
    William Viall versus Zenas Bliss and Trustee.
    Where G., lieing summoned as trustee of B., disclosed an indenture of two parts, between B., of the one part, and the respondent of the other part, whereby all the goods and chattels of B. were assigned to the respondent in trust to pay B.’s creditors, and it did not appear that any creditor had signed or assented to ihe indenture, the respondent was adjudged trustee.
    Church Gray, being summoned in a process of foreign attachment as the trustee of Bliss, disclosed an indenture of two parts, made by Bliss of the one part and the respondent of the other part, whereby Bliss assigned to the respondent certain parcels of real estate and all his goods and chattels and choses in action, in trust to pay certain of his creditors in full, and others pro rata, in case the property should be insufficient to pay them in full ; and the respondent covenanted to perform the trust.
    Cobb, for the plaintiff,
    contended that the indenture was invalid, inasmuch as it consisted of but two parts, and was not signed by any creditor of Bliss ; Widgery v. Haskell, 5 Mass. R. 144 ; and inasmuch as the creditors named in the indenture had not assented to it, but, on the contrary, several of the credi tors named in it had summoned the respondent in processes of foreign attachment. Stevens v. Bell, 6 Mass. R. 339 ; Marston v, Coburn, 17 Mass. R. 454. The plaintiff claims that the respondent may be adjudged trustee, so far as respects the govds and chattels assigned ; which are sufficient to cover the amount of the plaintiff’s demand.
    
      Hunt, for the trustee.
   Per Curiam.

The respondent is adjudged trustee. 
      
       See Brewer v Pitkin, 11 Pick. 298; Leeds v. Sayward,, 6 N. Hamp. R. 83; Bradford v. Tappan, 11 Pick. 76; Russell v. Woodward, 10 Pick. 415; Ward v. Lamson, 6 Pick. 358; Wales v. Rogers, 22 Pick. 245; Everett v. Walcot, 15 Pick 94; Copeland v. Weld, 8 Greenl. 411.
     