
    WASHINGTON.
    Peleg Brown vs. John R. Armstrong et al.
    
    An insolvent debtor made an assignment for tlie benefit of Us creditors to one to ■whom he had a short time before executed conveyances of property. On the petition of a majority in interest of creditors alleging that such conveyances were made in fraud of creditors, the court removed the assignee for the reason that his interest as grantee in the conveyances alleged to be fraudulent was in conflict with his duties as assignee.
    
      Creditors’ petition for the removal of an assignee under Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 237, § 3.
    The petition showed that the petitioner was a majority in interest of the creditors of Charles H. Armstrong who, on the twenty-eighth day of February, 1894, made an assignment for the benefit of his creditor’s to his eldest son, John R. Armstrong, and that a short time prior to the date of such assignment Charles H. Armstrong conveyed a considerable portion of his real estate to said John R. Armstrong for the purpose of defrauding his creditors.
    Pub. Stat. R. I. cap. 237, § 3, is as follows:
    “Sec. 3. The supreme court shall, upon the petition of any creditor interested in any deed of assignment made by a debtor for the benefit of creditors, upon due. notice and for cause shown, remove any assignee named in such deed of assignment, who shall neglect to render an inventory and schedule as required by this chapter or shall neglect to give a bond as required by said court, and may, upon the petition of a majority in interest of the creditors interested in any such deed of assignment, upon due notice and for cause shown remove the assignee named therein from his office and trust. ”
    
      George J. West, for petitioner.
    
      Warren B. Perce, for respondents.
    
      Providence, March 28, 1894.
   Per Curiam.

We are of the opinion that the- assignee being a grantee in the conveyances made by Charles H. Armstrong alleged to he fraudulent, is an unsuitable person for the office of assignee, since his interest as a grantee is necessarily. in conflict with his duty as assignee. The prayer of the petition for his removal is, therefore, granted. The petition will stand for further hearing on the question of the appointment of a receiver, or assignee, in the place of the said John R. Armstrong.  