Page:North Dakota Reports (vol. 3).pdf/70

 in cash was found on hand by the assignee. We see no principle on which the plaintiff can insist upon priority of payment out of the general assets in the hands of the assignee. The rule gov- erning this class of cases is very simple; the only difficulty is in applying it. If one has not consented to part with his property and take the responsibility of another for the payment of an equivalent therefor, he may follow his property so long as he can trace it. He has not agreed to part with the title. He has not agreed to accept in lieu thereof the personal responsibility of another. The law will not force him into a relation to which he has never assented. He may follow his property, but he must be able to identify it in some form.

It has been supposed by some courts that the decision in Knatchbull v. Hallett, 13 Ch. Div. 696; has greatly modified the rule as it existed prior to this decision. In that case a solictorsolicitor [sic] sold bonds of his client, and deposited the proceeds in his general account with a banker. Against this account he drew checks for his own personal purposes, and he also: deposited, from time to time, his own funds therein. At all times the balance in his favor exceeded the amount of the proceeds of the bonds of his client. It was held that the client might follow his money into this account, and have a charge thereon to the extent of the money received from the sale of the bonds. We find in this decision no extentionextension [sic] of the rule allowing property to be followed and recovered. The client’s money had gone into a special fund, and, as the account, had never been reduced below the amount of his money therein, it was entirely proper to hold that the solicitor had drawn out his own funds from time to time, and not those of the client. The law allows the owner to follow his property not only in its original form, but also in any form into which it may have been changed, providing identification is possible. A new doctrine has sprung up in recent days. It goes upon the theory of the enrichment of the estate out of which priority is sought to be secured. This would entitle every general creditor to preference, and therefore there would be no preferences as between