S24 TBDEaAIi'BKFOBTEB. �fact, between the assîgnors and the assignee, to hinder, delay, and-defraud creditors. (Ses brief of complainant's counsel.) Such failure to file schedules and bond is not expressly made a condition to the assignments taking effect as a oonveyance, and I do not think they are essential to the passing of the title. �I see no ground, therefore, for disturbing the former de- cision against these defendants, that they -were liable to ac- count for that part of the assigned property which came to theîr hands, and which bas been shown to belong to the com- plainant. An exception is taken to the master's report that he should not have allowed interest. I see no reason why the defendants should not be charged with interest. �Exceptions overruled. Eeport confirmed, and decree for oomplainant therein, with costs. ���DECISION ON APPEAIi. �(OircuU Court, S. D. New York. June 1, 1880.) �Blatohfoed, C. J. au the points urged by the appellants appear to have been carefuUy considered by the district judge in bis decision. So far as the main questions at issue are con- cemed, I think they were ail properly disposed of except the question of interest. Keifer & Co., Leisler & Go., and the sheriff, who bave appealed, and who are the only appellants, excepted to the allowance of interest, by the referee, from July 9, 1875, the date of the levy by the sheriff, on the ground that no interest should be charged against such excepting parties. I think interest should be allowed against such excepting parties only from the time the suit was eommenced in the court below, but that interest should be allowed from that date as against them. �The decree should be modified in that respect, but the ap- pellants should pay the costs of the appeal. ����
