(h) Section 224 of the above statute provides, "That every deed or memorandum of arrangement now or hereafter entered into between any such trader and his creditors, and signed by, or on behalf of, six-sevenths in number and value of those creditors whose debts amount to ten pounds and upwards, touching such trader's liabilities and his release therefrom, and the distribution, inspection, conduct, management, and mode of winding up of his estate, or all or any of such matters, or any matters having reference thereto, shall (subject to the conditions hereinafter mentioned) be as effectual and obligatory, in all respects, upon all the creditors who shall not have signed such deed or memorandum of arrangement, as if they had duly signed the same." Section 228 enacts," That the creditors of such trader shall have the same rights respectively as to set-off, mutual credit, lien, and priority, and joint and separate assets shall be distributed in like manner as in bankruptcy." On the construction of these clauses, see Tetley v. Taylor, 1 Ellis & B 521, 8 Eng. L. & Eq. 370; s. c. on appeal in Exch. Chamber, 1 Ellis & B 532, 12 Eng. L. & Eq. 469.

(i) Ward v. Tingley, 4 Sandf. Ch. 476; Webb v. Daggett, 2 Barb. 9.

(j) Browning v. Hart, 6 Barb. 91; Averill v. Loucks, id. 470.

1 See English Bankrupt Act of 1869, ch 71, § 125.

As a voluntary assignment is a contract which needs the concurrence of both parties, - the debtor and his creditors, - their assent should be expressed; but, in general, it may be presumed if the assignment be beneficial, and so will the assent of the trustees to whom the assignment is made, if there be no circumstances to indicate that the assent was withheld, (k)

A voluntary assignment is avoided generally by a provision that but a certain number, or a certain proportion, of the assignee's debts should be paid and the balance returned to him,(l) unless it be made to the creditors themselves, when it is held as only an additional security to them, (m) So if it be made to prevent attachment, although the debtor intended to benefit his creditors, (n) And if it provides that no creditor shall take advantage of it who does not sign it, and thereby * release the debtor before a certain day, it is void as to all who do not assent (o) And it has been held, that an authority to the trustees to sell the property for credit, avoids the assignment;(p) but this is doubted, (q) And so it is whether a mere intent to delay creditors is necessarily fraudulent, or has the effect of avoiding the assignment, unless it be actually fraudulent (r)

Perhaps property exempted from execution cannot be fraudulently conveyed, as against creditors, (s)

(k) Adams v. Blodgett, 2 Woodb. & M. 233

(l) Goodrich v Downs, 6 Hill, 438; Barney v. Griffin, 4 Sandf. Ch. 552, 2 Comst. 365; Leitch v. Holliater, 4 Comst. 211; Hooper v. Tuckerman, 3 Sandf. 311. But in some States, there must also be a release, to make the assignment void. Austin v. Johnson, 7 Humph. 191; Hindman v. Dill, 11 Ala. 689; Grimshaw v. Walker, 12 Ala. 101.

(m) See cases in last note. (n) Kimball v. Thompson, 4 Cash. 441. (o) Stewart v. Spenser, 1 Cnrtis, 157; Ramsdell v. Sigerson, 2 Gil man, 78; Ingraham v. Grigg, 13 Smedes & M. 22; Conkling v. Carson, 11 Bl. 503; McCall v. Hinckley, 4 Gill, 128.

(p) Barney v. Griffin, 2 Comst. 365.

(q) Nicholson v. Leavitt, 4 Sandf 252.

(r) See, for the affirmative case last cited, contra, Burdick v. Post, 12 Barb. 168; and see Kellogg v, Slawson, 15 Barb. 56.

(s) So held in Bond v. Seymour, 1 Chandler, 40. But a general assignment, containing a reservation of all property not subject to attachment, was held to be thereby avoided in Sugg v. Tillman, 2 Swan, 208. As to what stipulations in an assignment avoid it as to creditors, Bodley v. Goodrich, 7 How. 276; Hart v. Crane, 7 Paige, 37; Bryant v. Young, 21 Ala. 264; Woodburn v. Mosher, 9 Barb. 255; Rollins v. Mooers, 25 Me. 192; Webster v. Withey, 25 Me. 326; Montgomery v. Kirksev, 26 Ala 172; Wiley v. Knight, 27 Ala. 336; Nesbitt v. Digby, 13 111. 387.