IN THE MATTEB OF HEMiiï ÏEOTH. 407 �of all his creditors, and the right of all the creditors to par- ticipate in it, without discriminating conditions, is recognized and secured. But, inasmuch as the state law imposes re- fitraints upon the right to participate in the distribution of the asssigned estate which are inconsistent with the bank- rupt act, and so changes the course of their administration nnder the latter act, it is a "conveyance in violation of the provisions of the bankrupt act," and is thus brought within the scope of section 6129. For the avoidance of such convey- ances six months are allowed by that statute. �This classification of the assignment in question is sus- tained by the opinion of the supreme court in Mayer v. Hill' man, 1 Otto, 496. In that case it was held that a voluntary assignment, under the laws of Ohio, for the equal and com- mon benefit of all the creditors of the assignor, ia not fraud- ulent, and if voidable it must be bacause it may be deemed necessary for the efi&ciency of the bankrupt act that the administration of an insolvent's estate shall be entrusted to the direction of the district court, and not left under the con- trol of the appointee of the insolvent, and hence that pro- ceedings to avoid such an instrument may be commenced within six months. And such is the import of other decisions of the same court. �As the proceedings in bankruptcy in this case were begun within sir months after the date of the voluntary assignment, that instrument was not then indefeasible, but might have been declared invalid at the instance of an assignee in bank- ruptcy. The creditors who proved their debts under the vol- untary assignment, therefore, still sustained that relation to the bankrupt, and were competent to vote upon a composition resolution. As that resolution was lawfully adopted, it was properly approved by the district court, and the bill must, therefore, be dismissed, with costs* ��� �
