Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/127

OLNEY V. TANNEB. 115 �devote, all the debtor's property to the payment of his debts, it can- not be invalidated through the subsequent remissness or inefficiency of the assignee. Creditors have ample remedy against the assignee for his misconduct, if any ; and they should be held to these remedies, rr.ther than be allowed to subvert the assignment on the claim that such remissness is an evidence of original fraudulent intent. Hardman V. Boweii, 39 N. Y. 196, 200 ; Schults v. Hogan, (N. Y. Ct. of App.) 12 N. Y. Weekly Dig. 463. This prineiple covers most of the other objections urged against this assignment. They relate almost exclu- sively to the subsequent conduct of the assignee. The assignee was a 8on-in-law and clerk of the debtor. His business had been that of carrying on a tannery. At the time of the assignment there was con- siderable stock, in the varions stages of manufacture, and an out- standing contract.of the debtor for the manufacture of leather for mail-baigs, which it' was deemed prudent to f ulfil. For this purpose the assigoee had a right to continue the employment of the hands then about the tannery and also to employ the assignor. I do not find from the evidence that the business was continued beyond what ■was necessary in fulfiiling this contract, and working up the stock on hand, or that this was disadvantageous to the estate. The debtor had also, the year prior to the assignment, given to the assignee a chat- tel mortgage, which was a second lien upon his stock in trade, and which was doubtless invalid as against an execution crediter; and shortly before the assignment he had also given him a bill of sale of some other articles unencumbered. From the testimony of the assignee, who was called by the complainant, a full and valuable consideration for both of these was proved. �The change of possession was all that the circumstances required. The assignment was immediately recorded, and was notorious. The assignee swears he took immediate possession. He notified the ' hands, and paid them ; he bought and sold goods, and advanced his own moneys in part upon necessary purchases ; he changed his bill- heads; opened a new set of books as assignee, and a new bank ac- count where deposits were made. �The real estate of the debtor was mortgaged to its full value, and was af terwards foreclosed without any surplus. For such portion as was occupied by the debtor, it was proved that he accounted to the assignee for its full rental value. �The evidence discloses a mimber of details of an unsatisfactory character. Information given by the assignee was in several partic- nlars less definite than he ought to have been able to furnish. The ��� �