718 ���FEDBRAIi EEPOETBE, ���now under consideration alleges that it is claimed on the part of the creditors that the deed of trust of the twentieth of July, 1875, is fraudulent and void /or varions reasons — First, becanse the bankrupts did not make the oath that the indentures and schedules required by the law contained a statement of ail the property belonging to them, and because they did not make oath to other facts named in the statute ; second, because the trustees, before entering upon their trust, did not make oath that they -would faithfuUy execute the same, together with other things named in the statute; third, because the bankrupts reserved in the deed of trust the right to instruct the trustees as to their duties ; fourth, because they reserved the right, with the consent of two-thirds in value of their crediiors, to remove one or all of the trustees; Jifth, because they authorized the trustee to sell the property on credit, or in any other manner that might seem for the beat interests of ail the creditors. �The general question in the case is whether the assign- ment made by the bankrupts in trust for the benefit of ail their creditors was valid, or whether, on account of any or ail the reasons named in the bill or presented in the argument on the demurrer by the defendants, it is fraudulent and void. Independent of the bankrupt law of the United States, there can be no doubt that it was competent for the bankrupts to make such an assignment as that named in the bill. Being insolvent, it was the most equitable distribution that could be made of their property to divide it equally among ail their creditors. Then, unless the assignment was rendered invalid by virtue of the bankrupt law of the United States or of the provisions of the state law already referred to, it must be con- sidered a valid assignment. If it was inoperative, by virtue of the bankrupt law, then the property, being ail in the pos- session of the assignees in bankruptcy, the object of the bankrupt law is accomplished, and it is ready for distribution to the creditors of the bankrupts according to the terms of that law; and so there coula be no objection to the bill on the ground that the assignment was invalid under the opera- tion of a banKrupt law. ��� �
