ag: Cases ruled and adjudged in the I795. Hunter v. Pam, in 4 T Rm. r8z. and Sill, and others oz WV Warwicl, in Henry Blacylonde Rep. 66 5. in both of which the ruling principles appear to be, that all the parties were {ub- jeél: to the bankrupt laws of England where every man is lup- pofed tobe eonfenting to every a& of Parliament; that there was an aétual vellzin of the property of the bankrupt in af- iignees, for the beneht as well of the plaintiffs in the attachments as all the other creditors; that rheplaintiffs, being jointly inte- relted with the other creditors, and having a full knowledge of the whole tranfaétions, took indireél mmfures to a pl the whole property to their own ufe, in direél: violation of £e banln rupt laws, and his virtual contraét with his fellow·creditors. It was, therefore, conlilltent with every principle of law and jul`- tice, to make thofe plaintiffs anfwerable to the allignees of the bankrupt, for the money they had fo Infairly recovered by at- tachments in America, and which the allignees were entitled to as truliees, as well for the plaintilis in the attachments them- felves, as the other creditors. Lord Loughborough, in delivering the opinion of the Court in the latter cafe, is very careful to dillinguilh that cafe from the general cafe of the creditor, tm-r conne€ted with the bankrupt laws, who recovers his debt in a competent Court of Jultice, in a jbregn Country : For, althou h he is of opinion, that the operation of the proceedings under the bankrupt laws of England is fuch as to velk the perlimal pro- perty of the bankrupt, in everypart of the World, in the allignees, _._.` _ from the time of the ailignment, yet he exprefsly declares, that at creditor in a foreign country not fub`e€t to the bankrupt laws of England, nor alfefted by them, oiataining payment of his _ _ debt, by the judgment of a foreign Court, and coming after- ' wards to England, could not be made liable to ryimd that debt. H6 goes further, and fays, that if the claim of the ailignees of bank- ruptcy had been communicated to the Court, who decided the cafe abroad, and they had preferred the claim of the {ning cre- ditor to theirs, although he {hould think that determination wrong, yet it could not be revoked by another Court of jultiee in England. This principle fully reaches the cafe before us. Emery, a creditor of Fairchild, attaches his effeéts ih a foreign Country, in the hands of Smilh, the agent of l*airchild; Smith appears and makes defence, and, no doubt, communicated to the Court the circumiiances, which lay the foundation of the prefent plaintifs claim. The Court adjudged, that the money in the hands of Smith was the property of ldrirchild, and compel him by their judgment to pay Emery his debt out of ir. Now if we {hould even be of opinion, that the money in the hands of Smizhwas the property of /~Zapa§v, and not of I·)rir.·hi/d, yet, upon the principle of the cafe determined by Lord Lea_g!»:r::rg.¤, we have no power . rcvo · ·
�
