Discharge in bankruptcy is generally said to be merely a bar to an action upon the debts of the bankrupt affected thereby, in which it is sought to enforce a personal liability. It does not amount to a discharge on the debt itself. Accordingly, if a creditor has obtained a valid lien,1 as by attachment,2 or by garnishment,3 or by judgment,4 or by levy,5 or by mechanic's lien,6 such lien is in no way affected by a subsequent discharge of the debtor in bankruptcy. Even if the statute provides that a judgment shall be marked as satisfied of record when the judgment debtor files a certified copy of his discharge in bankruptcy, such statute is regarded as intended to prevent such judgment from becoming a lien upon after-acquired realty; but it is not intended to affect the lien of such judgment as it existed when the bankruptcy proceedings were instituted.7

4 Morency v. Landry, - N. H. -, 108 Atl 865.

1 Arkansas. Gray v. Bank, 137 Ark. 232, 208 S. W. 302.

California. Bridge v. Kedon, 163 Cal. 493, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 404, 126 Pac. 149.

Georgia. Dozier v. McWhorter, 113 Ga. 584, 39 S. E. 106; Evans v. Roun-saville, 115 Ga. 684, 42 S. E. 100; Mc-Call v. Herring, 116 Ga. 235, 42 S. E. 468; Philmon v. Marshall, 116 Ga. 811, 43 S. E. 48; McBride v. Gibbs, 148 Ga. 380, 96 S. E. 1004.

Maryland. Frey v. McGaw, 127 Md. 23, L. R. A. 1916D, 113, 95 Atl. 960.

Minnesota. Gregory Co. v. Cale, 115 Minn. 508, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 156, 133 N. W. 75.

Nebraska. Paxton v. Scott, 66 Neb. 385, 92 N. W. 611.

North Dakota. John Leslie Paper Co. v. Wheeler, 23 N. D. 477, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 292, 137 N. W. 412.

New Jersey. Taylor v. Taylor, 59 N. J. Eq. 86, 45 Atl. 440.

New York. Storm v. Waddell, 2 Sandf. (N. Y. Ch.) 494; Macy v. Jordan, 2 Denio (N. Y.) 570; Lowry v. Morrison, 11 Paige (N. Y. Ch.) 327.

Pennsylvania. Woods v. Klein, 223 Pa. St. 256, 72 Atl. 523.

Wisconsin. Bank v. Elliott, 109 Wis. 648, 85 N. W. 417.

2 United States. In re Blumberg, 94 Fed. 476.

Arkansas. Gray v. Bank, 137 Ark. 232, 208 S. W. 302.

Connecticut. Wakeman v. Throckmorton, 74 Conn. 616, 51 Atl 554.

Maine. Stickney & Babcock Coal Co. v. Goodwin, 95 Me. 246, 85 Am. St. Rep. 408, 49 Atl. 1039.

New Hampshire. Rochester Lumber Co. v. Locke, 72 N. H. 22, 54 Atl. 705.

North Dakota. Powers Dry Goods Co. v. Nelson, 10 N. D. 580, 58 L. R. A. 770, 88 N. W. 703.

Apparently contra, Wood v. Carr, 115 Ky. 303, 73 S. W. 762.

3 Gray v. Bank, 137 Ark. 232, 208 S. W. 302; Marx v. Hart, 1G6 Mo. 503, 89 Am. St. Rep. 715, 66 S. W. 260.

4 Arkansas. Gray v. Bank, 137 Ark. 232, 208 S. W. 302.

Georgia. Doner v. McWhorter, 113 Ga. 584, 39 S. E. 106; McBride v. Gibbs, 148 Ga. 380, 96 S. E. 1004.

Minnesota. Gregory Co. v. Cale, 115 Minn. 508, 37 L. R. A. (N.S.) 156, 133 N. W. 75.

North Dakota. John Leslie Paper Co. v. Wheeler, 23 N. D. 477, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 292, 137 N. W. 412.

5 Frazee v. Nelson, 179 Mass. 456, 88 Am. St. Rep. 391, 61 N. E. 40; Pink-hard v. Willis, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 69, 57 S. W. 891.

