Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/289

 IN BB ENGLISH. 277 �order of court authorizing him to pay Mrs. Lucius Osgood, the owner of one-half of the copyright of the books, a copy- right royalty, and after the sale he paid her the same to the amount of $1,224.41. �On March 28, 1879, Mrs. Emily English, the wife of A. H. English, one of the bankrupts, as trustee of Lucius Osgood English, son of the bankrupt, presented her petition, claim- ing to be the owner of the other half of the copyright, and to be entitled to a like royalty to that paid Mrs. Osgood, and praying the court to order the assignee to pay the same to her. Thereupon a rule was granted upon the assignee to show cause why he should not make such payment. After answer to this rule, and argument, the court, on April 12, 1879, discharged the rule. The petition, however, was not dismissed, and is still pending. �On January 31, 1881, another petition of like character was presented to the court by Mrs. English, as trustee of Lucius Osgood English, and a rule was granted upon the assignee to show cause why an order should not be made directing him to pay the petitioner out of the proceeds of said sale the royalty claimed. To this petition and rule the assignee filed an answer. The petitioner set down the rule for hearing, and it was heard upon the petition and answer. I need scarcely say that in disposing of this rule the answer must be taken as true. In substance it alleges that A. H. English, who owned the one-half of the copyright now claimed by Mrs. English as the basis of her claim to royalty, trans- ferred the same, without consideration, to his wife, the peti- tioner, in trust for his son Lucius, some months before his petition: in bankruptcy was filed, at a time when he was in financial embarrassment — under an extension which he had procured from his'creditors — and insolvent; that this trans- fer of the copyright was made to defraud his creditorS; and that at the date of his adjudication as a bankrupt A. H. Eng- lish, in point of fact, was the owner of the said ode-half of the copyright. �If the allegations of the answer are true, it is very clear that the petitioner bas no honest claim to the royalty she ��� �