Cited by

This rule was adopted by this court in Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , , in which it was held that rent accruing under a lease after an assignment for the benefit of creditors by the lessee under the insolvent law is not a provable debt or claim against the estate of the insolvent lessee.

It was held in Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , , that rent accruing under a lease after the date of the assignment by the lessee for the benefit of creditors under the insolvent law Avas not provable as a debt.

We think this is in line with the decision in Fink v. Weinholzer, 109 Minn. 381 , , and also with Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , , where in an assignment proceeding rent was apportioned up to the date of the assignment.

The assignment by Walker, Judd & Yeazie to Mr. Jenks having been held void (as against nonassenting creditors) by this court in May v. Walker, 35 Minn. 194 , , the appellant was appointed, in new insolvency proceedings, receiver of Walker, Judd & Veazie (see In matter of Walker, 37 Minn. 243 , , ), and in 1893 brought a suit in the district court for Bamsey county against Mr. Jenks and all creditors of Walker, Judd & Veazie, including the members of the syndicate, to deter *538 mine

(2d Ed.) 139; Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , , and cases cited.

On the argument in this court, *102 counsel for appellant relied chiefly on Kalkhoff v. Nelson, 60 Minn. 284 , , while respondents’ counsel considered the question settled in their favor in Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , .

National G. A. Bank v. Wilder, 35 Minn. 94 , ; In re Walker, 37 Minn. 243 , , and .

Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , .

“The assignment is for the benefit of creditors having existing debts against the assignor at the time of the assignment.” Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , .

The case of Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , , is not in conflict with the views here expressed, for it was an action for rent, not for damages for a total breach of an executory contract to pay rent for a term of years in future instalments.

In support of the judgment, defendant relies on the case of Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , ( ,) but we do not think the question here presented was in that case.

It was claimed by one of the attorneys for the creditors that the claim should not be allowed, because within the rule laid •down in Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , ( 33 N. W. Rep.

In Wilder v. Peabody, 37 Minn. 248 , ( 33 N. W. Rep.