Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/680

 ALLEMAU V, EKEBBLEB. CT3 �lot; that île subseqiiently, at his father's request and for Lia father's benefit, assigned or satisfied ail of theso mortgages except one, -wliicti was given to him by his father in eschange for building material. Eespondent denied any knowlodge of Eamsey's insolvency, or that he had said that Eamsey de- sired him to take the property because otherwise the credit- ors -wcald get it. He alleged that he had received no profit from the transaction, but had merely allowed his name to be nsed for his father's accommodation. �Isaac S. Sharp, for complainant. �Francis E. Brewster, for respondent. �McKennan, C. J. The complainant is the assignee in bank- ruptcy of John Eamsey, and now seeks to reoover from the* respondent the value of certain real estate conveyed to him by the bankrupt in alleged fraud of the bankrupt law. �The respondent was not a creditor of the bankrupt, but took a conveyance from him of the real estate described in the bill as a mere intermediary, at the instance of Solomon A. Kneedler, his father, -who purchased it from Eamsey, and by whose direction the respondent conveyed it to one New- comer more than a year before the filing of this bill. It is apparent that he derived no direct benefit from the transaction, if there was any profit to any of the parties to it, and that he can be held liable only upon clear proof of his complicity with the bankrupt in the fraud charged in the bill, The ele- ments of this fraud are — First, the insolvency of the bank- rupt at the date of the conveyance; second, reasonable cause ' to know this fact by the respondent ; and, ihird, an intent by the Dankrupt and the respondent to defeat the operation of the bankrupt law, by preventing the property conveyed from being appropriated to the benefit of the bankrupt's creditors. or to hinder, delay and defeat them. �Of the insolvency of the bankrupt at the date of the con- veyance there is no doubt. Whether the respondent actually knew it may fairly be doubted, but that he had knowledge of facts from which the bankrupt's condition ought to bave been inferred, may be assumed as proved. That he shared the bankrupt's intent to defeat the operation of the bankrupt law, �V.2,no,8 — 43 ����