Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1872-02-23

A-1- =. saur-c. assignee. Sc. Of 4la-s-1
s. CisrE, o.. William ll Bake anu Alaus1u H.
Cara
ON petition Of B.ass sui C.srk @. review AZ
l--l- or decree lf the D-1--i-- Court
g. c. BsH-.l fer the ps1itioae- IL review
LiTari =. Phelps for the assignee.
" O0DEUTE Amos i. SamE1u tie asrr-rsg
O AlAnEar d. C.arE. II bankruptcy, sppIsl by
petition 90 TIE Ds-rict Court 60 compel the re-
turn o. him Of certain property, which be a.
.sz1i O. be part Of The persona estate Of The
oauzruu-. Ci which he had taken possession and
watch HE- been taken from me possession au1
delivered ny the sheriff 90 William H. Blake by
virtue q s WIT OF rer.avln ISSUED IL the name
~ the szll Blake. against one La Crosse
Bake appea-e1, ana without digestion o. tie
form % the proceeding. answered the petition.
denying that TIC property vas in the possession
o.. t-e Assignee, syerriug title 90 tnt pro
per-v 70 himself. denying e-s1 thar the
property vas ever the property CO the
lauz-up-, AMI praying the court o. a3iur-
All settle the riE1t 90 the said properly IS
between himself a1i the sssgnee. am Or direct
the assignee 90 interfere no further herewith
A Trial OF the issues thus raised WAS held II the
District Court, on which 20 appeared ms, the
assignee lt L-arE. after mis- appointment entered
upcu a farm of which the t.t.e A. the time of the
aill-isstculn bankruptcy was IN the bankrupt.
su1 which was occupied ty one Is Crosse under
20 agreement vita Clark ttae bankrupt for the
purchase Thereof bus f1- which The cousiiers-
cou was to he paid az q future day, upon notes
which Ezi been given therefor, b7 LaCr1sse
lae property 10 question VS. upon this farm
LzCroIse inside 10 claim % this personal proper
ty, yielded the possession thereof 10 the assignee
a. ihe property e the bankrupt. sui agreel 10
tase care 90 the same for him. Afrer this ire
property WAS taken by Blake through The writ Of
repIeviu ont Of the state Court % whi-b Ia
Crosse alone vas INSIDE defendant
L7i1ence VAS given teu1iue TO sh0w that the
persona. property, prior TO the proceedings in
bankruptcy belonged % Gar. tie bankrurf
and renamed on MS farm
On the other hani, eviia1ce on the ps-t os
Blake tended TO show that the PROPERTY. IN
question, belonged 70 Lacrosse and that prl9- 10
the proceedings IN bankruptcy AZ execution on a
Judgment against Lacrosse was levied thereon
ana the same was sold by the therif sui uur-
chssed by the SAL Blake
Otner evidence tended % Elow thai tbs
sale or the execution au1 the purchase
ny blaza were part Of fraudul,rt
scheme py The bankrupt. Ciark. When
wholly iafo,veut zni ca The eve Of ~
proceedings AGAINST him il bankruptcy. by che
aid Of S-ske, 20 ccysr and conceal ms pro-e-tv
by the form Of legal proceedings wherein The
property vns levied upon and sold az the properrv
OF Lalros1e, though In trutl belonging 10 Glars
himse-f ; tlaI Blake bid Of the property hv me
procurement OF Clsrk AMI that the uurchase
money was furnished OF repaid BY Ciark 70
blaze the design beng 20 prevent the property
IRON being thereafter taken by his creditors
and ina; the possession Of the property was not
enanged' but TIE game remained on tAe farm Ct
CIsIk
The District Court found 1ai a5iui-ei that
the sAid Blaze has not sud never had Snv right.
title or interest II the property that the sane
vas the property OF the said Bankrupt until the
fling Of the petition against him in bank
ruptcy, ard the same became vested in the
Ls.gnee and cEue laEfuliy into his possession
And the Court thereupon ordered AID de.ree3
the restoration Of the said property to the no.-
session Ct the Nsignee, OF IN default thereof
payment by the said Blake Of its value. SIS
with costs.
The said Blake has brought this petition Of
review. stating the proceedings above detailed.
and that It vas adjudged and decreed by the
District Court, as also above recited. ane then
alleging 81 tnst ne is sggrieYed By said sdjudi-
cation snd decree Wherefore he u-S7s & re
view and reversal, and tha; this court will
A0A1 sun NiJu4lcalou lnu decree as knaL
seen meet, &c, &c , without pointing out
any errors or supposed errsrs in law or in fact,
or specifying any ground or reason for rever-
sal Of such decree, except the sweeping state
ment that he is sggrievei.
The respondent-the assignee moved 10 dis
miss this petitition On the ground thst the value
Of the property is not sufficient 70 give this
court jurisdiction and second, that the petition
alleges no error IN law. assigns specific error
in fact. and contains only Al allegation that the
petitioner Is sgrrieved.
At the hearing the court reserved the consid /
Grafton Of this motion. and directed the srgu-
ment to proceed On the merits.
l fnd no warrant for limiting the jurisdiction I
Of this court TO review summary proceedings in /
bankruptcy by any measure OF the value OF /
the property involves. and no statutory provision
nor any decision Of the courts was referred 10