1 "Insolvency of one of the parties to a contract of sale is not equivalent either to a rescission or a breach. It simply relieves the vendor from his agreement to give credit, and payment may be substituted." Pardee v. Kanaday, 100 N. Y. 121, 126.

*This is true even if the contract forbid assignment, and make it void. Thus, fire policies generally, and marine policies often, prohibit assignment, and the insured might lose any benefit under them by a voluntary assignment. But in bankruptcy and insolvency, although the word " assignee " is used, it is inaccurate, as the property is transferred by the law, and not by the owner, who is the only party who can assign. (f) For, as we have seen, the process of transfer to the assignee is rather one of sequestration: the law taking the property or interest from the insolvent, and then placing it in the hands of the assignee as trustee. But courts have gone still further. In one case, at least, the insurance was held not to be forfeited by a voluntary assignment by the insured to assignees in trust for creditors, (g) The true ground for such a doctrine would seem to be, that the assignment left the property insured, and the interest in the policy substantially belonging to the owner, and applicable only to payment of his debts, with the right to any surplus which might remain; so that the assignee is only acting as the agent of the insolvent This doctrine was generally acquiesced in, and all voluntary assignments for creditors under our State insolvent laws transferred the insured property and the policies. In one case, after the insured was discharged, under the insolvent laws of Maryland, he continued to pay interest on the premium note, after his application, for the benefit of the laws. It was held (one justice dissenting), that by the discharge he was released from the premium note, and the company released from their obligations; and the receipt by them of the interest did not restore the policy unless they had knowledge of the proceedings in insolvency, (gg)

The assignee takes all personal property abroad, under the qualification imposed by the American rule, as stated above; that is, he acquires no right which can avail against an attachment or should not pass in the same manner as any other property acquired by his personal industry. Can there be any doubt that if a bankrupt acquire a large sum of money, and lay it out in land, the assignees may claim'it? They cannot indeed take the profits of his daily labor. He must lire. But if he accumulates any large sum, it cannot be denied that the assignees are at liberty to demand it; though, until they do so, it does not lie in the mouth of strangers to defeat an action at his suit in respect of such property, by setting up his bankruptcy. We are, therefore, clearly of opinion, that the interest in the letters-patent was an interest of such a nature as to be the subject of assignment by the commissioners." So an interest in a policy of insurance. Schondler v Wace, 1 tamp.. 487. and infra. So an interest in improvements made by the bankrupt upon a tract of government land. French v. Carr, 2 Oilman, 664.

(f) Lazarus v. Commonwealth Ins. Co. 5 Pick. 76, 19 id. 81; Appleton Iron Co. v. British, etc Ass. Co. 46 Wis 23

(g) 1 Phillips on Insurance, 73, 74; Brichta v. N. T. Lafayette Ins Co 2 Hall, 372.

(gg) Reynolds v. Mutual Fire Ins. Co. 34 Md. 280.

levy made in the State where it is situated, in favor of a citizen of that State, before the assignee takes actual possession, (h) * As to the wife's choses in action, it was settled, after a considerable conflict and uncertainty, that, under the State insolvent laws, the assignee took the husband's right of reducing them to possession, and collected and held the proceeds for the benefit of the creditors. An endeavor by the husband to put his wife's unreduced choses in action out of the reach of his creditors, and to secure them for her by trustees or otherwise, was as ineffectual as an effort to appropriate a part of his money for the same purpose. Whether insolvency operated a reduction to possession, or only transferred to the assignee the right to reduce, was much disputed. But the better reason and the better authority favored the view that it gave only a right to reduce, and, therefore, the assignee had no property in the thing until actually reduced, (i)

(h) See the cases cited on the subject of the transfer of goods by foreign assignment in bankruptcy, and especially to this point, Blake v. Williams, 6 Pick. 286; 2 Kent, 406 et seq.; Burk v M'Clain, 1 Harris & McH. 236; Milne v. Moreton, 6 Binn. 353; Abraham v. Plestoro, 3 Wend. 538; Merrick's case, 2 Ashm. 485; Johnson v. Hunt, 23 Wend. 90, 91; Lord v. Brig Watchman, Ware, 232; Fall River Iron Works v. Croade, 15 Pick. 11; Fox v. Adams, 5 Greenl. 245; Saunders v. Williams, 5 N. H. 213; Ogden v. Saunders, 12 Wheat. 213; Agnew v. Piatt, 15 Pick. 417.

(i) The doctrine of the law upon this subject was well set forth by Shaw, C. J., delivering the opinion of the court in Davis v. Newton, 6 Met. 537: " The other material question is, whether the assignee had a right, and whether, in the proper discharge of his duty as assignee, he ought to have asserted his right, to the notes and securities which are claimed as the choses in action of the wife of the insolvent. It is undoubtedly the policy and the legal effect of the insolvent laws, to transfer to the assignees, for the benefit of creditors, all the property of the debtor, and all the rights and interests which he could properly transfer by his own act; and the extent of this assignment is very broad and comprehensive. And the English bankrupt laws, which are nearly in the same terms, recognize the right of the assignee to possess himself of the choses in action and other property of the bankrupt's wife. For the purpose of the law is to transfer the rights of the debtor, in the same plight which they were in in the hands of the debtor himself, subject in all respects .to the same liens, incumbrances, and equities. But it seems to be a well settled rule, that the property of the husband in the rights and choses in action of the wife is not absolute and unlimited. Gassett v. Grout, 4 Met. 486. The husband may reduce the wife's choses in action to possession, and assign the same to his creditors; but ordinarily he is not compellable to do so, and if he does it, and they require the aid of a court of justice, it will not be granted unless a reasonable provision be made out of it for the wife. Grav v. Bennett, 3 Met. 522; Mitford v. Mitford, 9 Ves. 87; JewBon v. Moulson, 2 Atk. 420; Gayner v. Wilkinson, Dickens, 491; Saddington v. Kinsman, 1 Bro. C. C. 44; Van Lppa v. Van Deusen, 4 Paige, 64; Pierce v. Thornely, 2 Simons, 167; Christian on the Bankrupt Law, 270; Horns by v. Lee, 2 Madd. 16; Wooland v. Crowther, 12 Ves. 174; Nash t\ Nash, 2 Madd. 133; 2 Story, Eq. Jur. ch. 37, § 1411 et seq.; 1 Fonbl. Eq. B. 1, ch. 4, § 24; Forrest v. Warrington, 2 Desans. 254; Thomas v. Kelsoe, 5 T. B. Mon. 523; Ripley v. Wood, 2 Simons, 165; Ex parte Beresford, 1 Desaus. 268; Forbes v. Phipps, 1 Eden, 502; Gallego v. Gallego, 2 Brock. 285; Ryland v. Smith, 1 Mylne & C. 53; Poin-dexter v. Blackburn, 1 I red. Eq. 286; Snowhill v. Snowhill, 1 Green, Ch. 30; Outcalt v. Van Winkle, id. 516; Oglan-der v. Boston, 1 Vera. 396; Milnes v, Milnes, 3 T. R. 627; Parsons v. Parsons, 9 N. H. 309; Hay ward r. Hay ward, 20 Pick. 517; Page v. Estes, 19 id. 269; Hoi-brook v. Waters, id. 354; Wheeler v*