
    * Frederick W. Ingraham versus Frederick W. Geyer.
    
      A n assignment of all his effects, by an insolvent debtor in Pennsylvania, in trust for such of his creditors as should within four months release all their demands against him, the surplus to be distributed, pro rata, among his other creditors, and the remainder, if any, to be paid over to the assignor, was holden to be void as against a creditor here, who, after such assignment, and after notice thereof to a debtor here, summoned such debtor as the trustee of the insolvent.
    This was a scire facias to have execution against the defendant, as trustee of W. Birnie and J. F. Rouchendorjf, merchants and co-partners in the city of Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania. - The defendant, in his answer to the usual interrogatory, stated, that, at the time of the service of the original process upon him, namely, on the 10th of May, 1811, he had in his hands $ 1298.06 belonging to the said Birnie Sp Rouchendorjf, except that, on the last day of January, 1811, he had been notified that the said Birnie Sp Rouchendorjf had, on the 14th of the same January, made, at said Philadelphia, an assignment and transfer of all their effects and estate to certain persons residing there, in trust for such of the creditors of the said Birnie Sp Rouchendorjf as should, within four months from the date of said assignment, execute a full release to them of all theii demands ; the surplus to be distributed, pro rata, amongst their other creditors ; and the remainder, if any, to be paid over to the assignors.
    
      Ritchie, for the plaintiff,
    contended, that the money in Geyer’s hands was not transferred by the assignment. There being no assent of the creditors of Birnie & Rouchendorff, the assignment was merely the act of the debtors ; and was at least void as to the plaintiff, who has never assented to it.  If the assignment be effectual in Pennsylvania, it is very clear that it would not be of any validity here ; and the Court will not support a transaction abroad, to the injury of our own citizens, which, if taking place here, would be without effect. It were to open a door by which our laws would be easily evaded, by a debtor’s going into another State to assign his effects. This assignment is in the highest degree unequal and against conscience, in the limitation to four months for creditors to come in under it.
    
      Munroe, for the defendant,
    insisted, that the assignment was binding by the laws of Pennsylvania, and the Court *was bound by the common principles of comity to give it effect in this case. 
    
    
      
      
        Widgery & al. vs Haskell, 5 Mass. Rep. 144.
    
    
      
      
        Wilt vs. Franklin, 1 Binney's Rep. 502. — Dix vs Cobb, 4 Mass. Rep. 508.— Foster vs. Sinkler, Ibid. 450 —Maine F. & M Ins. Co. vs. Weeks, 7 Mass. Rep. 438.
    
   Parker, C. J.

The question in this case is, whether the assignment made by the debtor in Philadelphia is valid here, so as to defeat an attachment of the debt here under our trustee process.

This assignment could not be supported, if made within this State by parties residing or living here, and with a view to be here executed. It is voluntary on the part of the debtor, and involuntary on the part of his creditor. It has no legal consideration ; for the debts of those creditors who are to become parties are not discharged at the time ; and it shuts out from a participation of the funds all the creditors who will not give an absolute discharge of their debts. There is, indeed, but one party to the indenture, namely, the assign- or ; for the persons named are his agents, until the creditors sign the instrument. Such an assignment could not be supported here.

It is said that it is valid in Pennsylvania, where it was made ; and that it ought to be admitted here, upon principles of comity. But we have no legal evidence, that it would be valid in that State against dissenting creditors. No statute of Pennsylvania has been shown, giving it validity; and the reasoning of the Court, in the case referred to by the defendant’s counsel, does not prove that such an assignment would be supported even there.

But supposing the assignment to have legal effect in the State of Pennsylvania, so as to bind the creditors within that State ; it does not follow, that it is to be received here, to the prejudice of creditors who are our own citizens. It is not required by the comity of nations. We might give effect to the assignment, so far as to permit the assignees to recover the debt in their own names ; as would be done in the case of assignees under the bankrupt or insolvent laws of foreign countries. But even in those cases, a citizen * who had actually seized the debt by attachment, before it was paid over to the assignee, would be protected in his lien ; certainly if no process had actually been commenced by the assignee to recover it.

The case of Le Chevalier vs. Lynch & al. is strong to this point; for there the attaching creditor was protected against the assignees of the bankrupt in England; although the plantation, in which the foreign attachment was instituted, was within the same dominion where the bankrupt law was enacted ; and this case has been recognized as law by this Court, in the case of Dawes, Judge, &c. vs Boylston.

To give effect to this assignment, so as to intercept the lien obtained by a creditor here, under the laws of our own State, when by the effect of that assignment he would be deprived of all oppor* tunity of participating with the creditors in Pennsylvania in the proceeds of the debtor’s effects, would be an undue partiality towards foreign creditors, not warranted by the principles of justice, nor required by the comity of nations.

Defendant adjudged trustee.

[Blake vs. Williams, 6 Pick. 286; Cushing on Trustee Process, page 71, et seq., and notes. — Ed.] 
      
      
        Blanchard vs. Russell, ante, p. 6.
     
      
      
        Doug. 170.
     
      
       9 Mass. Rep. 350.
     