| Mass. | Oct 18, 1894
The assignment by the defendants to Slater was no doubt a preference, which might be avoided by assignees in insolvency if the defendants were subject to our insolvent laws. Pub. Sts. c. 157, § 96. But no proceedings in insolvency could be taken against them by reason of their non-residence. A preference, given by an insolvent debtor to a bona fide creditor cannot be avoided by an attaching creditor, whether the form of preference which is adopted is a general assignment for the benefit of such creditors as should assent thereto, or an assignment for the benefit of certain specified creditors, or an assignment directly to a single creditor. Otherwise, it would simply amount to giving a preference to the attaching creditor, instead of to the creditor or creditors selected by the debtor. This has often been adjudged. National Mechanics & Traders' Bank v. Eagle Sugar Refinery, 109 Mass. 38" date_filed="1871-11-15" court="Mass." case_name="National Mechanics' & Traders' Bank v. Eagle Sugar Refinery">109 Mass. 38. Banfield v. Whipple, 14 Allen, 13. Train v. Kendall, 137 Mass. 366" date_filed="1884-06-28" court="Mass." case_name="Train v. Kendall">137 Mass. 366. First National Bank of Easton v. Smith, 133 Mass. 26" date_filed="1882-05-15" court="Mass." case_name="First National Bank v. Smith">133 Mass. 26.
Exceptions overruled.