Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/580

 572 FEDERAL REPORTER. �in fee of the real estate in controversy in this case, and that sometime prior to the rendition of the judgment in favor of Hartly he conveyed the same to his wife, Georgia Oliphant, with the limitation in substance that the land was to revert to him if his wife should die without children. The bill al- leged this conveyance to his wife was voluntary, and made to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors, both esisting and subsequent, and prayed that the property might be decreed to be sold to satisfy the plaintiff's judgment. Oliphant and his wife were made defendants to the bill. Oliphant was served with process the day the bill was filed, and afterwards appeared to the action. �In June, 1876, Oliphant was, on his own petition, adjudged a bankrupt by the district court of the United States for the eastern district of Arkausas. He did not schedule the prop- erty in question as part of his assets. Georgia Oliphant, the wife, died in July, 1876, and the action abated as to her, and the plaintiff and defendants in this action concede that, under the limitation in the deed, the legal title to the land reverted to Oliphant at her death. Oliphant's assignee in bankruptcy never asserted any claim to the property nor sought to become a party to the suit, and was not made a party, and was discharged by the bankrupt court before final decree in the case. Hartly never proved his judgment as a debt against the estate of the bankrupt. Oliphant never answered the bill, but before final decree filed his certificate of discharge in bankruptcy in the case, and moyed to dis- miss the cause for want of jurisdiction, and because his as- signee in bankruptcy was not made a defendant. �On the twenty-seventh of January, 1877, a final decree was rendered in the cause, in accordanee with the prayer of the bill. Prom this decree Oliphant appealed to the supreme court of the state, where the decree below was afiirmed. Oli- phant V. Hartly, 32 Ark. 465. �The property was sold under the decree, and purchased by Hartly, the plaintifiF in that action, and one of the defend- ants in the present suit. Afterwards Oliphant, the bank- rupt, conveyed the property to the present plaintiff, who ��� �