It is against public policy, and not consonant with natural justice and fair dealing, as between debtor and creditor, that a settlor should be permitted to play fast and loose with his property, in such a manner as to have the use of the income during life and the right of disposing of the principal by will at any subsequent time he chooses to exercise the power, thus giving him all of the substantial benefits arising from the ownership thereof while he has safely put his property beyond the reach of creditors." In the present case, the stock, it will be remembered, was, by George M. Woods' direction, transferred as collateral security for his debt by the children to whom it had been, at his request, issued. On the face of the transaction, it would seem as if he had still retained the beneficial ownership.

The next question involved is, the right of the assignee to maintain this bill. It was formerly the law of this state that a voluntary assignee is the mere representative of the debtor, enjoying his rights only and no others, and is bound where he would be bound; that he is not the representative of the creditors, and is not clothed with their power; that he is but a volunteer and not a bona fide purchaser for value: Fulton's Estate, 51 Pa., 204. His rights, however, have been changed by the Act of June 4, 1901, P. L., 404. By section 17 of that Act, it is provided that "an assignee or receiver for the benefit of creditors shall be under the control of the proper Court of Common Pleas; shall be the representative of the creditors of the insolvent, and entitled, by proper legal steps in his own name, as assignee or receiver, to have vacated and set aside for the benefit of all the creditors any judgment, execution, attachment, sequestration, payment, pledge, assignment, transfer, conveyance or incumbrance which heretofore could have been avoided by the creditors, or any of them, or by which it is attempted to give one creditor preference over another, or which, by this Act, inures to the benefit of all the creditors of such insolvent.

And now, let us, for a moment, glance at the effect of his mother's will upon the transaction. By the first codicil, a share of that estate was given to him, subject to the payment of the indebtedness due by him to her, and, as a consequence, all of the indebtedness for which this stock is now claimed to be held as collateral would have been liquidated, and the stock, if belonging to Woods, would have been an asset in the hands of his assignee,. . . Under this Act, we think that the unless he had a right, by gift, to transfer the title to his children, notwithstanding the then condition of his financial affairs. By the second codicil, the share of George M. Woods was given to his wife and children, subject to the indebtedness due by him to his mother, and, as a consequence, if the stock is sold and used towards the payment of this indebtedness, so much less remains to be accounted for as against this share of the estate. Therefore, the effect is the same as the voluntary gift, because the stock is used in their relief.

We, therefore, come back to the primary question, which is, whether, while obligated to an amount in excess of his claimed assets, and after having entered upon a new business, involving large indebtedness, he could, without consideration, make a voluntary conveyance to his children. Under all the circumstances, we are of the opinion that he had no right to do this.

plaintiff has a right to maintain this bill. If the creditors, or any one of them, could secure a decree for the transfer of the stock on the grounds that the gift of George M. Woods to his children was void as to him, then the assignee, under the terms of the Act, is vested with the same right. Surely, the holder of the bond which accompanied the mortgage, being an existing creditor, could have avoided the transfer, and we think, in view of the hazardous business which Woods engaged in about the time the transfer was made, the other creditors have like rights. If this is true, the assignee can maintain the bill.

Therefore, in accordance with the prayer contained therein, we think that a decree should be entered in favor of the plaintiff, as follows:

DECREE.-First: That the gift of the 300 shares of preferred and 300 shares of common stock of the Phoenix Water

Power Company, made by George M. | Hershey were appointed a committee to
Woods to his children, to wit: Jeanne prepare appropriate resolutions of re-
Woods, Esther Woods, Katharine spect.
Woods, John S. Woods, George B.
Woods and David C. Woods, is declared
to be null and void.

The committee reported the following minute, which was adopted:

Resolved, That in the death of Thomas Second. That T. Scott Woods is B. Holahan, the Lancaster Bar was called hereby enjoined from using said stock upon to part with a member who during for the payment of the indebtedness of an active practice of forty years, has deGeorge M. Woods for which it was served and enjoyed the unqualified repledged as collateral, and also from trans-spect and confidence of the Court, of his ferring the same to the children of the said George M. Woods.

Third. That the said T. Scott Woods is hereby ordered and directed to deliver over to the plaintiff the certificate for 50 shares of preferred and 50 shares of common stock of said company, standing in the name of David C. Woods, which he now has in his possession; and that he shall also deliver over the certificates for 100 shares of preferred and 250 shares. of common stock of the said company, now standing in his name, and which were transferred to him by the children of the said George M. Woods, the same to be for the benefit of the assigned estate of the said George M. Woods.

Bay Meeting,

To Take Action on the Death of Thomas
Berry Holahan.

Thomas Berry Holahan was born in Boalsburg, Clinton county, Pa., June 24. 1845.

He was educated in the public schools and the Boalsburg Academy.

He read law with his brother W. C. Holahan at Renova, and was admitted to the Clinton County Bar in 1874.

He was admitted to the Lancaster County Bar in 1875.

professional brethren and of the clientage which he served. He was an able, industrious and careful lawyer, a man of strict honor, and upright life, a loyal friend, a good citizen and devoted husband and father, and in each relation of life proved himself so useful and faithful, as to make his career a just pride to this Bar, to his family and friends, and to this community.

Resolved, further, That this minute be spread upon the minutes of the Bar, and published in the daily newspapers, and in the Lancaster Law Review, and that a copy thereof be transmitted to the family of the deceased.

Bar Association.

