Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 10.djvu/916

904 FEDERAL REPORIER. �they have no extraterritorial operation." See, also, Story, Confl. Laws, (7th Ed.) § 341a; Booth y. Clark, 17 How. 337. �The acceptance of this as the true ground to whioh the previoua decisions of the supreme court upon state insolvent laws are to be referred, prepares us to understand why it was in Crapo v. Kelly that the only question seriously litigated was whether or not the ship, which was the property attached by the non-resident creditor, was to be considered at the date of the assignment in insolvency within the territory of the state in which the insolvent proceedings were had. No question of the unconstitutionality of the law was raised or considered. The facts of the case of Crapo v. Kelly were, substantially, that the insolvent, a citizen of Massachusetts, being the owner of a vessel then in the Pacific ocean, applied to the insolvent court of Massachusetts for the benefit of the insolvent laws of that state, and the judge of the court, acting under the state statute, executed and delivered to Crapo an assignment of all the property of the insolvent. About two months afterwards, and while the ship was still at sea, a New York creditor of the insolvent entered suit against him in a court of the state of New York, and by reason of the non-residence of the insolvent procured a writ of attachment against his property. �Shortly afterwards the ship arrived at the port of New York, direct from the Pacific ocean, and was seized by the sheriff, by virtue of the writ of attachment. Crapo, the assignee, appeared two days later, and claimed the ship, notwithstanding the attachment. The ques- tion thus raised was earried to the highest court of the State of New York, (45 N. Y. 86,) and was there decided in favor of the attaching creditor, that court upholding the right of the New York creditor, and denying the claim of the Massachusetts assignee in insolvency to take the property from the sheriff. This judgment of the New York court of appeals was removed into the supreme court of the United States, upon writ of error, for review ; Crapo representing the title under the Massachusetts proceeding in insolvency, and Kelly the claim under the New York attachment. The sole question was which had the better title. �Mr. Justice Hunt, delivering the opinion of the supreme court, said: �" Certain propositions relating to the question are not disputed: (1) If the assignment under which Crapo claims had been the personal act of the in- solvent, it would have passed the title to the vessel, wherever she might have been at the time of its execution. (2) If the vessel, at the time of the execu- tion of the assignment, had been within the territorial limita of Massachu- ��� �