The provisions of the English bankruptcy acts in respect to assignees are substantially similar to those of our statute; and the decisions of questions arising under them may be useful to us; and parte Snrtees, 12 Ves. 10, above cited; Ex parte Hawkins, Buck, 520; Ex parte Morris, 1 Deac. 498; Ex parte Edwards, Buck, 411 ,* Ex parte Dechapeaurouge, 1 Mont. & McA. 174; Ex parte Spiller, 2 Mont. D & De G. 43; Ex parte Stagg, id. 186; Ex parte Mendel, 4 Deac. & Ch. 725; Ex parte Perryer, 1 Mont D. & De G. 276; Ex parte Reynolds, 5 Ves. 707; Ex parte Steel, 1 Deac & Ch. 488; Shel ton v. Walker, 10 Law Reporter, 124. But in general, in the later bankrupt laws, it is provided that assignees may be removed at discretion by the court. As in the late U. S- Bankrupt Law, " the court may exercise such power of appointment and removal at its discretion toties quoties."

(su) Ex parte Lambert, South D. New York, 2 Bank. Reg. 138; Coxe v. Hale, 10 Blatchford, 56.

(sv) Ex parte Metzger, North, D. New York, 2 Bank. Reg. 114; Bradshaw v. Klein, Indiana, 1 Bank. Reg. 146.

(sw) Ex parte Smith, South. D New York, 1 Bank. Reg. 169.

(sx) Ex parte Noakes, Maryland, I Bank. Reg. 164.

(sy) Ex parte Meyer, South. D New York, 2 Bank. Reg 82.

{sz) Dwight v. Ames, Massachusetts, 2 Bank. Reg. 147.

1 The assignee must show that the creditor had reasonable ground of belief of his debtor's insolvency, and not merely of suspicion, to avoid a conveyance to such creditor as a fraudulent preference Grant v. Nat Bank, 97 U. S. 80 The conveyance of the joint assets of an insolvent firm to a continuing partner, Re Johnson and Stowers, 2 Lowell, 129, and the signing by one creditor of a composition deed to secretly obtain 50 per cent. of his claim in cash instead of 70 per cent on time, Bean v Amsinck, 10 Blatchford, 361, constitute fraudulent preferences. But an insolvent debtor does not commit a fraudulent preference by neglecting to go into bankruptcy, thus allowing his creditor to obtain a judgment, Partridge r. Dearborn, 2 Lowell. 286; Wilson r. City Bank, 17 Wall. 473; nor by the payment of a percentage on the claims of a part of his creditors, which does not lessen the percentage which his other creditors will receive, Re Hapgood, 2 Lowell, 200; nor by giving a chattel mortgage in exchange for a prior valid bill of sale within four months of his bankruptcy, Sawyer v. Turpin, 91 U. S. 114; nor by the mere giving of security on a loan of money, Clark v. Ieelin, 10 Blatchford, 204; 21 Wall. 360 See further on illegal preferences, In re Foot, 11 Blatchford, 530; Warren v. Tenth Bank, 10 Blatchford, 493. - K.

2 The pledgee until paid may retain the pledge. Yeatman v. Savings Inst 95 U. S. 764 That a mortgage lien is not lost, although the creditor to obtain a preference has taken a transfer of the equity of redemption, the latter having been set aside, see Avery v. Hackley, 20 Wall. 407. - K.

we present here the more important among them, as well as some which were made under our earlier bankrupt law, or under our State insolvent laws.

The assignees are the trustees of all the creditors; and are bound by the ordinary obligations of trustees in relation to the property in their own hands, (t)1 They cannot buy it in; nor acquire a title to it or to any part of it, by buying in shares or claims of creditors, (u) And if they make any gain out of any transaction in relation to it, the creditors may demand that this gain be added to the assets of the insolvent, and accounted for as a part of them, (v)2 So, too, the assignees are trustees of

(t) Ex parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 625; Ex parte Belchier, Ambl. 218; Belchier v. Parsons, 1 Kenyon, 44; Ex parte Wilkinson, Buck, 197; Primrose v. Bromley, 1 Atk. 89; In re Earl of Litchfield, id. 87; Ex parte Lane, id. 90; Knight v. Pli-mouth, 3 id. 480; Adams v. Claxton, 6 Ves 226; Raw v. Cutten, 9 Bing. 96, 1 Cooke, B. L. 263; Ex parte Read, 1 Glyn & J. 77; and cases cited in the sab-sequent note.

(u) The contrary seems to have been held by Lord Hardwicke, in Whelpdale v Cookson, 1 Ves. Sen. 9, stated from the register's book in Campbell v. Walker, 5 Ves 682. He confirmed a sale by the assignee to himself, in case the majority of the creditors should not dissent But in Ex parte Lacey, 6 Ves. 625, Lord Eldon said: " With all humility, I doubt the authority of that case; for if the trustee is a trustee for all the creditors, he is a trustee for them all in the article of selling to others; and if the jealousy of the court arises from the difficulty of a cestui que trust duly informing himself what is most or least for his advantage, 1 have considerable doubt whether the majority in that article can bind the minority; the question does not arise upon the state of acts in this case." Lord Eldon expressly denies that the assignee can buy the estate of the bankrupt, and, going further, he says: "As to the purchase of debts by the assignee, as assignees cannot buy the estate of the bankrupt, so they cannot, for their own benefit, buy an interest in the bankrupt's estate, because they are trustees for the creditors." In Ex parte Tanner, 6 Ves. 630; Ex parte Attwood, id., Owen v. Foulkes, id., the Lord Chancellor laid down the general rule, that no trustee shall buy the trust property until he strips himself of that character, or by universal consent has acquired a ground for becoming a purchaser, and added, that the rule is to be more peculiarly applied, with unrelenting jealousy, in the case of an assignee of a bankrupt, and that it must be understood, that, whenever assignees purchase, they must expect an inquiry into the circumstances. Ex parte Reynolds, 5 Ves 707; Ex parte Shaw, 1 Glyn & J. 127; Ex parte Steel, 1 Deacon & Ch. 488. And see Fox v. Mackreth, 2 Bro C. a 400, 2 Cox, 320; Whichcote v. Lawrence, 3 Ves 740; Campbell v. Walker, 5 Ves. 678; Ex parte Hughes, 6 id. 617; Lister v Lister, id. 631; Ex parte Morgan, 12 Ves. 6; Ex parte Hodgson, 1 Glyn & J. 14; Ex parte Lewis, id. 70; Ex parte Buxton, id. 357; Ex parte Bage. 4 Madd. 460. But in Ex parte Reynolds 5 Ves. 707, it was held, that in case the subsequent sale did not produce as much as the assignee had given, he should then be bound by his wrongful purchase each * creditor as well as of all the creditors. It would seem to follow, therefore, that no assignee could protect himself against any claim or suit of any creditor, by showing only that he had acted in obedience to a majority of the creditors, or of any number or proportion of them, however great (x) It is, however, obvious, that there are some things which must be determined by the will of the majority, as who shall be assignee, and other important matters, concerning which it is impossible that every man should have his own way; and here the statute provides, accordingly, that the will of the majority, under certain precautions against fraud or oppression, should prevail. It may, however, be laid down as a rule, with scarcely an exception, that no assignee is safe in relying upon a majority vote or act, excepting in the very cases and the very way pointed out by the statutes. It is obvious, that if a majority had any general power, they might easily exert it to defeat the whole purpose of insolvent laws, which is equal justice to all.