The semi-annual meeting of the Lancaster Bar Association was held Monday, June 14, 1915, at 2 o'clock p. m.. with Vice-President W. F. Beyer in the chair.

The Treasurer, Hon. D. McMullen, reported a balance of $27.25 in the treasury. The Committee for the reception to Chief Justice Brown reported all moneys expended.

The Board of Censors reported no ac

tion.

A number of communications were received from other Bar Associations relating to action in reference to vacancies

He died Sunday morning, June 13. in the Superior Court and an effort to 1915, of Bright's disease.

A meeting of the Lancaster Bar was held on Monday, June 14, 1915, to take action on the death of Thos. A. Holahan. W. F. Beyer was made chairman, and B. C. Atlee, secretary.

assist foreign lawyers stranded by the war. These communications were ordered filed and no action taken.

Judge Chas. I. Landis was elected as President to fill the unexpired term of the late W. U. Hensel.

Chas. E. Workman was elected a member.

Eloquent tributes to the deceased were paid, and B. F. Davis, John W. Appel, No action was taken in regard to holdD. McMullen, B. C. Kready and A. H.ing a picnic this year.

LANCASTER LAW REVIEW. against the defendant the following bill

VOL. XXXII.] FRIDAY, JUNE 25, 1915. [No. 34 1911, he become the owner in fee simple

Common Pleas--Equity. ship, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

A water-power company will be enjoined from increasing the height of its dam to the injury of a higher riparian owner, although the enterprise of the company is of great extent and importance compared with the prop-by the Plaintiff in this bill for the exerty injured, where the plaintiff's right is free press purpose of constructing thereon an from doubt and there is no reasonable dispute electric power plant for the purpose of as to the consequences of the defendant's act. Whether or not the defendant company is generating power, the output of which exceeding its charter rights cannot be inquired was to be used in the operation of the into collaterally, but only by the state. Lancaster & York Furnace Street Rail

John M. Groff and W. Clark Mason, respect. for plaintiff. That the dam and power plant was fully completed and the generation of John A. Nauman, John E. Malone and electric current and its transmission to W. U. Hensel, for defendant. the City of Baltimore was begun at a January 10, 1915. Opinion by LANDIS, formal public opening held on the premises on October 14, 1910.

On June 11, 1912, the plaintiff filed mentioned and specified in the original

plans and the operation by the Defend- | ant of its electric equipment in the connection with the same for more than a year and since the purchase by your orator of the tract of land described in paragraph One of this bill, your orator heard rumors of a proposed increase in the height of the dam.

diminish the course, current or cross section of any such river or stream," without first securing the consent of the Water Supply Commission of Pennsylvania. That the Defendant is proceeding to increase the height of the dam without securing the consent of the said Water Supply Commission of Pennsylvania, and in defiance of the Act of As

That he immediately gave notice to the Pennsylvania Water & Power Com-sembly. pany that such an increase of elevation The Plaintiff prayed for relief, as would irreparably injure and destroy follows: the lands and flowage rights of his water power property on the Tucquan Creek above referred to.

5. That your orator is now informed and believes that the Defendant is about to begin to raise said dam from three and one-half to five additional feet. That such additional height would irreparably injure and destroy Defendant's property aforesaid for the purposes and object for which he holds the same, to wit: For the purposes of erecting and constructing on the Tucquan Creek an electric power plant to be operated by the water power from that stream.

6. That if the height of the dam is increased, your orator's lands and property will be flooded by back water and a large part rendered valueless for any purpose whatever and their value as to water power will be irreparably injured and destroyed.

1. The Defendant, its agents and employees be enjoined and restrained from increasing the height of said dam in such a manner, or to such a height as to cause flood or back water from the Susquehanna River to overflow or injure the lands and water power of your orator hereinbefore described or any part thereof.

2. To order and direct that any increase in the height of the said dam which may have been made since its original construction shall be removed.

3. To grant such other, further and general relief in the premises as to your Honorable Court may seem meet and proper.

On July 18, 1912, the defendant filed its answer, as follows:

1. It neither admits nor denies the allegations contained in paragraph 1 of plaintiff's bill, having no knowledge of them. It demands proof of the same.

2. It does not know what intentions plaintiff had in purchasing the tract of land on Tucquan Creek, and it therefore neither admits nor denies the allegations of paragraph 2 of the bill; other and further than that it denies the practicability of developing an electric power

7. That the Defendant has no legal right or authority to construct said dam as to flood, back water upon, or otherwise injure the property of your orator above referred to, and in so far as it brings about such results, the construction and erection of said dam by the Defendant is inequitable and unlawful. 8. That by Act of the General As-plant therein, either for street railway, sembly of May 28, 1907, P. L. 299, it is provided, "That from and after the passage of this act, no person or persons, corporation, county, city, borough, or township shall construct, erect, or buildtion or development. in or along any public or navigable river, or stream heretofore declared a public highway, within this Commonwealth, any dam, wall, wing wall, wharf, pier, embankment, abutment, projection, or other obstruction of any such river or stream nor in any manner change or

light or power purposes. It avers that the entire water power of plaintiff is inadequate and insufficient for any such practical or profitable erection, construc

3. It admits the allegations of paragraph 3 of the bill.

4. It neither admits nor denies the allegations of paragraph 4, but demands proof thereof.

5. It denies the allegations of paragraph 5 of the bill.

6. It denies the allegations of para- | quan Creek, in Martic Township, Langraph 6 of the bill.