State bankrupt and insolvent laws are suspended by the passage of a federal bankrupt act,1 as far as the federal bankrupt law covers the same ground as the state laws. Proceedings under a state law are unauthorized after the passage of the United States act of 1898, if the case is one for which provision is made by the federal statute.2 An assignment for the benefit of creditors, made after the passage of a federal bankrupt act, is valid except on attack by the trustee in bankruptcy,3 and a creditor who has assented to the assignment can not attack its validity.4 The act of 1898 provides, "Proceedings commenced under state insolvency laws before the passage of this act shall not be affected by it."5

1 United States. Sturges v. Crown-inehield, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 4 L. ed. 529; Mechanics' Bank v. Smith, 19 U. S. (6 Wheat) 131, 5 L. ed. 224; Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U. S. (12 Wheat.) 213, 6 L. ed. 606.

Maine. Schwartz v. Drinkwater, 70 Me. 409.

Massachusetts. Bigelow v. Pritch-ard, 38 Mass. (21 Pick.) 169.

New York. Mather v. Bush, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 233, 8 Am. Dec. 313.

North Dakota. Elton v. O'Connor, 6 N. D. 1, 33 L. R. A. 524, 68 N. W. 84.

2 See ch. XCV.

3 Snow v. Foster, 79 Me. 558, 11 Atl. 602; Bangs v. Watson, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 211.

4 Bangs v. Watson, 75 Mass. (9 Gray) 211.

5 Snow v. Foster, 79 -Me. 558, II Atl. 602.

6 Ross v. Tozier, 78 Me. 312, 4 Atl. 860.

1 United States. Sturges v. Crown-inshield, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat.) 122, 4 L. ed. 529; Tua v. Carriere, 117 U. S. 201; In re Watts, 190 U. S. 1, 47 L. ed. 933; In re Bruss Ritter Co., 90 Fed. 651; In re Rouse, 91 Fed. 96; In re Curtis, 91 Fed. 737; In re Weedman Stave Co., 199 Fed. 948.

Illinois. Pogue v. Rowe, 236 111. 157, 86 N. E. 207.

Massachusetts. Parmenter Mfg. Co. v. Hamilton, 172 Mass. 178, 70 Am. St. Rep. 258, 51 N. E. 529; Rogers v. Boston Club, 205 Mass. 261, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 743, 91 N. E. 321.

Minnesota. Armour Packing Co. v. Brown, 76 Minn. 465, 79 N. W. 522.

L

State insolvency laws are not affected by the passage of a federal bankrupt act, as to matters for which no provision is made in such federal bankrupt act.6 A state statute which makes a fraudulent mortgage operate as a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, is not suspended by the passage of a federal bankrupt act;7 and proceedings may be had under such statute to have a fraudulent mortgage declared a general assignment, even if the fraudulent mortgagor has been adjudged a bankrupt and has received his discharge in bankruptcy.8 The fact that a federal bankrupt law has been enacted does not prevent a court of equity from appointing a receiver for the property of an insolvent corporation if such corporation has not been adjudged a bankrupt.9

New Jersey. Singer v. National Bedstead Mfg. Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 200, 55 Atl. 868.

Rhode Island. In re Reynolds, 8 R. I. 485, 5 Am. Rep. 615.

See, The Effect of a National Bankruptcy Law upon State Laws, by Samuel Williston, 22 Harvard Law Review, 547.

2 Barber v. International Co., 73 Conn. 587, 48 Atl. 758; Parmenter Mfg. Co. v. Hamilton, 172 Mass. 178, 70 Am. St. Rep. 258, 51 N. E. 529; Rogers v. Boston Club, 205 Mass. 261, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 743, 91 N. E. 321.

"The operation of the bankruptcy laws of the United States can not be defeated by insolvent commercial corporations applying to be wound up under state statutes. The bankruptcy law is paramount, and the jurisdiction of the federal courts in bankruptcy, when properly invoked, in the administration of the affairs of insolvent persons and corporations, is essentially exclusive." In re Watts, 190 U. S. 1, 47 L. ed. 933.

3 Boese v. King, 108 U. S. 379, 27 L. ed. 760; Armour Packing Co. v. Brown, 76 Minn. 465, 79 N. W. 522.

4 In re Romanow, 92 Fed. 510.

5 Sec. 72, b; Harbaugh v. Costello, 184 III. 110, 75 Am. St. Rep. 147, 56 N. E. 363 [affirming, 83 III. App. 29]; Parmenter Mfg. Co. v. Hamilton, 172 Mass. 178, 70 Am. St. Rep. 259, 51 N. E. 529; E. C. Westcott Co. v. Berry, 69 N. H. 505, 45 Atl. 352.

6 Roberts Cotton Oil Co. v. Morse, 97 Ark. 513, 135 S. W. 334; Little-field v. Gay, 96 Me. 422, 52 Atl. 925; Rogers v. Boston Club, 205 Mass. 261, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 743, 91 N. E. 321; Singer v. National Bedstead Mfg. Co., 65 N. J. Eq. 290, 35 Atl. 868.

7 Louisville Dry Goods Co. v. Lan-man, 135 Ky. 163, 135 Am. St. Rep. 451, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 363, 121 S. W. 1042.

8 Louisville Dry Goods Co. v. Lan-man, 135 Ky. 163, 135 Am. St. Rep. 451, 28 L. R. A. (N.S.) 363, 121 S. W. 1042.