The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-04-01

demand TWAS also necessary to see what was the
alleges that in 1888 the plaintiffs held the bond of
Jones. Mr.. Cutting then briefly rected the various
allegations Of the BILL and then called the attention
OF the court to folio IS. and there they would see
what defendants claimed to DO their right, and upon
what the bill is mainly based The court would
perceive that it is there stated that they became pos
sessed of an actual and valid lien the real estate
else from 18th March, 1912, or from March, lS45
on the lands of Jones and Graham, in the counties
of New York, Monroe and Montgomery; but in
any event, at either of those respective dates they
had lien upon these lands, but ut which Of
them they leave the court to determine. Now the
bill is founded upon the supposed lien Mt some
of these times and this idea pervades the whole BILL
In the principles upon which it is framed exclusive
of any other creditor it is based upon their right of
property as creditors having lien, and standing
upon this rght-a right which no other creditors
have Time will not permit me, said Mr.: Cutting,
to 60 over the whole of it, bnt l will be per-
mtted to say it is bill that seeks for satisfaction
of money due to complainants, and that it is ad-
verse, as respects every one else, although it
asserts a right against everybody throughout
They also allege that Graham and Jones have no
real estate but they further aege, that they have
an interest in some funds stock and that in 1874
Jones frauduently conveyed to Graham; they then
tiffs, they having notice of the docketing of their
Decree that in iS45 Graham conveyed to Young,
and that that conveyance is also void as against
them. 1t next assumes another character. 1t
estate (Which had been frauduently conveyed), for
the purpose Of avoiding the decree and as before
stated, it alleges that Jones and Graham are pos
sessed of some interest of some kind, which tho
plaintiffs have no knowledge of, and they insist they
had right to come into court Of equity, and get
a decree for account of their assets. The next
characteristic of the bill is, that it charges that
Graham made another fraudulent conveyance to
Turney the object Of which to hinder and delay
the plaintiffs in the collection of their debt but in
regard to Turney, it sets forth specific property
1t then allege, a conveyance to Mrs. Varnum, by
Mrs. Jane Graham, of q certain tract of land in
Monroe and Montgomery counties; and then sets
forth Mt folio 2l0, chat Graham was declared
o bankrupt, and that he obtained his dis
charge fraudulently; and then AYERS, that
subsequently he acquired property to q large
amount which was part Of the real estate which he
had formerly put aside out Of the reach Of his
creditors, and which is now vested in him; and they
ask receiver to be appointed for their benefit, and
also seek to set aside the discharge in bankruptcy.
And here would remark, that the discharge in bank
ruptcy has nothing to do with the collection Of their
debt. creditor may reach the property which
charge, without annullng or setting the discharge
aside. This part Of the bill, to annul the discharge,
is, therefore, personal to Graham, and affects no
one but him. 1t then alleges that Mrs. Graham,
from being lady of small means had come out,
all at once, with 100000; and further, that her
son expended 800 900 in the purchase of paintings
and works of art; and, then ut folio 2o3, they fur
Their say, that the general assignee is stranger to
body else; and that their claims remains unimpair-
ed; and as between themselves and the general
signee, they were no parties to the proceeding in
bankruptcy; and as all such property as was con-
veyed to the general assignee passed to Graham,
therefore they have right to recover it, and stand
in the place Of that officer; and that the property Of
Jones and Graham may be applied according to the
prayer Of the bill; therefore, it is bill which
serts lien by virtue of the decree; and that lien
cannot be extended on the real estate, in conse-
quence of those conveyanccs; and that they may
be set aside and then ask to set aside the discharge
Of Graham In the ne xt place, it is necessary to
see what it does not ask, and i would call the at
tention of the court to the fact, that it not cred
itors bill, in the legal meaning of that term. II
is exclusively for the plaintiffs themselves. II
ii for all the creditors, it would be in oppos
tion to the whole scope Of the clause which would
make it creditors bill, and which has been indus
triousy left out. Now, having given the court
history of this bill, leaving out all the parts which
had exclusive reference to Jones, let me ask what
decree can court of equity make against him. 1t
cannot reach the legal or equitable assets; and |
also ask, what do they show against him! Is there
any ground against him, except that he is an OBJ
stscle in their way! but surely their bill shows
lien against his real estate. tie admits nothing
but what they have ale ged. They say that it APP
pears, by the answer Of other parties that he owns
property, and that the answer Of his co-defendants
was evidence against him. Mr.. Cutting then
gued that the court could take notice of any
thing outside the bill in relation to Jones, &c.
John Van Buren,, ESQ.,. followed Mr.. Cutting on
he might safely congratulate the court that they
had arrived at stage Of this cause which promises
a speedy conclusion. The very great length to
which it has been proractcd is at last drawing to
n close, and we are about to see the end of it. |
cannot commence what / have to say on this SUBJ
ject without first saying that my associate counsel
has very fully, and in able manner, presented
the case to the court on behalf of the plaintiffs
that | might leave the where he has left it;
but he thinks that it is right that should make
some remarks the points which he has
made, will, therefore, trouble the court with
some brief observations on tho sc points. |
will now proceed to make some remarks about
the defendant, Jones. lie appears in this contro
versy under extraordinary circumstances. lie once
possessed large estate, said to be valued ut $780,,
OOO-that estate has been swept away. Ii seems
that all that large property has gone into the posses
sion Of Graham. subsequently TO the discharge in
bankruptcy of this gentleman, he made small
monthly stipend to Jones during some four or six
months; but prior to the transfer Of his library his
estate was swept away, and a considerable portion
Of II to the defendant Graham. Yet II seems that
nobody could be found retaining sufficient friend
ship for him amongst all his immense connection,
who would put in answer for him, would incur
the labor or expense consequent upon defending
him when bis entire property was swept into the
hands Of Of those defendants. Ii does not,
therefore, become any Of them to shelter themselves
behind him: il would be much more creditable for
them to come forward and defend themselves from
the charges Mr.. Bell makes against them, or on
their own merits and so IL would be in regard to
Mrs. Graham Much has been said ms to our as
sault upon her-that she Is n female, aged, Sc
cluded woman; and those charges addressed
TO the court a ground upon which the principal
defendant is to sustain himself Now let me ask
who put her in this position. who made her spec
tatorl who made her purchase real estate without
a dollar to pay for it, who caused her to build
housesl II was her son, who now skuks behind
Jones. | therefore submit that this cause must be
decided upon the conduct Of the principal de-
PENDANT alone, with reference to the relief
we seek, which Is to set aside his discharge
in bankruptcy, and reach the property
Of the other debtors through him, which has been
frauduently conveyed away from us. Now, | APP
prehend we have shown that the counsel on the
other side Is in error, and that have a right to
issue execution, notwithstanding the bankruptcy
Of Graham, to enforce the payment Of our decree
rom his subsequently acquired property; there is
nothing in this case that interferes with plaintiffs
except the neglect; the bill states there was fore
closure that decree made, that it was subsc-
quently docketed, and that it was afterwards dock