1819. U. States Howland. (CHANCERY.) The UNITED STATES v. HOWLAND and ALLEN. The Circuit Court has jurisdiction, on a bill in equity filed by the United States against the debtor of their debtor, they claiming a priority under the act of 1799, c. 128. s. 65. notwithstanding the local law of the State where the suit is brought allows a creditor to proceed against the debtor of his debtor, by a peculiar process at law. The Circuit Courts of the Union have Chancery jurisdiction in every State; they have the same Chancery powers, and the same rules of decision in all the States. The United States are not entitled to priority over other creditors, under the act of 1799, c. 128. s. 65. upon the ground of the debtor having made an assignment for the benefit of creditors, unless it is proved, that the debtor has made an assignment of ALL his property. Where the deed of assignment conveys only the property mentioned in the schedule annexed, and the schedule does not purport to contain all the property of the party who made it, the onus probandi is thrown on the United States to show that the assignment embraced all the property of the debtor. Úpon a bill filed by the United States, proceeding as ordinary credi tors against the debtor of their debtor for an account, &c. the original debtor to the United States ought to be made a party, and the account taken between him and his debtor. APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Massachusetts. This was a bill in equity filed in the name of the United States, in the Court below, stating, that several judgments had been obtained by the United States on duty bonds, against Shoemaker & Travers, and Jacob Shoemaker and their sureties, amounting to the sum of 5,292 dollars; which judgments were obtained in the District Court of Pennsylvania, at the February term of 1808, and upon which execu tions had issued, which remained in the marshal's hands unsatisfied; that after the execution of the duty bonds, but before they were payable, to wit, on the 6th of December, 1806, Shoemaker and Travers became insolvent within the true intent and meaning of the act "to regulate the collection of duties on imports and tonnage:" that on the first of February, 1808, goods, effects, money and credit of Shoemaker & Travers, to the amount of 6,000 dollars, had come to the hands of Howland & Allen, which, the bill alleged, they refused to subject to the executions of the United States; it prayed, that they might be compelled to account for, and deliver up, these goods, &c. in satisfaction of the claim of the United States, and for an injunction in the mean time to restrain them from disposing of, paying away, or in any manner applying the goods, &c. aforesaid, to any other object. The injunction was, accordingly, awarded. An amendment to the bill stated, that after the debts to the United States accrued by bond as aforesaid, and after Shoemaker & Travers had become insolvent, to wit, on the 6th day of December, 1806, they made a voluntary assignment by deed, of all their property, for the benefit of their creditors, within the true intent and meaning of the act of Congress aforesaid, and an exemplified copy of the deed of assignment was annexed to the amended bill. The deed recited, that the parties being justly indebted to divers persons, whose names are mentioned in a list thereto annexed, and unable at present to pay the said debts, they assign to trustees therein mentioned, 1819. U. States V. Howland. 1819. U. States all and singular, the estate and effects contained in a schedule annexed, in trust, to pay the debts due the enumerated creditors, and first, that due to the Howland. United States. The schedule was entitled "Sche+ dule of property assigned by Shoemaker & Travers, and Jacob Shoemaker, to the creditors of Shoemaker and Travers," and contained many items of property, and among others, the proceeds of the cargo of the brig Deborah, which vessel was then at sea, and belonging to Howland & Allen, but had been chartered by Shoemaker & Travers. Howland & Allen, by their answer, admitted the receipt, on the 1st of January, 1807, of 4,000 Spanish dollars, the property of Shoemaker & Travers, and which the master of the Deborah had received in Guadulope for Shoemaker & Travers; but insisted on their right to apply it to an unliquidated debt of greater amount (composed of freight, demurrage, damages, &c. the particulars of which are detailed by the answer) due, as alleged, from Shoemaker & Travers to them, and applied by an entry in their books, to the credit of Shoemaker & Travers, at the time of the receipt of the money aforesaid. They insisted, therefore, on the right of retaining it. To this answer there was a general replication, and the depositions of several witnesses were taken. The Court below decreed, that the said Shoemaker & Travers were, and are, indebted to the United States, and that they became insolvent, and made an assignment as alleged in the bill, and that there was an outstanding unsettled demand existing in their favour, at the time of their insolvency, against the defendants, arising from the voyage of the brigantine Deborah, and which is still unsettled and unpaid, but the Court is not satisfied that the defendants, being merely debtors to said insolvents, are by law liable to this process, and thereupon decree, that the said bill be dismissed. From this decree the present appeal was taken. 1819. U. States V. Howland. The Attorney General, for the appellants, argued, Feb. 41. 1. That the prior right of the United States attached to all the property of Shoemaker & Travers, on the 6th of December, 1806, the time of their insolvency, and the date of the deed of assignment from them. It is immaterial whether the priority of the United States, in any case, be asserted under the act of 1797, c. 368. s. 5. or under that of 1799, c. 128. s. 65. The decisions, as to this point, under the one statute, are applicable to the other. It is insisted, that this is one of the cases specified by Congress, in which the debts due to the United States are to be first satisfied; a case in which the debtor, not having sufficient property to pay all his debts, has made a voluntary assignment thereof, for the benefit of his creditors. This is the allegation of the bill, and it is supported by the deed itself. Although the granting clause does not literally express it to include all the property of the debtors, yet the clause which gives the power to sell, by using the words "all the property of them, the said Shoemaker & Travers, and Jacob Shoemaker," clearly shows, that the assignment was intended to convey all their property. The very objects of the deed, as set forth in the recital, 1819. U. States Howland. aids this construction.-2. If, then, the priority of Mr. Jones, contra, insisted, 1. That the act of Congress only extended to executors and administrators, or to assignees, but not to the debtors of the debtors of the United States. A Court of Equity cannot have power to settle an account in this way, without some statutory provision to authorize the proceeding. The act of Congress gives no such authority. Shoemaker & Travers are not made parties to the bill, and a decree between the United States and the pre |