
    
      W. P. MEEKER vs. HIS CREDITORS.
    
    A cessio bonorum refused to be homologated.
    Meeker, a merchant in London, became a bankrupt, made an assignment of all his property and obtained his certificate. One of his ere-ditors in the city of New-Orleans, having discovered some property of his, levied an attachment on it. In the mean while, the bankrupt came over, and, during the pendency of the suit, made a cessio bonorum to the same persons for whose benefit the assignment in England had been made.
    Fall 1809,
    First District.
    Duncan, for the bankrupt,
    moved that the proceedings be homologated.
    
      Robertson and Brown contra.
    The proceedings ought not to be homologated, for they are in fraud of the attaching creditor. The assignment in London has no effect on the property in the United States, which remains liable to the pursuits of British as well as American creditors. Kirby, 313. 3 Dallas, 369. Judge Iredell's opinion. 4 Term R. 192. Johnson 118, where it is said that the assignees of the bankrupt in England cannot sue here.
    Letters of administration granted in Maryland do not authorize a suit in the district of Columbia: new letters must be obtained. So, of the assignment of a bankrupt’s estate in England. 2 Cranch.
    
    Bankrupt laws of England have no force in Ireland. 1 Atkins 82, nor in Scotland, Kaimes 573, nor in the United States, Kirby 313. Irish bankrupt law not in force in England, 1 Anstruther 80. Bankrupt law of one state not in force in another. 3 Dallas 369.
    A creditor has his election to pursue the bankrupt or to prove his debt under the commission. 1 Atkins 153.
    Lord Mansfield said, in Chevallier vs. Lynch, Douglas 169, where after bankruptcy, money is attached by regular process out of England, according to the law of the place, the assignees cannot recover the debt.
    The assignment of a bankrupt’s estate is binding only in the state in which the commission issues. Douglas 160.
    An assignment by commission is a voluntary assignment with regard to foreign nations and does not effect their rights. Cooke’s Bankrupt Law 243, 370. Assignment voluntary. Richards vs. Hudson and Warring vs. Knight, cited in Hunter vs. Potts, 4 Term R.
    
    Duncan, in support of the motion.
    The attaching creditor and the bankrupt are both British subjects. The debt accrued in England and previous to the bankruptcy. The lex loci must govern. 1 H. Blackst. 655, 2 do. 402. 4 Term R. 182. 3 Dallas 370, 2 do. 256. Cooke’s B. L. 497.
    The assignment, under the commission, is equal to a voluntary conveyance, 2 Johnson 342.
   By the Court,

Lewis, J.

alone. I am not satisfied that a cessio bonorum can be made in this country by a bankrupt after having obtained his certificate in England.

It would be prejudging the main question to be tried, in the suit by attachment, viz. whether the attachment in England transferred the property here to the assignees, so that it ceased to be liable to the attachment. For, if it should be considered that the assignment vested the property in the assignees, Meeker has no property to surrender, none to be attached. The suit against him must fail and the cessio bonorum is a nullity. If it should be determined, that the assignment in England did not vest the property here in the assignees, it will perhaps be contended that the property attached was in the custody of the law, and the bankrupt had not the power to make any disposition of it.

I will not sanction a measure for the sake of an experiment, and this mode of proceeding is one which ought not to be favoured.

Motion denied.

*** The attachment suit was made up, so that the question was not finally determined.  