BRUSH-SWAN ELECTRIC LIGHT
term began on the second Tuesday of September. Hthe suit had been entered on the first day of the April term, the ,petition would have been clearly too late. The petition, however, alleges that the suit was entered "out of time upon the last day of said court," and this is not contra· verted; The defendant could not enter an appearance in the suit until the suit itself was entered. The requirement to appear was in that suit. The mode of entering an appearance in that court is by writing the name of the defendant, if the defendant appears in person, or the name of the solicitor if the appearance is by solicitor, in the proper place upon the docket entry of the suit. If the suit was not there, the appearance would have no place. The requirement of the rule implies that the suit shall be entered before the defendant is defaulted. Under these circumstances, the earliest day on which the ,defendant was required to appear was the last day of the court, and perhaps hot then without new notice such as the court should require on permitting the entry then of the suit. The day of entering the suit is not shown otherwise than by the allegation quoted, and can be inferred only from the rule,. unless the fact that the court of chancery, on the filing of the petition and bond, ordered the remoyal of the suit, is to be taken as a finding that the filing of them was in time. The oratrix could not justly withhold entry of the suit, the time of the defendant to answer was at the same time and expiring., An enlargement by the court of the time to answer might, and doubtless would, not enlarge the time for removal; but this removal does not appear to be within enlarged time merely, but within the first and only requirement of the rules. Motion denied. '
BRUSH ELECTRIC Co.
BRUSH-SWAN ELECTRIC LIGHT Co.
(OfJrcuit Oourt, S. D. New York. August 22, 1890.)
Where a defendant asks leave to file a cross-bill, and for an injunction against the complainant, leave to file the cross-bill maybe given without determining the right to the injunction.
,JnEquity. On for leave to file cross-bill. See 41 Fed. Rep. 163. Carter, Hughes &: Cravath, for complainant. G.B. &F. L. Orawford, for defendant. ,LAQ9MBE, Circuit Judge. When this· motion was decided upon the first, it was treated as an application for a stay or injunction, the practical effect, of which,jf gmnted, would be to suspend, if not to ,pnncel.,tl:\e·operatio.n of J\lqgeCoxE's.decree. 'l'hatsuch stay was sotlght oply to reliEjf for Wll,l;I a circumstance not suf-
,: 'FEDERAL REPORTER ,vol.
ficiently considered, partly through the inadvertence of the court, and parlJ}:hbeamse'ithe ors:ltirgumeIit:rwl!S' mainly directed to the question whetbe1:ri8uch stay should or shouldi'not be granted. Upon the reargument,lthe Tact is made: plain 'that what is really 8ISked for is leave to file a cross-bill. ' In view of.. the avermellts.contained in the eross-bill subtbitb:ldi '(1m the argument, :that relief should be granted. Whether or not l'lufficient can be show,n to entitle the complainant to an injunctioD stayingthe ioperationdfJudge CoxE'sdecreeolay be determined when the proofs 'are, in, or as a separate motion. "
BAciER 'lI.MEYERet w:.
(O'lrcmt Court, E. D. .,Ar7ca'l,t8@. :Novemll!B' 28, , .. , '. . ,,')!; ,
by a husbll.lI!l, to IUs that, he has certain bOllcis. wb!cb to be ll"I\s,when not accompanied by.uehveryof the bondR or cPange In ins treat'merit oli 1ihem, does not·pass.tltleto the bonds, or make him liabl13 to her for their " '.; . Property 'purchased by a man' in his' Wife's liame with money hdrrowed by him in 4ername, but on his credit, and that of the property,ls liable forhlsdebts". '
CONVlliYANCE. .' . · .. .' , .
8,HOl<JESTlltAD-FRAUD-HUSBAND AND WIFE"
.'bY them· as a homestead,is; as agains't<hlscreditors, exempt as a homes
spite of the fraud , .... .
"Pl'opertypuTchased by an insolvent husband in ,his wife's nll.me, and
In Equity. Cohn &: Cohn, for complainant. &: AWltin and Blackwood &: Williams, for defendants.
CALbwELL, J. The defendant Gane Meyer three promissory notes payable to the plaintiff, for bqrrowed moneY,-one dated April 2, 1884, for $5,000; one dated July 5, 1884, for 82,500; and one dated July 28,. 1884, for 83,523. judgluents on these 'potes on the law side of, this contt'.1'wo of the. judgments aggregating 88,964.42, and costs, were rendered on the 27th of October, 1886, and the third judgment for 86,750,?3,and was recovered on the 14th .of November, 1888. Executioriswere issued on these judgments, and returned nulla bona. Thereupon the plaintiff filed this bill for the purpose of subjecting to the pAyment of his judgments the real estate and personal property mentioned in the bill. On the face of the record, the defendant, Bertha Meyer, wife of the defendant GabeMeyer, appears to the owner the real estate; and':slie also c1tl.ims the personal property, consisting of goods, wares, and merchandise, as her separate property. Ga.be Meyer has been 1'ohnany years a merchant, plllnter, and general trader. His business was quite extended iIi the lilieS indicated. His -business careerhurbEleh marked by' those vicissitudes ofJfortune which