The statement of these principles is easier than the application of them to concrete facts. One of the commonest cases involving the distinction is that of a general assignment by a debtor for the benefit of his creditors. The English courts hold that the delivery of such an assignment vests no rights in the creditors.13 Yet it gives rise to something more than a mere agency, for when the creditors assent, the assignment cannot be revoked.14 It is in effect, therefore, under the English view, an offer to the creditors of a trust for their benefit.

11Ames, Cm. Trusts, 2d ed., 232, note; Perry on Trusts, 9th ed., Sec. 106. 12 See infra, Sec. 389.

13 Garrard v. Lauderdale, 3 Sim. 1. Smith v. Keating, 6 C. B. 136. 14 Ibid

Until the offer is accepted, but no longer, the assignee is agent or trustee for the assignor. In the United States such assignments are held, with better reason, to create irrevocable trusts from the moment the deed is executed.15