
    John Gordon versus Joshua Webb, and James Porterfield, his Trustee.
    Where a trustee, upon his examination, discloses an assignment of his debt to a third person, the Court will not yield to a suggestion from the attacling creditor that such assignment is fraudulent. For such a purpose the assignee should have been made trustee.]
    t See Ciarle vs. Brown Roys, 14 Mass. Rep. 271.
    In this case, Porterfield, in his answer to interrogatories, acknowledged himself to be the debtor of Webb; and disclosed a number of circumstances going strongly to show an assignment of the debt to one Pierce, previous to the service upon him of the writ in this suit.
    
      Longfellow, for the plaintiff,
    contended, that the assignment was fraudulent.
   But the Court said, that it sufficiently appeared, from the disclosure of the supposed trustee, that an assignment had been made, and notice thereof seasonably given to Porterfield. Such an assignment, sufficient in point of form, must be supported on á process of this nature, or bond fide assignees may be injured and defrauded, without possibility of relief. To avoid mischief to the attaching creditor, it has often been suggested by the Court, that he should summon the assignee, by whose examination the * whole transaction might be made to appear. Although his rights are expressly to be passed upon in cases of this kind, if he be not summoned as a trustee, he has no opportunity to give any evidence of such rights, nor even to be heard in defence of them. If a fraudulent assignment be set up, and receive the countenance of the Court, the creditor must look for his remedy by another process. It is to be feared, that wrongs will sometimes take place from the tíature of these proceedings, which, as the law now is, cannot be prevented. A legislative provision for a trial by jury of the question, whether trustee or not, might go far' to remedy the evil.

Trustee discharged.

[ See Cushing on Trustee Process, § 178 et seq., and case cited. — Ed.]  