394. FEDERAL REPORTBE. �fact in this case, it may be in the next one, and so the illus- tration will serve to test the correctness of the construction contended for. In such a case we should be called upon to order that the party guilty of usury, and liable for a penalty therefor, should relieve himself from such liability by credit- ing the amount of the penalty upon a worthless claim against a bankrupt estate. That would be to defeat the evident pur- pose of the law. I am of the opinion that the bank must pay the judgment obtained by the plaintiff as assignee. Its share of the proceeds of the judgment wiU go to the satisfac- tion of its claim, but no more. The money, when collected, must be distributed 'pro rata among creditors. �The demurrer to the bill is overruled, and if the defendant stands upon its demurrer there will be deeree for plaintiff, reversing the order of the district court, and directing pro- ceedings in accordance with this opinion. ���Platt, Assignee, v. Pbeston and others. �(District Court, 3. D. New Tm-k. July 26, 1880.) . �1. Chattei, Mortoage— Filing— Bankrdptct.— The failure to fllo a chattel mortgage pursuant to the statute of the state of New York does net, par se, avoid the mortgage in favor of au assignee in bank- ruptcy. • iStewart v. Platt, 19 N. B. B. 347. �In Equity. �A. Bluvienskiel, for complainànt. �B. F. Traey and Henry Brodhead, for defendant Preston. F. W. Angcll, for defendant Weinfeld. �Ghoate, d. J. This is a bill in equity, brought by the assignee in bankruptcy of one Neumann, against William J. Preston, Montz Weinfeld, and Anthony J, Diekelman, to set aside, as fraudulent against the creditors of the bankrupt, a chattel mortgage given to the defendant Preston, a lease to the defend- dant Weinfeld, and a general assigument made to the defend- ant Diekelman, all of which are alleged to have been made ����
