
    Robert Rogers and F. Hatton v. John Allen.
    Assignment to trustees by an insolvent debtor in Pennsylvania, under the laws of that state, does neither pass the legal title to the trustees, nor ereate an equity to be enforced in chancery, to lands situate in Ohio.
    This cause was adjourned hero for decision, from the county of Clermont. It was a bill in chancery, making the following ease:
    Allen, the defendant, became insolvent in the State of Pennsylvania, and, in taking the benefit of the insolvent law of that state, made an assignment to the complainants, as trustees, of all his property, both real and personal. Among the property surrendered, in his schedule, was a tract of land in Clermont county, Ohio. The trustees made a sale of this land, and the purchaser took possession. Allen brought an ejectment and recovered. This bill was brought by the trustees, reciting the facts of the case, alleging that the other property assigned was insufficient to pay the debts of Allen, and paying a decree to sell the land in Clermont, for the benefit of the creditors. The defendant demurred.
    
      T. R. Ross, for the respondents,
    argued that the assignment in Pennsylvania conferred no title, legal or equitable, upon the trustees to land situate in Ohio. Ho cited 5 Cranch, 302; 2 Ohio, 235.
    A. H. Dunlavy, for the complainants,
    submitted the cause without argument.
   *By the Court :

' The Supreme Court of this state decided, in the case of M’Cullock’s heirs v. Rodrick, that the assignment of an insolvent’s effects, under the laws of Pennsylvania, did not vest the trustees or assignees with the legal title to lands in Ohio. We are entirely satisfied with that decision. In order to give effect to such an assignment, where lands situate in a different state are included, the insolvent should be held to make a formal deed of conveyance to the trustees. If this is not done, no title passes.

The bill here assumes that the assignment created an equity in the complainants, which a court of chancery should enforce. But we can perceive no principle upon which this doctrine can be safely founded.

It is a well-settled doctrine that a commission of bankruptcy vests in the trustees the personalties, whether situate within the jurisdiction that grants the commission or not. 4 Johns. Ch. 460. It seems to be equally well understood that these commissions do not affect real property out of the jurisdiction where they issued. It is so adjudged in the House of Lords, in 1814. 2 Dow. 230. And this doctrine stands upon the clear principle that real estate in every country can only be affected or transferred according to the municipal law. As, in this case, no title passed at law, we do not see any principle upon which an equity can be created to be enforced here. The bill must be dismissed.  