492 FEDERAL REPORTER. ' �The more difScult questions arise in respect to the property acquired by Flack afterwards. Some of this property was probably paid for from the avails of the original property sold ; some of it may bave been paid for with other property of Flack; r.nd some of it appears to have been bought on bis credit, and not paid for at ail. The rights of the parties are to be determined by the laws of Yermont, although the estate of the bankrupt is taken and distributed under the bankrupt law of the United States. �Paris V. Vail, 18 Vt. 277, shows wbat the laws of the state are upon most or ail of these questions. That case was fuUy eonsidered, and does not appear to bave been doubted or ques- tioned since. Williams, C. J., dissented to a part of the judgment, but on the ground that, as he thought, the relation of landlord and tenant gave the plaintiff some additional right to property added by the purchaser to that which had been conditionally sold. There is no such relation here. It was held that the plaintiff, who was lessor of a farm, stock, and farming tools, by a lease providing that the stock and farming tools, and ail other stock and farming tools which might be added to or substituted for the same, should be and remain the property of the plaintiff as security for the pay- aient of the rent, etc., could not hold stock and farming tools added by the tenant from his own resources, during the term and before payment, against the creditors of the tenant, and that he could hold the stock and tools substituted by the tenant for the original stock and tools. Here the provision in the agreement of conditional sale from the defendant to Flack was that the goods sold, and those purchased by Flack and substituted for them, should be held bythe defendant for the payment of his debt. As to those purchased by Flack in substitution for the original goods, from the avails of them, the defendant is entitled to hold them to the same extent he . "ould the original goods; that is, to the extent of two-thirds of their value. For the other third he is liable toaccount to the plaintiff. Those, if any, purchased by Flack distinctly from his own resources, including those not paid for from ����
