attempted to act under the law.” So with, respect to this case, it may be observed that defendant assigned to the assignee all of his property “not exempt.” This would, empower the assignee to follow and take possession of any property belonging to the defendant not exempt from execution, and it would be his duty to so do. Counsel for respondent cite, from Maryland court of appeals, Muhr v. Pinover, 10 Atl. Rep. 289. The case is on all fours with that under consideration, and the opinion forcibly expresses our own views of what the law of this case is and should be. The court say: “The debtor in this case, being in failing circumstances, made an assignment of all of his property, except so much thereof as is exempt by law from execution, for the benefit of his creditors; and the question is whether the reservation of property exempt from execution makes the assignment fraudulent and void as to creditors. If it does, it must be because such a reservation operates in some way to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors of their just demands against the debtor. An assignor has no right, of course, to reserve any part of his property for the benefit of himself or of his family which, by any process at law or in equity, could be made liable for the payment of his debts. But when the law itself exempts certain property of the debtor from execution, property in regard to which the creditors can have no interest or concern, and which cannot be made subject to the payment of their demands, we do not see on what grounds the reservation of such property can be said to be in fraud of creditors. It certainly does not operate in any manner to delay, hinder, or defraud them of their rights, because it does not in any way interfere with their remedies, nor does it take from them any property of the assignor which could be sold for the payment of their claims. This seems too plain for argument. To make such assignment void, there must be a reservation of property which could be made subject to the payment of the debts of the assignor; and with the exception of Sugg v. Tillman, 2 Swan, 208, and which was subsequently qualified by Farquharson v. McDonald, 2 Heisk. 404, the decisions in this country are uniform in regard to the question. Heckman v. Messinger, 49 Pa St.
