Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/772

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page needs to be proofread.

760 FEDBBAIi REPORTER. �bilities. Todd v. Hartley, 2 Met. 207; Lowry v. Fisher, 2 Bush, 70; Miller v. Disho, 3 Bush, 215, �There is no evidence to prove that the bankrupt obtained the proceeds of any other of his wife's slaves or land. Her other slaves seem not to have been sold, but were emanci- pated, no doubt, by the thirteenth amendaient to the federal constitution, They were not her husband's under this paroi agreement, and their emanicipation was herloss and not his, Her land in Carter county remains unsold, When witnesses speak of the bankrupt receiving $10,000 or |12,000, they evidently include these slaves, �I therefore conelude that the other conveyance, that from Norwood H, Sinclair to Mrs, Hollister, was without a valua- ble consideration, acd, under the statutes, void as to esisting liabilities of the bankrupt. This liability is $.5,000 due Gov- ington National Bank, less $60 rebate and $988 paid by the estate of Leathers; leaving a balance of $3,952, without interest. �The right to bring suit to set aside thia deed is in the assignee of the bankrupt alone, and as Hollister's bankruptcy stopped the receiving of interest on ail his debts, including that held by Covington National Bank, the conveyance of Sinclair will be set aside, and the property sold to pay the sum of $3,952, without interest. �Whether the proceeds of this property, when sold, shall be divided pro rata between ail of the creditors of Hollister, or the national bank have priority, is a question of much diffi- culty. �The supreme court says, in Kehr v. Smith, 20 Wall., 36: "It is well settled, when a deed is set aside as void as to the existing creditors, that ail the creditors, prier and subsequent, share in the same pro rata." �If that case is like this one, its authority is conclusive upon this court, It was first decided by Judge Treat, and arose under the Missouri statute. See 7 N. B. Eeg. 27. �The bill in that case alleged fraud, and the court so held, because, at the time of the conveyance by the bankrupt to the trustee of his wife, there was not sufficient property ����