8e3 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �of the case is not enough to distinguish it from Hyde v. Woods. �The case of In re Sutherland, 6 Biss. 526, ean, perhaps, be distinguished from Hyde v. Woods, and from In re Gallagher, on the ground suggeeted in the latter case, that the right in that case was less distinctly of a mere business character. But if not, I am not satisfied, by the reasoning in that case, that property likft this seat in the New York Stock Exchange "was not intended to pass to the assignee in bankruptcy, under the bankrupt law. �The controlling consideration is, as it seems to me, that practically, and whatever its form or incidents with respect to other matters may be, it is a part of the bankrupt's busi- ness assets, or more generally of bis property, which it was the primary design of the bankrupt law to distribute among his creditors, and that the peeuliarities whieh distinguished this from other property are, in view of the evident purpose and eeope of the bankrupt law, unessential; mere technicalities — cob-webs — which the law is strong enough to break through. �Let an order be entered requiring the bankrupt to execute any transfer, assignment, or other instrument necessary for the purpose of vesting the title to his seat in the New York Stock Exchange in such person as the assignee in bank- ruptcy may procure as transferee. ���In THE MATiœi of James E. Niohols. District Court, 8. D. New York. Maroh 9, 1880.) �BaNKRTTPTCT — DlSCHAUGB — JUBISDICTION OF CoUBT — SeAT XS STOCK �ExcHANGB— Ret. St. §§ 6604, 5051. — A bankrupt cannot be compelled, after his discharge, by an order of the court liaving jurisdiction of the bankruptcy proceedings, to execute such instruments as may be neces- sary to enable the assignee to make available.as assets of the bankrupt's estate, a seat in the New York Stock Exchange held by the bankrupt at the time of the flling of his petition. �Alex. Thain, for motion. Knox e Woodward, contra. ��� �
