
    In the Matter of the Assignment of William M. Sloan.
    “Operative” not a traveling agent to obtain subscription, etc. — Section 6S5S Revised Statutes — Insolvent debtors and preferred claims.
    
    One who is employed by the publisher of a “Legal Directory, ’ ’ as traveling agent in obtaining subscriptions and in selling the “Directory” to attorneys and others and collecting accounts, is not an “operative” within the meaning of section 6355, Revised Statutes.
    (Decided June 13, 1899.)
    Error to the Circuit Court of Hamilton county.
    The plaintiff in error is one S. A. ■ Greenlee, a creditor of the assignor. His claim was made in the form- of an application to the probate court for an order requiring the assignee to aLlow and pay him the sum of $300 out of the assets of the assignment, for services and labor as an “operative” within twelve months of the assignment, in preference to certain chattel mortgages given within two months prior to the assignment by the assignor. The cause was tried on appeal in the common pleas where the facts found are in substance as follows:
    The business of the assignor, before this assignment, consisted of publishing and selling “Sloan’s Legal Directory,” to attorneys and others, both in the United States of America and Canada. Green-lee was employed by Sloan as traveling agent, to work for him in obtaining subscriptions to said “Directory,” and in selling the same to attorneys and others in territory aforesaid, and also collecting accounts due Sloan in said territory; that to do this he traveled from place to place; that said work required him to visit different places, go from office to office, and interview prospective subscribers, and present, as best he could, the merits of said “Directory.” His claim is for balance due for salary and expenses incurred, and amounts to the sum of $652.05, with interest from October 2, 1893. There is more than $300 due for the year immediately preceding the assignment. The salary of Greenlee was to be $100 per month, and all traveling expenses in addition thereto, which expenses were to be paid by Sloan.
    The .claim of Greenlee for services was allowed by the assignee as a general claim, but rejected as a preferred claim.
    There is due $150, and interest on one of the chattel mortgages, given February, 1893, for purchase money, and that and the mortgages given August 8, 1893, are all the liens upon the chattel property of the assignor.
    The assignment was made August 15, 1893.
    Whereupon the court gave judgment in favor of Greenlee, which on error to the circuit court was reversed. The latter court held that Greenlee is not an “operative” within section 6355, Revised Statutes, and not entitled to $300 as preference, and rendered final judgment for the assignee.
    
      A. M. Warner, for petitioner in error.
    Swing, Gushing & Morse, for trustee.
   By the Court.

The claim of plaintiff in error is based upon section 6355, Revised Statutes, which is: “All taxes of every description assessed against the assignor upon any personal property held by him before his assignment, shall be paid by the assignee or trustee, out of the proceeds of the property assigned in preference to any other claims against the assignor, and every person who shall have performed any labor as an operative in the service of the assignor, shall be entitled to receive out of the trust funds, before the payment of the other creditors, the full amount of the wages due no such person for such labor performed within twelve months preceding the assignment, not exceeding three hundred dollars. But the foregoing provisions shall not prejudice or in any way affect securities given, or liens obtained in good faith, for value, but judgments by confession on warrants of attorney rendered within two months prior to such assignment, or securities given within such time to create a preference among creditors, or to secure a pre-existing debt other than upon real estate for the purchase money thereof, shall be of no force or validity as against such claims for labor to the extent above provided, in case of assignment.”

We agree with the conclusion reached by the circuit court. The applicant is not an “operative” within the meaning of the above section. The judgment of the circuit court will, therefore, be

Affirmed.  