The record-union., 1896-09-30
them, and witness had paid all their ex-

tItIii, ana Witness had pa1Q ali tHelr SA-
penSes.
DR.. Dixon was recalled and stated
that in October, 1898, to secure the
claim of his father-in-law Of S2,ib5, ne
decided to him his ranch and personal
property. 1t was just after he had been
Hooded out, and there was a possibility
of his having trouble, and Mr.. johnson
wanted security. He afterward re-
Tented, however, and decided it back to
witness. The real estate was assessed
to H. e. Johnson in 1894 and 1879, as
the deed transferring it to witness was
not recorded. The questioning of Al
torney Gett elected the facts that Dr.
Dixon decided his RANCH and personal
property to Johnson on October 10,
1893; that the deed was recorded on the
10Th, and that the bill of sale of the
personal property back from Johnson
to DIR. Dixon was dated at B2yfleid,
Mich, on the Both. and was III DR.. DIN
on's writing and signed by Johnson.
The court held, however, thaI the
creditors We're not attacking this trans
action.
Continuing his testimony DR.. Dixon
said that in seven years he sunk Sl3,-
OoO in his ranch. His practice yielded
him about $4,000 a year, much or which
went into the ranch. The building Of
several miles of levee took most of the
money. The ranch was productive,
being flooded every year but one, and
the last year he had it the levee broke
and the pump has not been used since.
Attorney Gett cited several decis-
ions in somewhat similar cases, and
n a a6 hn bo oh n
there had been been no continued
change of possession, and therefore the
stock sold after the filing of the petition
should have been taken possession Of by
the Sheriff as part of the assets
Attorney Johnson combatted this ro-
sition. and said that no evidence had
been adduced to show that the trans
action was not perfectly fair and open
However, this was not the question,
which was one of discharge of the pc
titioner in insolvency.
The court asked if the sale, as be-
tween the parties, was not a valid one
without reference to the creditors.
Mr.. Gett answered that perhaps it
might between the parties. but actual
legal possession had not been taken, and
the Sheriff should have taken posses
sion of the stock when Elliott did not re-
move it. The sale was not good as
against the creditors He did not charge
DR. Dixon with any fraud, but the cred
ltors had no means of knowing of any
agreement between the parties in or
der to protect themselves.
The court was inclined to think that
the assignee could recover any prep
erty belonging to the petitioner at the
time of filing his petition. even after
his discharge, but Mr.. Gett did not
think 50, as in that case there would be
no debt remaining on which to sue.
Mr. Johnson said that he hoped the
matter would be settled as soon as pos
sible. as DR.. Dixon was a candidate be-
fore the people and wished to be re-
lieved of the charge of fraud that had
been made against him.
The court said that Dr. Dixon could
not claim the cattle from Mr. Elliott
after selling them and receiving pay
| for them. If he could not claim to own
them, then the court did not see how he
| could have put them into his schedule
| as part of his property. In his opin-
ion, DR.. Dixon would have been guilty
OF fraud If he had put them into his
| inventory. In regard to the question as
to whether the assignee could recover
possession of the cattle after the dis
| charge Of the petitioner he was not
quite so clear, and thought it would
require consideration.
After some further examination of
authorities, however, he granted the
discharge of the petitioner.