Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/456

 BENTON V. ALLEN. 449 �of Vermont, for the sum of $3,000, and the taxes due and unpaid thereon. �In payment of bis undivided half of said lands Willis Wilder "turned eut" to Allen two notes, one against the Waumbeck Lumber Company, and one against John Pierce, Jr., both amounting to about $1,200, and his own note for the balance of the $1,500, ail of which, within two or three months thereafter, were paid to said Allen. �For payment of his half of said lands Richard H. Wilder gave his individual note of $1,500, which hasnever beenpaid. The taxes have been paid by the grantees, or- one of them. �On the ninth day of January, 1875, Richard H. Wilder quitclaimed his interest in said lands to Willis Wilder, and in payment took his note of $1,500 and interest from the seven- teenth of October, 1873, the date of the original purchase of the lands from Allen. �Ou the twelfth day of January, 1875, Allen filed his peti- tion in bankruptcy in the United States district court for the district of Vermont, and the complainant was appointed his assignee; and on the twenty-fifth day of May, 1875, he filed his bill of complaint against Allen, the bankrupt, and the two Wilders, alleging that said conveyance by Allen of the lots of land in Stratford, October 17, 1878, was made to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of said Allen, and was void as against the complainant and said creditors, and praying that said conveyance may be decreed to be null and void, and the said Wilders enjoined from ever claiming any right, title, or interest in said real estate, by virtue of said deed of the seven- teenth of October, 1873. �The bill also prays that, if said deed is not held null and void, the said Willis Wilder be ordered and decreed to pay the complainants the amount of the note given by him to Richard H. Wilder, and that said Richard be ordered to sur- render said note to the said complainant. �To this bill the defendants have filed their several answers, each denying, under oath, distinctly and positively, that said conveyance was made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, and alleging that it was made in good faith. �T.3,no.4— 29 ����