Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 5.djvu/236

220 220 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. In spite of the rule established by Lawrence v. Batcheller and confirmed on constitutional grounds, that if a creditor had actually collected, though after bankruptcy, the amount of a judgment from property of his insolvent debtor situated outside the State he could retain it, assignees in Massachusetts were generally enabled to prevent such advantages from being obtained. If a creditor had not obtained his foreign judgment before the bank- ruptcy, he would rarely be able to obtain it afterwards, as the assignee would usually be able to file a bill in equity praying for an injunction within a few days from the date of bankruptcy. Attempts were made by creditors to escape from the liability to injunction, and to bring attachments and garnishments made by them on the eve of the bankruptcy of their debtor within the protection of the United States Constitution. Thus in Cunning- ham v. Butler, 142 Mass. 47, the creditors made without consider- ation an assignment of their claim to a citizen of the State where the attachment was sought, and an attachment was then made — all before the beginning of insolvency proceedings. On a bill to enjoin the attachment suits filed by the assignees against the creditors, the court found as a fact that those suits were still sub- ject to the control of the defendants, the creditors, and therefore held that the case was indistinguishable from Dehon v. Foster, and granted an injunction. Again, in Proctor v. The National Bank of the Republic, 152 Mass. 223, the same attempt was made, and this time more success- fully. Instead of making a colorable assignment of its claim, the creditor, the National Bank of the Republic, made an absolute assignment, and relinquished all its rights to the attachment suit which it had begun ; giving, however, a guarantee to make good to the purchaser any deficit in the amount collected, and also all costs of prosecuting the attachment suit. It was held that the assignees were without remedy ; that the guarantee was a collat- eral agreement not affecting the title of the purchaser of the claim ; that, therefore, an injunction against the defendant would be useless, as it had not control of the attachment suit, and that on the question of recovering the value received by the defendant for its sale — not simply of its claim, but of its attachment — the case fell within the principle of Lawrence v. Batcheller. The correctness of the decision can hardly be questioned, but the result is none the less to be regretted. It is usually possible