Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/862

 IN BE EINO. ' 855 �in 1845 was entirely false. The only transfer from ïhe as- signee to Ford of the King interest was that made in 1858, and post-dated to July 15, 1845, the date of the sale to Bum- ham. Thi8 prior purchase was the sole ground upon which the court was asked to authorize this sale to Ford, and this deed must be set aside, not only because the power of the court to Bell was exhausted by the sale to Hallahan, and because it was not a sale at ail, but a gift, being without con- sideration, 80 far as the estate was concerned, but also because it was procured by a false statement that the prior sale of the King interest had been made to Ford, whereas it was, in f act, made, not to him, but to Bumham ; and long before this application, order, and conveyance, Bumham had sold his interest, for value, to Butler, as hereinbefore stated. �The only remaining deed to be examined is that from the assignee to Isaac L. Hunt, of the Hyde interest, dated Janu- ary 19, 1859. The application of Hunt to the assignee is dated January 14, 1859. The officiai report of the assignee, and the order, are dated January 18, 1859. Ail these papers are in the same form as the others, above referred to, except that this application states no reason for asking the convey- ance other than the wish of the applicant to procure a con- veyance. The report states that a conveyance is applied for "subjeet to any former conveyances which may have been made by the assignee of the same, and as may appear of record." The deed is a conveyance, "subjeet to any former conveyances by the said assignee in said matter, and on rec- ord in said county. " The prior deed, in f act recorded; was the deed to Ford. The deed to Hunt was, therefore, made subjeet only to that conveyance, and not to the conveyance previously made in 1845 to Hallahan. The proof is that this deed to Hunt was a gift, and not a sale, and for this rea- son, and because of the prior sale to Hallahan, it must be set aside as inadvertently and improperly given, as well as because it was, like ail the earlier deeds, procured by an im- proper, illegal, and corrupt dealing with the officiai assignee. �As to ail the deeds, it is evident from the proofs that the assignee was çarrying on a trade in pretended or fictitioua ����