The record-union., 1895-06-20
]. W. RICHMOND IN The FIELD.
And He Finally Came Out a Strong
Winner
Some Complications in the Litigation
Over Jacob Gebert's Property
Settled.

Superior Judge Catlin has rendered
judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the
suit Of J. W. Richmond against Jacob
Gebert. Mary Gebert and Charles A.
Gebert, an action brought to set aside
deed to certain property conveyed by
Mary Colbert TO Jacob Gebert in trust for
Charles A. Gebert
For many years prior to 1893 Gebert
carried on large and apparently pros
porous business as salOonkeeper ana
brewer at Twentieth and Q streets IN
this city. He managed to become in
debted to a great many people, the
amount Of his debts being nearly S4U,OO0,
OF which about So 900 was on his unse-
cured promissory notes. In the summer
of 1893 Gebert took the benefits Of the in
solvency law, and his estate, turned
over to his creditors, yielded only sut11-
ciant to pay less than five cents on the
dollar.
Among the creditors of Gebert was his
near nelghbor, j. w. Richmond. an old
resident OF the city, from whom Gebert
III 1891 and 1892 had borrowed =, 200.
Mary Gebert, the wife of Jacob, also
signing the notes. Richmond was not
inclined TO accept five cents on the dollar
in payment OF the amount owing 10 him,
and brought suit against both Mr.. ana
Mrs. Gebert on the notes.
Mrs. Gebert had one-fifth interest in
valuable properly on j, between Seventh
and Eighth streets; on j, between Eighth
and Ninth, ana on Fifth, between and
X streets, left her by the viii of her
father. Richmond levied on this prop
erty, but before he made the levy Mrs.
Gebert, in an effort to put 1t beyond his
reach made a deed of gift OF it to her
husband TO hold in trust for her son, q
lad about 10 years old.
Richmond obtained a judgment against
Mrs. Gebert on bis notes, and mad the
Sheriff levy Oh and sell the property, the
same as ii Mrs. Gebert had made no
deed of il. Then, Mrs. Gebert, being in
debt about $50 0J0, took the benefit Of the
insolvency law, and her estate Will pay
nothing to unsecured creditors.
No redemption vas made of the prop
erty sold by the Sheriff, and in due time
Richmond, who bid it in at the sale, OBJ
tained the Sheriff's deed; but in the mean
time, TO further confuse matters, the Su-
perior Court had entered decree of dis
trlpution in the settlement of the estate
Of Mrs. GebeTt's father, the late Joseph
Guth, ST., awarding the property to the
son OF Mrs. Gebert.
Richmond was not to be beaten, how
ever, and be brought suit against all the
Geberts-husband, wife and sOn-to have
all their proceedings taken to put the
property beyond his reach adjudged to be
3 fraud upon him.
This case was tried before Judge Catlin
yesterday, and he rendered decision in
favor Of Richmond, to the effect that the
proceedings taken by the Geberts were in
violation Of his rights as a creditor; that
the deed made by Mrs. Gebert should be
cancelled from the records, and Rich
mond declared to be the owner OF the
property, and the Geberts to have no title
or interest in IL.
Mr.. Richmond. for whom the law firm
Of White, Hughes x Seymour have acted
during the two years OF litigation, has
now obtained through the courts title to
property sufficient III value TO pay him in
full.