Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/181

 WALD V. WEHL, 169 �determination is not reviewable in this suit. Michaelis v. Post, 21 Wall. 398; Sloan v. Leivis, 22 Wall. 150; Lmnp Chimney Co. v. Brass e Copper Co. 91 U. S. 656. �It follows that the bankruptcy proceedings extended to both of the partners of the firm, and that the partnership assets passed to the plaintiff by the assignment in bankruptcy. �The assignment made by the bankrupts to the defendant was a voluntary assignment of ail their property, individual and copartnership, for the benefit of their creditors, without preferences. It sets forth their insolvency, and the answer in this suit admits that the defendant knew the assignors to be insolvent at the time the assignment was made. The assignment was made within four months before the petition in bankruptcy was filed. The case is one under section 5129. Such an assignment is voidable at the suit of the assignee in bankruptcy, and he is entitled to recover in a case like the present. In re Beisenthal, 14 Blatchf. 146. �The plaintiff is entitled to a decree in the usual form, set- ting aside the assignment as invalid as against him, and pro- viding for an accounting by the defendant in respect to the property he received thereunder. As the assignment is avoided not for any fraud in fact, but only as voidable under the bankruptcy statute, and as it would have been valid if this suit had not been brought, the defendant must be allowed on the accounting for ail proper expenses and services under the assignment, prior to the bringing of this suit, according to the principles set forth in Platt v. Archer, 13 Blatchf. 351, and in McDMald v. Moore, 8 Ben. 579. ��� �