6 Seibel v. Simeon, 62 Mo. 255; Bas-sett v. Baird, 85 Pa. St. 384.

However, a proceeding in the nature of an attachment of a salary of a state employe, which is obtained by filing a judgment with the Secretary of State in accordance with the local statute, has been held not to give a lien upon compensation which falls due after the filing of the petition in bankruptcy.8

A discharge in bankruptcy does not affect the lien of a mortgage which is not an unlawful preference under the bankrupt act;9 and the fact that the interest of the mortgagor was contingent does not prevent his title, when subsequently acquired, from inuring to the benefit of the mortgagee if the mortgage contained a covenant of warranty.10 An equitable assignment of an expectancy for the purpose of securing a debt is not affected by the fact that such debt is subsequently barred by a discharge in bankruptcy.11 If a testator has charged a devisee's debts upon land which is devised to such debtor, such lien is not affected by a subsequent discharge of the debtor in bankruptcy.12 A discharge in bankruptcy does not prevent either a creditor13 or the trustee in bankruptcy 14 from setting aside conveyances of property by the debtor in fraud of his creditors. The bankrupt can not object to a proceeding against property which the bankrupt had conveyed fraudulently before bankruptcy.15 If a debtor has, in fraud of his creditors, conveyed land which was not within the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, the grantee can not set up the discharge of the debtor as a defense against a suit by the creditors to set such conveyance aside.16 If the conveyance is made after bankruptcy, however, the grantee can set up the bankrupt's discharge as against a judgment rendered after such discharge, upon a liability which existed prior to such discharge.17 A discharge in bankruptcy is said to be a personal discharge, while a creditor's bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is a suit in rem; and accordingly a discharge in bankruptcy is said not to be a bar to such suit.18 On the other hand, it is held that a creditor can not sue after a discharge in bankruptcy has been granted, to set aside a prior fraudulent conveyance, on the theory that the right to bring such suit is in the trustee, and also on the theory that the bankrupt is released from all provable debts.19

7 John Leslie Paper Co. v. Wheeler, 23 N. D. 477, 42 L. R. A. (N.S.) 292, 137 N. W. 412.

8 Jefferson Transfer Co. v. Hull, 166 Wis. 438, 166 N. W. 1.

9 McBride v. Gibbs, 148 Ga. 380. 96 S. E. 1004; Bisby v. Walker, - la. -, 169 N. W. 467 [opinion modified on rehearing, 171 N. W. 152]; Cook v. Far-rington, 104 Mass. 212.

10 Bisby v. Walker, - la. -, 169 N. W. 467 [opinion modified on rehearing, 171 N. W. 1521.

11 Bridge v. Kedon, 163 Cal. 493, 43 L. R. A. (N.S.) 404, 126 Pac. 149.

12 In re Fussell, 129 la. 498, 105 N. W. 503.

13 United States. Moyer v. Dewey, 103 U. S. 301, 26 L. ed. 394.

Georgia. Johnson v. Grocery Co., 112 Ga. 449, 37 S. E. 766.

Minnesota. Evans v. Staalle, 88 Minn. 253, 92 N. W. 951.

Nebraska. Flint v. Chaloupka, 78 Neb. 594, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 309, 111 N. W. 465.

Pennsylvania. Deposit National Bank v. Hay, 262 Pa. St. 388, 105 Atl. 463.

14 In re Pierce, 103 Fed. 64.

Any preference obtained within the four months, as by levy,20 may be set aside on direct proceedings by the trustee.

Even though a lien exists, a discharge in bankruptcy protects the debtor from further personal liability.21 If no lien exists a debt is barred, even though no exemptions could have been had against a judgment rendered thereon. A debt for the purchase price of a chattel is barred by bankruptcy even though such property could not have been held as exempt against such debt.22

If a lien can be enforced only by a proceeding in which a personal judgment is obtained, a discharge in bankruptcy to the debtor against whom such judgment must be obtained, as a prerequisite to enforcing the lien, prevents the enforcement of such lien.23 If a subcontractor or materialman can enforce a lien against the property of the person for whom such work has been done or material furnished, only on paying a personal judgment against the contractor, the discharge of the contractor in bankruptcy will prevent him from enforcing such lien.24 An assignment of future wages is generally held to create a lien upon such future wages as earned;25 and where this view of such assignment is taken, the subsequent discharge of the assignor in bankruptcy does not affect such lien,26 at least if the assignee has not proved his claim.27 In other jurisdictions, however, it is held that such assignment does not create a lien until the wages are earned;28 and where this theory prevails, the discharge of the assignor in bankruptcy extinguishes the lien created by such assignment, as to wages which are earned thereafter.29

15 Deposit National Bank v. Hay, 262 Pa. St. 388, 105 Atl. 463.

16 Flint v. Chaloupka, 78 Neb. 594, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 309, 111 N. W. 465.

See also, Moyer v. Dewey, 103 U. S. 301, 26 L. ed. 394.

