Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/159

 NEILL V. JACKSON. 145 �Appeal, 89 Pa. St, 514. Moreover, I do not see how the creditors were injured by the withdrawal of the appeal ; for it was a matter of indifference to them whether the assets of the Titusville Savings Bank were administered in the court of common pleas of Crawford county, Pennsylvania, under the deed of voluntary assignment, or in the United States district court for the western district of Pennsyl- vania, sitting in bankruptcy. The principles of distribution in both tribunals are praotically the same. �But what was the effect of the modification of the decree to which both parties consented? By the original decree, the complainaat, Neill, was required to deliver to the assignee in bankruptcy the entire assets and evidences of indobtedness belonging to the Titusville Savings Bank which had corne into his possession under the deed of voluntary assignment. The modified decree, however, contains this important qualification, viz.: �"Except such notes, bills, mortgages, or other securities as he may have collected and converted into money in his capacity as assignee of said co- pai-tnership, (the Titusville Savings Bank,) «nder state law." ^ �And the decree then proceeds as follows : �"And that the said Joseph A. Neill do pay over to said * * * assignee in bankruptcy the sum of eight hundred and one and eleven one-hundreJths dollars, ($801.11,) that sum being theunexpended balance of the sum of twenty six thousand four hundred and thirty-two and ninety-nine one-hundredths dollars, ($26,432.99,) the amount of assets of said copartnership collected by said Joseph A. Neill, assignee under state law, after allowing credit for twenty-one thousand one hundred and forty-eight and forty-nine one-hun- dredths dollars ($21,148.49) paid by him to creditors of said copartnership on account, or in compromise of their claims, three thousand one hundred and sixty-one and sixty one-hundredths dollars ($3,161.60) paid out for the just and reasonable expenses of Ma said trust, and thirteen hundred and tweuty-one and nineteen one-hundredths dollars ($1,321.19) for his commissions in collect- ing and disbursing the said sum of $26,432.99." �Now, it clearly appears from the terms of the decree, as modified, that $25,631.88, ($26,432.99, less $801.11,) which the complainant, Neill, had collected or converted into money in his capacity of assignee under the deed of voluntary assignment, were not to pass to the assignee in bankruptcy. These moneys were expressly excepted from the operation of the decree requiring the delivery or payment of assets to the assignee in bankruptcy. To the extent of these moneys the trust under the deed of voluntary assignment was distinctly rec- ognized as valid. �v.8,uo.3— 10 ��� �