120 70 121 582 120 70 Syllabus. the gas, it is then insisted by appellant's counsel that the proper construction to be put upon the words, “at rates as favorable," is, that the Decatur company shall furnish gas at rates as favorable as the Springfield company shall furnish gas to Springfield under like circumstances or conditions. Under such a reading, how would the rates be determined? The circumstances and conditions would differ, of course. What would be the things which would have to be considered, how would they be ascertained, and how would it be determined to what extent their difference should affect the price? This would render the rates uncertain, and, it may be said, incapable of any definite ascertainment. The ordinance undertook to fix a standard of rates that was certain, practicable, and easily to be ascertained, and it did so in declaring the gas should be furnished at rates as favorable as the Springfield rates. "Rates as favorable," mean, no more than "prices as low," and that simply, irrespective of any circumstances or conditions. The interpolation of the words, "under like circumstances or conditions," which appellant's counsel would make in the ordinance, we regard as entirely unjustifiable. The judgment will be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. JOHN V. FARWELL et al. v. L. E. CRANDALL. Filed at Mt. Vernon January 25, 1887. INSOLVENT DEBTORS-assignment for the benefit of creditors--jurisdiction of the county court in the administration of an insolvent estatehow far exclusive in its character. An insolvent debtor made a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors. The assignee took possession of the effects and estate of the debtor, and entered upon the duties of the trust. Subsequently, one of the creditors of the assignor recovered a judgment against him, for a certain sum, in a court of record other than the county Brief for the Appellants. court. Execution issued upon this judgment having been returned nulla bona, process of garnishment was sued out by the plaintiff, which was served upon the assignee, commanding him to appear and answer as the garnishee of the judgment debtor. Thereupon, the assignee presented to the county court a petition, setting up the foregoing facts, and stating that no property in which the debtor could be interested had come into his hands, except by virtue of the assignment mentioned, and asking the county court to restrain the further prosecution of the garnishment proceeding. The plaintiff in the judgment answered, admitting the facts as alleged, but charging, by way of defence, that the assignment was made in fraud of creditors. Upon this presentation of the matter, the county court ordered that any further prosecution of the garnishment proceeding be restrained and enjoined, not, however, passing upon the validity of the assignment, but reserving to the plaintiff in the judgment the right to contest that question, on proper proceedings, in the county court, and also reserving to the plaintiff all rights, if any, accruing to him by reason of having commenced the garnishment proceeding, to be adjusted also in that court. It was held, this disposition of the matters presented was correct. The county court having already full power and jurisdiction over the entire subject of the assignment, and the assets being in custodia legis, that was the proper forum in which to raise and settle the question of the validity of the assignment. APPEAL from the Appellate Court for the First District;heard in that court on appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. LORIN C. COLLINS, Judge, presiding. Messrs. TENNEY, BASHFORD & TENNEY, for the appellants: An assignment, valid on its face, but fraudulent in fact, is not void. It is voidable only as to creditors who attack it. As to those who ratify it, and claim the benefit of the trust, it is valid. Rappleye v. International Bank, 93 Ill. 396; Burrows v. Alter, 7 Mo. 424; Richards v. White, 7 Minn. 345; Scott v. Edes, 3 id. 377; Frierson v. Branch, 30 Ark. 453. The validity of the assignment may be contested by any creditor, in a collateral action. If the assignment is fraudulent, the property transferred may be attached, or the funds, etc., in the hands of the assignee, may be garnisheed. Howard v. Edgar, 3 Scam. 417; Finley v. Dickerson, 29 Ill. 9; National Bank v. Lanahan, 60 Md. 477; Edwards v. Mitchells 1 Gray, 239; Moss v. Humphrey, 4 G. Greene, 000; Burrow, v. Lehndorf, 8 La. 96; Ruble v. McDonald, 18 Iowa, 493. Brief for the Appellee. Opinion of the Court. In the following cases, under a similar statute, the assignment has been set aside as fraudulent, in a collateral action, by garnishment of the assignee, or otherwise: Farrington v. Sexton, 43 Mich. 454; Keep v. Sanderson, 12 Wis. 352; Goodrich v. Downs, 6 Hill, 438; Wilson v. Robinson, 21 N. Y. 587; McClurg v. Lecky, 3 Pa. 91; Berry v. Cutts, 42 Me. 445; Holt v. Bancroft, 30 Ala. 193; Nightingale v. Harris, 6 R. I. 321. See, also, Burrill on Assignments, 276, 287. It is not within the province of the county court to decide whether the assignment is fraudulent, or not. That is a question of fact, to be determined by the jury. Wilson v. Pearson, 20 Ill. 81; Nimmo v. Kuykendall, 85 id. 476; Hays v. Bernard, 