OBAMPTON V. JERKOWSKI. 493 �any source, the plaintiff is entitled to an account for in •whole. �This case is not like Mitchell v. Winslow, 6 Law Eep. 347, 2 Story, 630, cited by Williams, C. J., in bis dissenting opin- ion in Paris v. Vail ; nor like Platt v. StewaH, 13 Blatchf. 481, reversed in part on appeal; Stewart v. Platt, Supreme Court United States, October term, 1870, Chicago Legal News, JFebruary 28, 1880; for each arose under the laws of a state authorizing chattel mortgages — the former in Maine and the latter in New York; wbile in Vermont, at the time of thia transaction, there was no statute authorizing a mortgage of chattels in any form, and no mode by which a lien upon them as against creditors could be created by act of the par- ties other than by piedge or by conditional sale reserving title. Neither is it like Cramton v. Tarbell, District Court United States, District Vermont, for in that case there was a loan of aetual value, made in good faith, upon security taken in good faith on the occasion of making the loan, which is expressly saved by the bankrupt law. Act of June 22, 1874, § 11. Here the defendant undertakes to acquire Plack'a interest by a transfer which the bankrupt law declares void. �The evidence does not show definitely the amounts of these classes of goods, nor their value, nor the value of the share to which the assignee is entitled. The case must, therefore, go to a master to have these amounts and values ascertained. �Let decree be entered for an accoùnt of the value of one- tihird of the original goods purchased by Flack of the defend- ant, and of those substituted therefor, and of the value of those purchased by Flack and paid for from bis own re- fiources, aside from the goods purchased of defendant, if any, and those purchased by Flack and not paid for, taken by the defendant, and for the payment of these amounts, when ascertained, to the orator, with costs. ����
