slaughter, and was really found not guilty of murder; ana (2) that a verdict of manslaughter was not warranted by section 1035 of the Revised Statutes, because the commission of that offence was not necessarily included in the offence charged in the indictment. We think these positions untenable. The allegations in the indictment, leaving out the allegations as to malice, constituted the offence of manslaughter. The unlawfulness and wilfulness of the acts alleged are charged, and alao that they were done with malice. The acts charged, when proved to have been done wilfully and with malice, constituted murder within section 5339. The same acta, when proved to have been done unlawfully and wilfully, but without malice, constituted manslaughter, within section 5341. The commission of such offence of manslaughter was necessarily in the offence charged in the indictment, because the absence of malice, the other ingredients charged being proved, made the caSQ one of manslaughter, when, with the malice added, it would have been murder. The motion is denied. BENEDICT, D. J., and CROATE, D. J., concur.
(Oircuit Oourt, E. D. PennsylfJania.
April 28, 1880.)
BANKRUPTCy-FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE-GRANTEE TAKING TITJ.lll FOB ACCOMMODATION OF TIURD PERSON-ABSENCE OF FRAUDULENT IN-
the grantee in a conveyance made by an insolvent debtor in fraud of the bankrupt act takes the title merely at the request of and in trust for a third person, and derives no profit from the transaction, he is not liable to the assignee in bankruptcy for the value of the land unless he not only knew of the insolveney, but also shared the bankrupt's intent to defeat the bankrupt act.
Bill in equity by the assignee in bankruptcy of John Ramsey against Walter S. Kneedler to recover the value of property alleged to have been fraudulently conveyed by the
-Prepared by :;,;';''lnk P. l'richard, Esq., of the Philadelphia Bar.
llankrupt toreapondent, and subsequently sold by the latter. An answer was filed denying the fmud, and the case was referred to an examiner to take testimony. The testlmony on behalf of complainants was to the effect that in August, 1875, Ramsey hecame insolvtlnt; that his personal property was sold at that time at sheriff's sale, under an execution against him, and that the respondent attended the sale; that on September 1, 1875, Ramsey conveyed to respondent for the nominal consideration of $1,500 a lot of ground and building worth $4,000 above It ground rent which was upon it; that on October 6, 1875, a petition in bankruptcy was filed against Ramsey, under which he was adjudicated a bankrupt; that afterwards, upon It demand being made by the assignee for a reconveyance of the real estate, respondent had said. that Ramsey had come to him and wanted him to take a deed for the property, because if he did not taka it his (Ramsey's) creditors would get it, and that he (Ramsey) preferred that respondent should have it; that re!:ipondent had also admitted that he paid no consideration for the property. The testimony on behalf of respondent was to the effect that about September, 1875, Ramsey requested Solomon A. Kneedler, the father of respondent, to purchase the property, and that the latter agreed to purchase it for $1,500; that Solomon A. Kneedler then applied to respondent to allow title to be taken in the latter's name, and respondent consenting, a deed was executed to him, but that he paid no consideration and took the title merely in trust for his father; that Solomon A. Kneedler then employed a conveyancer .;! make searches, when it was discovered that there were arrearages of ground rent, taxes, etc., against the property amounting to more than $1,500.; that Ramsey then agreed that Solomon A. Kneedler should have the property for the arrearages; that subsequently and more than a year before the filing of this bill, respondent, at Solomon A. Kneedler's request, and to enable the latter to- rebuild, conveyed the property, without consideration, to one Newcomer, in five lots, and ncei\C;:u from Newcomer fin mortgages, ('.10 on c::wh
ALLEMAN V. KNEEDLER.
lot; that he subsequently, at his father's request and for his father's benefit, assigned or satisfied all of these mortgages except one, which was given to him by his father in exchange for building material. Respondent denied any knowledge of Ramsey's insolvency, or that he had said that Ramsey de· sired him to take the properLy because the credit· ors would get it. He alleged that he had received no profit from the transaction, but had merely allowed his name to be used for his father's accommodation. Isaac S. Sharp, for complainant. Francis E. Brewster, for respondent. McKENNAN, C. J. The complainant is the assignee in bankruptcyof John Ramsey, and now seeks to recover from thE/l respoudent the value of certain real estate conveyed to him by the bankrupt in alleged fraud of the bankrupt law. The respondent was not a creditor of the bankrupt, but took a conveyance from him of the real estate described in the bill as a mere intermediary, at the instance of Solomon A. Kneedler, his father, who purchased it from Ramsey, and by whose direction the respondent conveyed it to one Newcomer more than a year before the filing of this bill. It is apparent that he derived no direct benefit from the transaction, if there was any profit to any of the parties to it, and that he can be held liable only upon clear proof of his complicity with the bankrupt in the fraud charged in the bill. The elements of this fraud are-First, the insolvency of the bankrupt at the date of the conveyance; second, reasonable cause , to know this fact by the' respondent; and, third, an intent by the oankrupt and the respondent to defeat the operation of the bankrupt law, by preventing the property conveyed from being appropriated to the benefit of the bankrupt's Cl"editors. or to hinder, delay and defeat them. Of the insolvency of the bankrupt at the date of the conveyance there is no doubt. Whether the respondent actually knew it may fairly be doubted, but that he had knowledge of facts from which the bankrupt's condition ought to have been inferred, may be assumed as proved. That he shared the bankrupt's intent to defeat the operation of the bankrupt law, v.2,no.8-43
is more than a questionable resultant" from all the proofs in the case. We have examined them carefully since the argument, and our estimate of their import is that they fall short of establishing an illegal intent on part of the respondent in taking a conveyance from the bankrupt. We do not deem an analysis of the proofs necessary. It is enough to say that -they are insufficient to make out a fact essential to the complainant's right to a decree, and his bill must be dismissed, with costs.
and others v.
w: D. PennaylfJania.
f 29.-The amended sections of the bankrupt act, relating to composition, are within the purview 01 section 29 of the bankrupt act.
Bill of review in bankruptcy. Malcom Hay, for complainants. Sol. Schoyer, Jr., for bankrupts. McKENNAN, C. J. This bill brings up for review an order of the district court dismissing objections filed by the com· plainants to the discharge in bankruptcy of the respondents. The motion to dismiss the objections is in the nature of a demurrer, assigning as the only reason for it their insufficiency in law to prevent the discharge, and so it was dealt with by the court below. The objections set up a pecuniaryarrangement with certain of the bankrupts' creditors, as the considern:ion of their assent to a proposition of composition, and their approval of a resolution to that effect. The composition failed for want of the assent of the required number of credo iters, and so the bankruptcy proceeding went on in regular course. To enforce a distribution of a bankrupt debtor's property rtmong his creditors, upon a basis of equality, and to relieve him from further liability for his debts, are the fundamental