OLNBi V. TANNER 101 �Olney, Eeceiver, etc., v. Tanner and others. (District Court, 8. D. New York. January 11, 1882.) �1. JcEiSDiCiioN op Pbdbral Oourts Ovbu Bankkupt's Pkopbktt Fbaddit- �LENTLY ASSIONBD. �The district and circuit courts have iurisdiction of a plenary suit brought by any person against the assignee in bankruptcy to assert a claim of superior title to property of the bankrupt fraudulentlj' assigned before prooeedings in bankruptcy. This junsdiction is not affected by the faot that other parties than the assignee in bankruptcy are necessary parties to the suit. �2. Ueceivee of State Couet — Titlb to Peopertt Absignbd by Debtok m �Feaud op CiiEDiTons— Effect op Proceedinos in Bankrdptct. �The receiver of a judgment debtor appointed in supplementary proceedings in the state court, under the New York Code of Procedure, does not aoquire ipso facto, by virtue of such appointment, a title to property previously assigned by the debtor in fraud of creditors, nor any lien thereon, until suit to set it aside, or other legal proceedings or notice of his claim to treat the assignment as void ; and if no such suit or proceedings are brought or taken by such a receiver until after the commencement of proceedings in bankruptcy, the re- ceiver has no title in the property superior to the assignee ; nor eau he there- after, under the rule established by the supreme court, [Glenny v. Langdon, 98 U. 8. 20,) maintain an action to vacate the fraudulent assignment. �3. Same — How Vbstbd with Title to Debtor 's Propbett. �8ucli a receiver represents his judgment crediter only, and, like a receiver in a iudgment creditor's hill, does not become vested with the title to such prop- erty except through an action to which the fraudulent assignee is a party. �4. Bame — Recognition ik Foreign or Independent Tkibunals bt C'omity �Only — Not Entitled to Obtain Preference Over Other Creditors. �A receiver, as an officer of the court that appoints liira, is recognized in for- eign or* independent tribunals by comity only. Semble that this comity is not to be extended so as to conier preferences in favor of particular creditors to the detriment of the general creditors whose interests foreign or independ- ent tribunals are charged with protecting, and that such a receiver is not enti- tled to the aid of a federal court, sitting in bankruptcy, in obtaining a prefer- ence over other creditors entitled to its protection. �5. Assignment poe Benepit op Creditors — Proop dp Fraudulent Intent �Requisite to Set it Aside — Not Invalidated bt Delinquencies op As- signee. �An assignment for the equal beneflt of all creditors should not be set aside in favor of one crediter as fraudulent except upon clear and convincing proofs of fraudulent intent. If complete and perfect in itself , and not fraudulent in its inception, it is not invalidated by the subsequent remissness or inefflciency or errors of judgment of the assignee. �6. Saheœ — Subsequent Aots of Debtor when Not Evidence of Fraudulent �Intent. �The subsequent employment of the assigner or the continuance of the busi- ness for working up the old stock, or the fulfllment of outstanding contracta, and the purchase of necessaiy goods therefor, lield, va. this case, uot sufflcient evidence of an original fraudulent intent. ��� �
