinbaugh, 1 Penn. 117, Good-all v. Marshall, 11 N. H. 88, McNeil v.

* Real property has a lex loci, a positive locality, and must be governed in all matters relative to its transfer by the laws of that locality. This must be admitted in England, as well as here; and would be so the more readily because it is so seldom - more seldom there than here - treated as merchandise, (a) But if an American, owning land in New York, and residing and trading in London became bankrupt there, while his New York land certainly would not pass to his English assignee by his bankruptcy, it could be transferred to an American in trust for his assignee, for the benefit of his creditors, by his deed regularly and in good faith executed, delivered, and recorded, before any attachment or other process in this country. (b)