The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1895-02-12
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.

The following decisions have been re-
eeived from the Law court
CUMBERLAND COUNTY.
John Fl. Oxnard appellant VS.. James
Adams.
Resoript - Strout 1.-The appellant pre-
scented a claim to the Insolvency court
against the estate of Alfred L. Oxnard, an
insolvent debtor, which was disallowed by
the judge of the Court Of Insolvency. He
thereupon appealed to the Supreme judicial
court, and upon trial in that court it was
objected to the claim, that it could not be
proved and allowed, because the appellant
bad brought suit upon it which was then
pending, on which an attachment had been
made of certain real estate claimed to have
been conveyed by Alfred l.. Oxnard to
his wife, since the debt of the appellant
accrued, without consideration and in
fraud of creditors. The attachment was
made less than four months prior to the
decree of Insolvency of Alfred L.. Oxnard.
Another objection to the claim was, that
the appellant had brought bill in equity,
which was then pending, undecided, to
reach the real estate alleged to be fraudu-
lently conveyed TO MIS-. Oxnard, and to
subject it 20 the payment of the debt of APP
pellant.
The appellee requested the court to in
struct the jury, that ''if the jury find from
the evidence that the appellant is now pros
ecuting a suit at law in Superior court for
Cumberland county against Alfred l.. Ok
nard for the recover of the same debt or
claim thai is now inrissue, which suit the
assignee of Alfred L. 0xnard in insolvency
has not been admitted to prosecute, or
has not elected to prosecute, the appeal
cannot be sustained also. that ''if the
jury find from the evidence produced in
this case, that the appellant is now prose-
cutting suit in equity in the Supreme
Judicial court for Cumberland county
against Alfred L. Oxnard for the recovery
of the same debt or claim as that now in
issue, the claim here offered by the appel
liant is not.provable in insolvency against
the estate of Alfred Leonard"
Both these requests were refused, and
the appellee excepted.
The requested instructions were properly
refused. The mere tendency of the two
suits did not bar the appellants claim,
nor render him a secret creditor. There
was no evidence that the appellant coulu
subject the understanding in the name of
MRS. OXnafo 10 the payment OIL MS DEBT
by either suit.
The third requested instruction which
was not given by the presiding judge, was
THAT upon the evidence producedsin this
case, the claim OF John H. Oxnard as pre-
sented in his proof of delft, is not provab BILE
in insolvency against the estate of.Alfred
l.. Oxnard." There was 10 evidence in the
to which the requested ruling could
apply, except the tendency of said. suits,
and the claim of John H. Oxnard, in his
formal proof of debt, to reach the land al
legged to have oeen fradulently conveyed.
The hope that he might obtain something
from that land, if he could establish his al
legation of fraud, did not make him Sc
cured creditor, nor. in any way bar the proof
of his debt.
Exceptions overruIed.
Samuel G. DonDell, petitioner for writ of
certiorari va. County Commissioners of
York County.
Rescript-The records of the County Com
missloners show that they had no Jurisdic-
ton of the case. State VS.. Pownal,l 10 Mega.
Writ to issue. Record to be quashed.