Washington Law Review


Since Armour & Co. v. Becker the Washington court has made clear its position on suspension of our general assignment law by the Bankruptcy Act. In Tacoma Grocery Co. v. Doersch on authority of the Armour case and Interational Shoe Co. v. Pinkus a non-assenting creditor was permitted to garnishee the assigned property in the hands of the assignee. A few months later in Anderson v. Zelensky a creditor who had not taken under a general assignment recovered judgment on his claim despite the debtor's discharge pursuant to Rem. Com. Stat. sec. 1100. The only conclusion which can be drawn from the foregoing decisions is that so far as the Washington court is concerned both the discharge and regulatory sections of the Washington general assignment statute are no longer operative. That such a holding was required by the then exant United States Supreme Court decisions may be questioned. The Arkansas statute which produced the Pinkus case can be distinguished from the Washington statute. Howsoever that may be there are two later Supreme Court cases relating to suspension of state insolvency laws by the Bankruptcy Act which appear to change the entire complexion of the problem.

First Page