New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1880-09-16
THE COURTS.
DEEDS FOR REAL ESTATE SET ASIDE.
DECISION BY JUDGE CHOAIE INVOLVING
81 900, 900.

DEEDS FOR REAL ESTATE SET ASIDE.
4 DECISION by JUDGE CHOAIE INVOLVING
S1OOOOOO.
Judge CbOate Yesterday handed down de-
csion OF much importance, nasmucn as large quantity
of valuable real estate Chicago is involved. 1t
was In the case of Henry King and Simeon Hyde. bank
rnpts Applications had been made under the Bank
rpt law Of 1871 set aside certain deeds maze Dy the
official assignee under orders OF the Court IN the years
1853. 1859 1862, authorizing him to sell at private
sale property held Oy him assignee in the City OF Cal
caQo II was claimed that the deeds should be
vacated because long before the date they bear
the properly was held by william j. Ogden. whose
executors now make the application. IL was further
contended that the deeds gifts so far as the estate
OF the banknps is concerned and that II they were
not gifts OF the bankrupts had been pre-
yiousy sold under prior orders OF the Court ami that
the deeds procured BY fraudulent representations
The application was opposed by one Chapman, who
claims to be the purchaser for value Of the titles made
under the deeds. Chapman has begun suit against
Ogden's executors for an accounting for the rents and
profits of properly held by Ogden as trus-
tee for him. Judge Choate holds that the
petition can be maintained. The deeds IN
question, made by the assignee in bankruptcy
o, Henry King. are five number and as follows:
Frst-A deed to Gordon L. Ford, dated july 10 $50
but acknowledged and admitted 10 nave Dctn scii3cu
October 20, 1s5s. sccond- deed 70 Gordon j. Fcrd
the date, and inscribed On the same day ds ihe
cember g. 1888. FouTtlA deed t. Isaac L. Hunt dated
January -. 1859; and Fl TIA dced 10 Chapman me
Te-uondcnt without date bul acknowledged july IL.
1862 There are also three deeds made by lie assignee
oi me estate OF Simeon HYDE to Gordon L. Ford.
ore to Isaac L. Hunt aud one to Chapman.
Judge Choate saws: NO order o. the
Court appears TO have been obtained Tor
the uan- these deeds The only explanation Oi them
given lbs Chapman is that cOutaiicd IN tIe AFFIDAVIT
of Naddcll assignee, thal hey were gwen 10 Ford
at the request and writing o. one Burnham when re-
qurs W1dde has searched Tor and caunOt tnd Ihs
exp Huaflou Is denied by Eurnhain. TIE deeds are
pc GUS tncr cIug dated back thirteen ears
ami Deia executed To FOfd, SAID, but nor proved,
quest Of BuTHnaln Thirteen years after Bufn-
ham had sold Tor value al that he purchased Ih"N
must clearly be held upon The evidence 10 nave been
executed by assignee without any authority Or color
" minority. and not In rherancc or confirmation o.
the tlile made upd The sale Of July 10, lSl1, ana
Sneakiug O the deeds held nv Chapman, the Court
SAYS: There is 10 question involved OF bona ude
purchase by chapman under these deeds, Tor mel
ivaliGitv their variance from the order of the Court
aTDpar, on their \ .ty VOID because
fnry procured by CIapWnn by fraud aud deceit.
variance between The deeds ana the orders cannot
have been accidental. and beng intentional was lstf
grOs, fraud Court wei upon the PRIOR pur-
chaser ihe part oil all concerned III procuring The
deeds"
Il is ordered that the deeds be set aside and that no
further sale conveyance OF OF the assets Of the
baukrnD'- estate be under authority OF any IRE
vou- order Court without further application 10
the Court The property Involve consists or numO,
river In CHICAGO, and 1t rs said 10 be worth more than
pr pu I,tIl urg