374 FBDBBAIi bkpobteb; �pany, and the court held that an attaching creditor could hold against an earlier unrecorded transfer for value. I have studied this decision with care. It seems to proceed upon the theory that by the charter, which is a public stat- ute, there can be no such thing as an equitable transfer, or, at anj rate, none except by a sort of equitable estoppel be- tween the parties, and that it was a part of the intent of the act that a creditor at law should have the legal right to attach the legal title. This decision bas been followed in Illinois, (People's Bank v. Oridley, 91 Dl. 457,) but rejected in the other states, so far as their courts have passed upon it. It is Bometimes spoken of as being the law oi Connecti- cut and Vermont, but the early casee in the former state are muoh modioed by Coit v. Ives, 31 Conn. 25. The case cited from Vermont (Bice v. Curtis, 32 Vt. 464) is not in point. It is opposed directly to many of the cases already cited uuder the third point, and to the general principle that attaching creditors are bound by all equities, including equitable estop- pels. It bas, moreover, been seriously modified, if not wholly overruled, in Massachusetts, in Dickimon v. Central Nat. Bank, 129 Mass. 279, printed, but not yet published. The Central National Bank had a by-law like that now in ques- tion, and A., the owner of ten of its shares, had transferred them by way of security, precisely as Conant transferred his shares, and afterwards became bankrupt. The transferee, still later, sold the shares at public auction, under his power, after due notice to A. and to his assignee. The bank, notwithstanding a notice and demand by the assignee in bankruptcy, transferred the shares to the purchaser. The assignee sued the bank for damages, but was defeated. Coit, J., delivering the opinion of the court, says that Fisher v. Essex Bank, uhi siipra, does not apply, because in that case the charter had the force of a general law, but thai a by-law has no such effect, (citing Sargent v. Essex Marine R. Co. 9 Pick. 201,) and that in the absence of such a general law the transferee took an equitable title which should prevail against the assignee in bankruptcy of the transferrer. The only circumstances in Fisher v. Essex Bank, not found in ��� �
