case peters all versus soam all Jan Lord keeper Eq can ab pl S c a be bind in  a bind to b the bind be assign by b to c in satisfaction of a debt due from b  to c b become a bankrupt and c not be able to sue at law in b s name bring a  bill against a to be pay the money due on the bind whether a out of the money  due on the bind shall retain a debt due to himself from b Darwin the receiver  of a NewRiver rend assign to the plaintiff Peter a bind wherein the defendant  soam and green be bind to he in pound for payment of pound and this assignment  be to indemnify he against two debt for which he stand bind as surety for  Darwin and in satisfaction of pound he owe the plaintiff Darwin become a  bankrupt so Peter can not sue in the name of Darwin at law and bring his bill  to have the money decree to he in equity defendant soam insist Darwin be  indebt to he for rend receive for four NewRiver share and insist to retain it  out of the bind and the assignee insist to have the bind they be just creditor  as well as the plaintiff and have the law as well as equity on their side per  cur the assignee can have no better right than the bankrupt Vernon chancery  case himself and as the bankrupt be bind by the assignment the assignee under  the statute must be bind likewise and stand in his place so winch v Keeley  term Rep so in the case of assignment of a simple contract debt row v Dawson  ves so in the case of a mortgage pope v Onslow ante so where bankrupt debtor  to the crown and under promise to pay the debt of another to the crown and  extent issue assignee not permit to have the extent discharge without pay both  debt king v Lacy bunb so in the case of a award make after bankruptcy but not  know Whitacre v pawlin ante p and the general principle seem to be that  assignee take a bankrupt property in the same condition and subject to the  same burden as the bankrupt himself have it and that they stand in his place  and be bind by all act fair do by he in relation to his property south see a  company v Wymondsell p wms walker v burrow atk Mitford v Mitford Ves and by  whatever equity the bankrupt be liable to tailor v Wheeler post brown v  Heathcote atk Hinton v Hinton ves Terrell v hope atk pie v Daubuz bro Ch Rep  Mitford v Mitford ub sup and the principle arise on this ground that they be  consider not as purchaser for a valuable consideration in the proper sense of  those word but as voluntary assignee and personal representative and be  therefore distinguish from particular assignee drake v mayor of Exeter Ch c  Jewson v Moulson atk Worrall v Marlar cite in note to Bosvil v Brander p wms  Mitford v Mitford ub sup but the rule be not universal for the court will not  carry a voluntary conveyance into execution against assignee though they will  as against the bankrupt himself such dict per Hardwicke Lord chancellor  Terrell v hone atk and the right and power of the assignee appear to be in  some case more extensive than those which be in the bankrupt for they may  impeach transaction which the bankrupt himself may be stop from impeach such  dict per Loughborough Lord chancellor Anderson v Maltby Ves jun and that upon  the ground that the assignee have all the equity of the creditor ibidem et  vide further on the general subject of the interest of assignee in the right  and effect of bankrupt cologne bank law p but they insist Darwin be a bankrupt  before he assign the bind he direct that to be try at law but say he be in  doubt whether soam may not retain for his debt and that stoppage seem to be a  good equity in such case on the doctrine of stoppage vide Curson v African  company ante Vol p and case cite in note there and further ex part Stephens  Ves in which the case and doctrine of set off be a good deal consider Vernon  chancery case er p