38 id. 297. Messrs. FRANK J. SMITH & HELMER, for the appellee: The county court, when exercising the powers conferred on it by the act of May 22, 1877, is in effect an insolvency court, and the assignee's relation to the property is that of a receiver, or of an assignee in bankruptcy; and adverse claims against the property or estate in his hands, must be presented through or with the consent of the county court. Most of the cases cited are not applicable to a case like the present. The act referred to has worked a radical change of the law in this State. When the jurisdiction of the county court has once attached, no other court has any right to interfere. Hanchett v. Waterbury, 115 Ill. 220; Cook v. Whipple, 9 B. R. 155; Field v. Ridgely, 116 Ill. 424; Preston v. Spaulding, 18 Bradw. 341. Mr. JUSTICE MULKEY delivered the opinion of the Court: A. H. Norton made a voluntary assignment to J. Hughes Fisher, for the benefit of creditors. Fisher having refused to act, the county court of Cook county, by an order duly entered of record, on the 22d day of January, 1886, appointed Opinion of the Court. L. E. Crandall assignee, in the place of Fisher. Upon such appointment, Crandall, on the same day, gave bond, took possession of the effects and estate of Norton, and entered upon the duties and trust imposed by the assignment. On the 3d day of February, 1886, John V. Farwell & Co. recovered a judgment in the Superior Court of Cook county, against Norton, for $4361.34, upon which an execution was issued, and returned by the sheriff of the county, nulla bona. The plaintiffs in the judgment thereupon caused a summons to be sued out of said Superior Court against the assignee, commanding him to appear therein, and answer, as garnishee of Norton. Upon being served, the assignee presented to the county court a petition, setting forth the foregoing facts, and averring that the only property held or controlled by him, in which the said Norton was in anywise interested, was held by virtue of the assignment in question, and prayed that the plaintiffs in the garnishee proceeding might be restrained from further prosecuting the same. The plaintiffs in the judgment answered the petition, admitting the facts therein stated, but charged, by way of defence, that the assignment was made to hinder, delay and defraud creditors. The county court, upon this presentation of the matter, made and entered of record the following order: "It is hereby ordered by the court, that said plaintiffs, John V. Farwell et al., in the garnishment cause above named, their agents and attorneys, and each and every one of them, be and they are hereby restrained and enjoined from further. prosecuting said garnishment cause against said L. E. Crandall, assignee, as aforesaid, and against any of the funds in his possession, as aforesaid, the court, however, not passing herein upon the validity of said assignment. It is further ordered by the court, that said plaintiffs in said garnishment cause above named, shall be protected in this court, and allowed to set up herein, on proper proceedings, their claims against said assignment that are or can be set up, in any way, Opinion of the Court. in said garnishment proceedings, and that all rights, if any, accruing to them by reason of commencing said garnishment suit, be and the same are hereby preserved to them, to be prosecuted and recovered in this court by proper proceedings or petition. On the appeal of defendants in the petition, this order has been approved and affirmed, respectively, by the circuit court of Cook county, and the Appellate Court for the First District, and by their further appeal the case is brought to this court. The appellants concede that the right and jurisdiction of the county court, under a valid assignment, to enforce the trust and distribute the fund lawfully in the hands of the assignee, is, under our statute, exclusive; but they insist that the validity of the assignment itself, though regular on its face, may be attacked in another tribunal, on the ground of fraud. To permit suits to be prosecuted in other courts for such a purpose, would necessarily interrupt and greatly embarrass the collection, and distribution of the insolvent's estate among his creditors, and in many cases would practically defeat the objects of our Voluntary Assignment act, one of which is, doubtless, to enable the insolvent debtor to make a just and equitable division of his estate among all his creditors, in such a way as to repel, as far as possible, any suspicion of its entire fairness. The most effectual way of accomplishing this object, is, doubtless, the one which was adopted, viz., to require his effects to be administered by some disinterested person, under the constant guidance and direction of an enlightened and impartial tribunal, open at all times, and to all persons alike, having or claiming to have any interest in or claim upon the insolvent's estate, and desiring to be heard upon the same. Under the scheme adopted, the individual interest of each creditor or claimant will naturally lead him to keep a watch over all the others, and to see that no claim is allowed against the insolvent's estate that is fictitious or unjust. By reason of all the claims and parties in interest being in |