The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1892-04-21

On the 2ith of December, 1888. Alliauco
furnished a great surprise to Its people,
aud especially to several creditors of DR..
L. l.. Lamborn, by Lamborn d Gray,
bankers, and Levi L. Lamborn, individu-
ally making an assignment to Messrs
Stallcup d Miller, as assignees. The cred
itors were numerous, and among them
we're those for large amounts aud others
the daily earnings of the working men.
The creditors made every effort possible
10 secure settlement and adjustment of
their claims, but without avail and as
matters progressed il was discovered that
not only was the estate of Lamborn &
Gray inso.vent, hut largely so, and that
the property of DR.. Lamborn was so COW
cred up by deeds and claims, that but
little could be realized thereon for the
creditors, unless the deeds therefor were
set aside and the property righfully be.
longing to the creditors restored to them,
The assignees we're removed upon the
petition of the creditors by Judge Fawcett,
probate judge Of Stark county, this being
done in the year 1887, and Matthew Farley,
Esq, was appointed as trustee of said
estates. AT the time Mr.. Farley
vas appointed as such trustee,
Mrs. Lamborn claimed TO be the
owner of the homestead property
in Alliance, the same being valuable
property, and also claimed to be the owner
OF tue TWO Dhilh DNllNluEb, sue ldVllk pun"
chased them from the GssiRDees of
said estate, and she further
claimed to be the owner Of certain
promissory notes secured by. mort
cages upon real estate in Alliance,
amounting in all to about ten thousand
dollars. Seeing the situation, MT. Farley
commenced proceedings in court to set
aside the conveyance of the homestead to
Mrs. Lamborn by her husband, and also
to obtain possession of the notes and
other property.
The case has occupied the attention of
the common pleas and circui. courts of
our county at various times and much
expense has been incurred therein for
both sides and tne result OF tbis litigation
is now bCiDg rapidly closed up. The
courts declaring that she homestead
was fraudulently transferred by
DR.. LamboTn to his wife and 1t was there
fore the property of the creditors, and the
court further ordered that in as much as
Mrs. Lamborn had purchased the two
bank buildings from the sssignees, pri jr
TO the appointment of Mr.. Farley as
trustee, that upon her paying to the trus-
tee the balance of the purchase money
that the trustee should deliver to her
proper deeds and account 10 her for the
rentals thereof during the time the same
have been in his possession, and that Mrs.
Lamborn should turn over to said trustee
The notes amounting to about ten thou
sand dollars, all of which are perfectly
good. The homestead property has since
been appraised at twenty-five hundred
lollars, subject to Mrs. Landlords home
stead, dover claims and taxes, and the
trustee has sold the same to her for that
amount and as a result of this litigation,
The trustee has received between twelve
md fifteen thousand dollars worth of
that otherwise would have been
ost to the creditors.
T, al % hn hna nn
lily succeeded in defeating the Robert
Rus claim against said estate. which
amounted to fifteen thousand dollars and
mora and upon which judgment was
against said estate in the COM
mon pleas court for about nine thousand
ollars, and the trustee feeling as though
The claim was unjust and should not be
paid and allowed, appealed the case to
.he circuit court and which court at its
Ia st term found for the trustee and there
ly the estate was freed from the fifteen
thousand dollar claim and nine thousand
lollar judgment of Robert Rue's estate.
We make these statements principally
'or the purpose OF correcting clipping
rom the Alliance Review, which appeared
n the NEWS DEMOCRAT of Monday, and
rom the above il will be seen that there
8 no foundation for the statement con-
aimed in this article to the effect mat Mrs.
would receive by the settlement
)t lltlRatlOn uIly vi Dubdlu hOlidIb WORM
II property, whereas, in fact all she gets
ire the two bank buildings which she
purchased at public sale and paid for, and
he estate derived the benefit therefrom,
md the homestead property for twenty
I've huudred dollars, together with six
cen hundred dollars of money ordered
,y the court to be turned over to her. In
IIead of the creditors being greatly agitat.
ID over the matter, they are highly
pleased with the conduct and action of the
rustee, and the fact that he has saved for
he estate many thousauds OF dollars by
lis uutiring efforts should be sufficient TO
iatisfy the mind OF any reasonable mao,
De he creditor or not. Another statement
contained in the Review article was 10 the
feet that DIR. Lamborn could have settled
he estate and paid his creditors and had
/ fortune left, when the truth Is that DR..
Lamborn at all times prevented settle |
nent and did all in his power to prevent
he creditors from receiving their just
iues and refused 10 assist the trustee in
he discharge of his duties, but on the con.
.rary was assisting the parties In prose-
,uting their claims against the estate.