Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/728

720 FBDEBAL REPORTER. �section it is declared that the assignor shall make oath, before some person authorized to administer oaths, in relation to some facts, and that the assignment shall be accompanied Tvith a schedule containing a particular description of the per- Bonal property assigned. The making of the oath and the schedule of the personal property thus required are clearly no part of the assignment itself. They do not constitute any part oî the making of the assignment. It is true that the statute declares that the schedule shall accompany the assign- ment, but the supreme court of this state has held that it consti- tutes no part of the assignment. Black v. Weathers, 26 Ind. 242. And, if the schedule is no part of the assignment, it is difficult to understand how the oath which is to be taken is a part of the assignment, especially when the statute requires that the schedule shall accompany the assignment, and makes no such requisition in direct terms as to the oath. It seems to me that the true meaning of the last clause of the first sec- tion of the statute is that it is to be confined, when it declares that ail assignments made, except as provided for in the act, shall be deemed fraudulent and void, to that which by the terms of the act constitutes the making of the assignment, or indenture, as the statute calls it. �There are other sections which require certain things tobe done by the person to whom the property has been assigned, and who holds it in trust for the benefit of ail the creditors. It seems clear that an omission on the part of the trustee to perform his duty in respect to any act required of him by the statute cannot render the assignment itself fraudulent and void, because the legislature provi^es that if the trustee fails to comply with the provisions of certain portions of the law other disposition shall be made of the property by the appoint- ment of a more competent and faithful trustee. There does not seem to be any other clause in the law, except that which is contained in the latter part of the first section, which de- clares under what circumstances the assignment shall be fraudulent and void. Undoubtedly it was competent for the legislature to provide, if in any respect where a demand was made by the law it was not oomplied with, that the assign- ��� �