17 Upshur v. Briscoe, 138 U. S. 365, 34 L. ed. 935.

18 Flint v. Chaloupka, 78 Neb. 594, 13 L. R. A. (N.S.) 309, 111 N. W. 465.

19 Ruhl-Koblegard Co. v. Gillespie,

61 W. Va. 584, 10 L. R. A. (N.S.) 305, 56 S. E. 898.

20 In re Francis-Valentine Co., 93 Fed. 953.

21 First National Bank v. Hoffman, 102 Kan. 465, 171 Pac. 13.

See Sec. -.

22 Graham v. Richerson, 115 Ga. 1002, 42 S. E. 374.

23 Pike Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 132 Ga. 675, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 409, 64 S. E. 998.

If an action is brought against husband and wife, who own community property, the discharge of the husband in bankruptcy is a defense, both to himself personally and to the community property.30 However, it is held that if property is held by the entirety, the discharge of the husband in bankruptcy prevents the creditor from enforcing sale of such property during the lifetime of the husband, under a judgment which was rendered within four months before proceedings in bankruptcy were begun.31 A judgment which is rendered against the husband may be enforced against property held by the entirety if the death of the wife has vested the whole estate in the husband, although he has been discharged in bankruptcy in the meantime.32

24 Pike Bros. Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 132 Ga. 675, 26 L. R. A. (N.S.) 400, 64 S. E. 998.

25 Mallin v. Wenham, 209 111. 252, 101 Am. St. Rep. 233, 65 L. R. A. 602, 70 N. E. 564; Monarch Discount Co. v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 285 111. 233, 120 N. E. 743; Citizens' Loan Association v. Boston & Maine R. Co., 196 Mass. 528, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1025, 82 N. E. 696; Raulins v. Levi, 232 Mass. 42, 121 N. E. 500.

26 Mallin v. Wenham, 209 111. 252, 101 Am. St. Rep. 233, 65 L. R. A. 602, 70 N. E. 564; Monarch Discount Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry., 285 111. 233, 120 N. E. 743; Citizens' Loan Association v. Boston & Maine Ry., 196 Mass. 528, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1025, 82 N. W. 696; Raulins v. Levi, 232 Mass. 42, 121 N. E. 500; Rate v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 56 Mont. 277, 184 Pac. 478.

27 Citizens' Loan Association v. Boston & Maine Ry., 196 Mass. 528, 14 L. R. A. (N.S.) 1025, 82 N. E. 696.

28 Levi v. Loevenhart, 138 Ky. 133, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 375, 127 S. W. 748; Rate v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 56 Mont. 277, 184 Pac. 478; Hupp v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 99 Neb. 654, L. R. A. 1916E, 247, 157 N. W. 343.

29 Levi v. Loevenhart-, 138 Ky. 133, 30 L. R. A. (N.S.) 375, 127 S. W. 748; Rate v. American Smelting & Refining Co., 56 Mont. 277, 184 Pac. 478; Hupp v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 99 Neb. 654, L. R. A. 1916E, 247, 157 N. W. 343.

See as to the effect of a statutory proceeding in the nature of an attachment, Jefferson Transfer Co. v. Hull, 166 Wis. 438, 166 N. W. 1.

30 Sound Credits Co. v. Powers, 100 Wash. 668, 171 Pac. 1031.

31 Ades v. Caplin, 132 Md. 66, L. R. A. 1918D, 276, 103 Atl. 94.

In many of the cases in which this question has been raised, the lien was created more than four months before the institution of bankruptcy proceedings.33 However, the provision of the bankrupt act which declares levies made within four months of the institution of bankruptcy proceedings to be void, means merely that the trustee may, by taking proper steps, have such levy declared void. If the trustee does not attack such levy, a sale thereunder is valid as against the debtor.34 The same principle applies to attachments which the trustee does not attack.35