IN BE EIDE. 593 �made only to relieve the land in the hands of Taggard from any cloud or technical infirmity of title ; that the court had given the title gratuitously to a party whb might use it in fraud of the estate of the bankrupt or of an honest purchaser of it; and that the order of sale ought not to stand, but should be rescinded, as having been obtained by a party cog- nizant of ail the facts impeaching its equity and justice. The above state of facts was recited in an order which the court made July 7, 1862, vacating and declaring void the order of sale made in 1858, and declaring null and void the deedfrom the assignee to Brown, and brdering the assignee and Brown and Jones to deliver the deed to the olerk of the court to be cancelled. �In In re Mott, in the district •court for this district, under the bankruptcy act of 1841, the officiai assignee had, on the order of the court, made in 1860, sold a certain interest of the bankrupt in the real estate of his deceased grandfather, at private sale, to one Delaplaine, for $800 for the property, and $200 to the assignee for his costs and expenses in the matter, and had given a deed for the property to Delaplaine. Afterwards a bank, which was a creditor of the bankrupt, but had not proved its debt in the bankruptcy proceedings, ap- plied to the court by petition, setting forth that before the order of sale was procured the assignee had agreed to con- vey the property to the bank for a nominal consideration, and $25 as his costs, and that he had received the $25 from the bank. The petition prayed for an order declaring void the sale and deed to Delaplaine, and directing the deed to be surrendered and cancelled, and $800 in court, received from Delaplaine, to be returned to him, and directing the assignee to convey his interest in said real estate to the bank for a nominal consideration. Delaplaine and the assignee were served personally with the petition, and resisted the granting of its prayer. �The district court, in 1861, ordered the case and the pro- ceedings to be adjourned into the circuit court on certain stated questions, one of which was whether the bank could �v.6,no.6— 38 ��� �
