58 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �ri^hts of the assignee to embraoe such as a general crediter might have in regard to the property. In the opinion in this case no allusion is made, by the leamed jnstiee delivering it, to the case of Yeatman v. The Savings Bank, and the general language must be confined to the particular cases before the court. �The direct question in this case was before the supreme court in Gihson v. Wwrden, 14 Wall. 244, and Mr. Justice Swayne, delivering the opinion of the court, says: "In cases like this the assignees stand in the place of the bankrupt ; his rights are their rights, and theire, like the liens of judgments at law, are subordinate to ail the prior liens, legal and equita- ble, upon the property in question." And again: "The stat- ute of Ohio deprived the mortgage of effeot until deposited, as to creditors, subsequent purchasers, and mortgagees in goodfaith. These assignees are neither." The law of this case was afterwards applied by Justice Hunt, In re Charles Collins, 12 N. B. R. 379, in which he held that an assignee could not ina- peach the validity of a mortgage which was void as against creditors on account of the omission to record it as required by state laws. Oihson v. Warden bas neither been overruled nor doubted by the supreme court ; on the contrary, I think, at the present term of the supreme court it bas virtually been affirmed in Stewart v. Platt, 101 U. S. 731. In that case Simon Leland & Co. executed to A. T. Stew- art chattel mortgages upon the furniture of the Metro- politan Hotel, situate in New York city. These mortgages were filed in New York city when the law of New York re- quired them to be filed in the cities or towns where the individual members of the firm severally resided. After the giving of the mortgages, Leland & Go. went into bankruptcy, and their assignee filed a bill to set aside these mortgages because they were not filed as required by law ; and the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York held the mortgages as against the assignee were invalid. The cause was taken to the supreme court, which reversed this part of the decision of the court below. The language ��� �
