.and that. both the:n!ltu;eandamout:lt of the proof required :t:pust rdeppnd in ,a the age oLthe transaction. Upon a ,carefu),cgusideration of am constrained to conclude ,that tbe from James Dunn,Sr., to John DU;f,ln for tbe land in controversy was Illade for tbe pUTPoseof enabling said John Dunn to sell said land for James Dunn, Sr., and that the legal title thereby held by said. J obn Dunn ':v,as and is for. the usE! and ben(:lfit of said James Dunn, Sr., whose right complainant now holds; and that a decree should be passed ,herein granting complainant the relief prayed for in his bill; and it will be so ordered.
(Oircuit Oourt, S. D. Ne'UJ York. April 16, 1888.)
When a,defendant served with subpama entered his appearance, and filed his answer before the rule-day at which the writ was returnable, held, that ',under United States equity rules such practice was proper, and that replication should be filed on or before the rule-day succeeding that on which the writ was returnable.
, In :Equity. plaint. '
Motion to set aside, an order dismissing a bill of
,Witter Jot complainant. WitmqrekJenmer, for defendant.
LACOMBE, J. The bill of pomplaint was filed, and subprena served, January 14, The nextsncceeding rule-day was February 6th, .a,nd thereafter, March 5th. Defendant entered his Februa,ry 2d, .and filed his ,answer February 3d, No replication filed on :the March rule-day,and order was entE;lred dismissing the ibill, CQmplainant moves to eetaside the order, 'l'he question raised upon the motion is as to the of the :rules in equity. Their language, seems call for any: Blabodiscussion in view of the fact ,that they were presumably framed to :promote the speedy ,administration of Justice, and were not designed to delay: suitors, except so far as lllightbenecessary to insure a proper and orderly presentation of both side$ p£llach case. .Adefendant served, with ,subpama must enter his. appearance on or before the day at which .the writ :His plea, deUlUrrer, :or answer must be filed on the next succeeding of;. entering. his appearance, whether ,suc1uule-day day or thirty days after the tlntering of the appear,anee.The compla,inant has until the next sllcceeding rule-day after· filing the answer,iQ'Which to file general replication·. Thereis no warrant .in or for the proposition advanced by the complainant an appearance can only be filed 011. a rule-day I and that therefore in
the case at, bar defendant eould not file his appearance before the Febni. ary rule-day" nor his answer before March 5th. The default should be opened, and complainant allowed to file replication nunc pro twnc,upon proper stipulations as to expediting the trial, the details of which may be arranged upon settlement of the order.
D. illinois. April 18, 1888.)
A transfer' by an insolvent firm of its property to one who had indorsedfthe paper of the fino. and of Its indivi<iual members to a large amount. and who, ;iD consideratil>n ,of tbe transfer. agreed to pay the obligations of the firmandof its individual members toa sp'ecified amount. incltlding the paper on which bewasirldorser.-beingmade in good faith, and for an adequate price, is not fraudulent as to firm creditors. 1 I,SAHE., " " , , ; , ; , Creditors of an insolvent firm have no leA'sl claim onllrmassets nntU'they 'have acquired Ii vested lien by jUdgme,nt r otherwise, ,and by consen,t of ,all its members such assets maybe applied to the payment of individual credit ora of the pa!:'tners. 1
1.PARTNERBliIP':"'FmH AND PRIVATE
, Irwin, Fwwer, Remyk for complainants., ",' , Puterbaugh &' Son, Hcpki'¥jJJ&: Hammond, alid McCuUoch'&; sOn, for, dt>·
Bill to'set aside alleged fraudulent preferences. '
BLODGETT, J. This cllSenow embodies fiv,e creditors' bills, or bills in the nature ofcreditors'bUls, filed by creditors of DlloY Bros. & Co., to set aside certain alleged unlawful preferential payments made by ,said' The first case was brought by Coffin et al. v. Day et al., by a bill filed in tpe circuit courtof Peoria couhty, in June, 1885, !LUd removed tathis ,court, and was for the collection Of judgments at law recovered by the oomplainan,ts against Day Bro!!. &00., between February 13,1886, and June 2, 188,5. 1he fl.ecOnd was brought by Dornanet aZ. v,, Day et,al., in 1886, for the collection of two judgments at1a:W,reIldered in Jam,lluy,'lS85, against Day Bros.& Co. The third case was brought by Parker et aZov. Day et al., in J atluary, 1886, for the collection of a judgment at law rendered in July" 1885. ,The fourth,C!ise was brought by Simpson et al. v. Day et al., in March, 1885, for the of a judgment in December, 1884. And the fifth caSe was brought I;>y Richard, et al. v. Day et al., in May, 1886. for the <;lollection of a judgmellt rendered ill., May, 1886. O'n May 24, 1886, all these cases were, by an order of court, coosolidattl<i, with the provision "that Said suits henceforth 'proceed as one cause" without prejuqJ.ce to
lSee note at end