804 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �court of equity. Mr. Justice Davis, who delivered the opin- ion of the court, expressed the opinion that to sustain the validity of such a transaction would be to permit the mort- gagors, under cover of the mortgage, to sell the gooda as their own and appropriate the proceeds to their own purposes. And he adds that — �" A mortgage which in its very terms contemplates such resulta, besides oeing no security to the mortgageeSf operates in the most efiEectual man- ner to ward ofE other creditors. And where the instrument on its face shows that the legal efEect of it is to delay creditors, the law imputes to it a fraudulent purpose." �This is a doctrine of general jurisprudence not depending for its support upon any provision of the state law ; and we ■ are, therefore, bound by the decision of the supreme court of the United States. If there be anything in the decision of the supreme court of lowa in Jordan v. Lindrum, 8 N. W. Eep. 311, inconsistent with the doctrine announced in Bob- inson v. EUiott, supra, -we must follow the latter, and not the former. It is suggested that the mortgages in controversy, being good as between the parties, are also good as between the mortgagees and the assignee in bankruptcy of the mort- gagor ; but the rule is well settled that the assignee representa the rights of creditors, and may attack conveyances made by the bankrupt in fraud of his creditors. The assignee may prosecute any suit to recover assets in the hands of third parties, or to enforce the payment of claims that could have been prosecuted by the creditors themselves had no proceed- ings in bankruptcy been instituted. �There will be a decree for complainant. �Love. D. J.. concurs. ��� �
