3. See Schenck v. Barnes, 156 N. R. 316, 41 L. R. A. 395, 50 N. E. 967. So as to the California statute McColgan v. Walter Magee, Inc. 172 Cal. 182, Ann. Cas. 1917D, 1050, 155 Pac. 995.

4. Re Qua v. Graham, 187 111. 67, 52 L. R. A. 64, 58 N. E. 357; Bank of Commerce v. Chambers,

96 Mo. 459, 10 S. W. 38; Hutchinson v. Maxwell, 100 Va 169, 57 L. R. A. 384, 93 Am. St. Rep. 944, 40 S. E. 655. But see Merchants Nat'l Bank v. Crist, 120 Iowa, 308, 23 L. R. A. (N. S.) 562, 132 Am. St. Rep. 267, 118 N. W. 394.

The New York legislation, as it existed before the act of 1908, has been copied more or less closely in other states, with the general effect of exempting from the claims of creditors, either in part or wholly, an equitable interest created by one other than the cestui que trust himself.11

5. Section 103.

6. Section 1391.

7. See Brearly School v. Ward, 201 N. Y. 358, 40 L. R. A. N. S. 1215 Ann. Cas. 1912B 251, 94 N. E. 1001.

8. See Heppenstall v. Bau-douine, 73 N. Y. Misc. 118, 148 N. Y. App. Div. 892, 132 N. Y.

Supp. 511.

9. Ante, this subsection, note 88.

10. Raymond v. Tiffany. 59 N. Y. Misc. 283, 112 N. Y. Supp. 252.

11. See e. g. Cal. Civ. Code. Sec. 859; Mich. How. Ann. St. Sec. 10681; Wisconsin St. 1913, Sec. 2083.

In Illinois the statute12 authorizes a judgment creditor to take proceedings to sequestrate property held in trust for the defendant, "except when such trust has, in good faith, been created by, or the fund so held in trust has proceeded from, some person other than the defendant himself," and under this statute the income of the trust fund is, apart from any express provisions, beyond the reach of creditors.13

The Kentucky statute14 provides that estates held in trust shall be subject to the debts and charges of the beneficiaries, as they would be subject if those persons owned the like interest in the property itself. The effect of this statute is to render nugatory any attempt to create a trust exempt from the claims of the cestui's creditors,15 except as the trustee is given an absolute discretion as to whether the cestui shall have anything16 or as the interests of various cestuis are incapable of separation for this or any other purpose.17

12. Rev. St. 1916 ch. 23, Sec. 49.

13. Binns v. La Forge, 191 111. 598, 61 N. E. 382.

14. Ky. Stat. 1909, Sec. 2355.

15. Bland's Adm'r v. Bland, 90 Ky. 400, 9 L. R. A. 599, 29 Am. St. Rep. 390, 14 S. W. 423; Cecil's Trustee v. Robertson, 32 Ky. Law, 357, 105 S. W. 926.

16. Davidson v. Kemper, 79

Ky. 5, 82 Ky. 415; Marshall's Trustee v. Rash, 87 Ky. 6, 12 Am. St. Rep. 467, 7 S. W. 879; Garner v. Wills, 92 Ky. 386, 17 S. W. 1023; Ratliff's Ex'rs. v. Comm., 31 Ky. Law Rep. 154, 101 S. W. 978.

17. Hackette's Trustee v. Hack-ett, 146 Ky. 408, 142 S. W. 673.