516 HI%H COURT OF CHANCiERY.

A difficulty, however, occurred to me at .one lime, cespeottog
tixe irigbt of the ooaaplainafl^, who is the permanent trustee in
insolvency •of Spindler, the grantor, to file a bill to vacate con-
veyances aaade by him as fraudulent, under the ipro-visipBS of
the -statue of .Elizabeth—I thought it might perhaps he doubted,
wfeether, as the conveyances were good against the grantor
himself, his insolvent trustee could'be permitted to impeach them.
Subsequent reflection, however, and an examination-of .one or
two of the cases, has satisfied me that the doubt is not well
founded; and that unless the trustee may maintain such a suit,
the creditors -of the insolvent, who are prejudiced by the con-
veyance, might be without remedy altogether. According to
the principles settled by the Court of Appeals in Alexander .vs.
Ghiselin et al., 5 Gill, 138, the whole estate of the insolvent,
whatever may be its condition, passes into the hands of the
trustee, to be by him managed for the benefit of his creditors,
who are deprived by operation of the insolvent system, of the
right to pursue in their own names, any remedy against the
• property of the debtor, however it may be situated at the time
of his application for relief.

It is true, that if there be a surplus after the payment of the
claims of creditors, it will be enjoyed by the insolvent, and so
far, and to that extent, the annulling the conveyances operates
to his benefit, but still as the property or its proceeds must be
in the first place applied to the payment of the creditors, the
power of the court must be regarded as exerted chiefly for them;

and if the conveyance is void as against creditors, under the stat-
ute of Elizabeth, it would seem proper to permit the trustee to
institute proceedings for the purpose of vacating it, as other-
wise the creditors, though wronged, would be without remedy.

In Virginia, the sheriff, when a debtor takes the insolvent
oath, and delivers in a schedule, is vested by the act of assem-
bly with all the insolvent's estate, rights and interests; and as
the Court of Appeals of that state said, in the case of Shirley
vs. Long, 6 Randolph, 748, "be represents both the insolvent
and the creditors," "and it would be strange, that if the insolv-
ent were to convey away half nis property, and this moat