Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/865

 858 FEDERAL REFOBTEB. �paid the assignee $300 for them. It is clearly shown by the evidence that this was exclusively fees, or, more properly speaking, bribes paid to the assignee personally for promoting his wishesin the matter. It caunot be accounted a consider- tion enuring to the estate, and this statement of this pay- ment in the answer as the consideration, is virtually an ad- mission that no other consideration passed, and confirms the conclusions drawn from the petitioners' proofs that the con- Teyances were gifts from the estate, and not sales such as the court directed to be made. On the whole case, I can see no possible injury that bas resulted to the respondent, Chapman, from the petitioners' delay, and, considering the peouliar nature of the grounds of invalidity relied on, I think there is no reason for denying the petitioners the relief asked on ac- count of the delay in making their applications. �From beginning to end, these transactions show a common purpose to obtain a colorable title from the assignee, which should be superior to or supersede the title made under the auction sale. In every instance where in the deed the righta under a former sale are reserved or saved, the deed is more favorable to the grantee than the order based on the assign- ee's report. This is true of the last deed to Hunt, as well as of the earlier deeds. That deed saves the rights under an earlier recorded deed only, while the report and order will at least bear the construction, and were probably intended tO convey to the court the impression, that what was applied for was a deed subject to a prior sale, of which a deed may have been recorded, thus saving the rights uader that sale, whether the deed was recorded or not, which is the only condition on which the court could or would, except by inadvertance, have authorized a second sale. This feature of the trans- actions, common to them ail, is itself suf&cient to stamp them as designedly frauduient, and the respondent, Chapman, who procured the deeds to Hunt, must be held upon the proofs to bave been the principal in this fraud. So far as appears he was the only party concerned in the transaction who had any motive or interest to obtain the deeds. He is shown by the proofs to bave been actively engaged at and before this ����