The San Francisco call., 1898-05-01
NOW, NANNY MAKES REPLY
 ':. :, .:.
 Mary E. Pleasant Reasons Against Being Declared ... ..- 1rlso1vent.
She Iraputes. stimulation and :. Fraud '' to Attorney Lucius L. Solonons-
Denial of Any y~Subterfuge on the Re- = : :: sapond ent's Part-That Transfer
 to Mrs. Bell.

Mary E. EIeaSantT or, as all the news : paper-reading world knows her, Nam my' Pleasant, has, through her attor- neys, R. Porter. Ashe, s. Resenheim and A. S. Newburgh,. filed her answer in the Involuntary insolvency proceedings insti- :tuted by. M. Seligman, Charles Brown & Son. Julius Deutsch & Son; J. Dewing Co.,, w: E. Chamberlain Jr., Mary A. Farren, Isaac Livingston, W. E. Bowen, Conrad Herman, Thomas R. Hobson and J: T. Sullivan.
 The document is. a lengthy one, filling twenty three pages .of. legal cap paper, in which reasons are given why Nanny" ''be not adjudged au insolvent debtor, and that: the prayer of the petitioners herein be denied, and that she have judg- ment herein in her. favor; and that she have and recover costs herein incurred, and also her attorneys fees, and for such other relief as may be just and proper In the premises"
 Of all the creditors named but one, ac- cording to Nanny" Pleasant, Is legiti- mately creditor of. hers; and that one is M. Seligman, to whom she says but SIP 45 is owing on a. Judgment against her in the. Justices Court in this city. One other claim, that of Conrad Herman, differs from the majority in that it has accrued under Judgment against Mrs. Pleasant, who has within the statutory time af- ter the rendition of the said judgment moved for an order to gra It her new trial."~ Consequently, the answer goes on, all proceedings have been stayed. should a new. trial not be granted Nanny says she. will appeal to the Supreme Court of this State.
 The demands of all the other creditors, whether for goods or wares or merchan- disc delivered or money loaned or services performed. are disposed or in one way - The respondent denIes that they were fur- uiShed to her, and says that the demands consist "of promise or agreement of the respondent, which was special promise or agreement to answer for the debt Of one Theresa Bell, and that no note or =. memorandum ot said promise or agree ment was made in writing and signed by respondent or by any other person by her authority or at all
 Not more than $300 Nanny declares, is the amount Of her indebtedness. She oenles that ner place or business IS IooI OctaVia street, or that she Is or has been m puSIneSS there or at any other place.
 The most interesting part or the docu- ment pertains to the $lZ31 alleged to De que Thomas K. Hobson to whom Luclus l.. SOIOmOnS assigned nlS claim. Inls EIves Nanny" Peasants version of why she IS no longer hI possession or the house on the nortnWest corner or Wasn- ingIOu and Stone streets, where In early daVs she started the accumulation Of the fortune that was once ners, nor or the valAable property on Sutter street, near
 According to ''Mammys plea, this clam is simulated and fraudulent, and is maue for the purpose of 1nJurlng, de- fraiiding and cheating the respondent, and IS not advanced m good faith. O1 tepruaFy 4. 1897, the document relates, LuciuS l. SolomonS, who was then Mrs RleasantS attorney, being Tn great need of mo. .ey, representing to his client that by making d favorable showing to his creditors he could placate them; that yielding to his importunltles, ana haylng great confdepce and implicit trust in him as her attorney and adviser, Mrs. Pleas ant conveyed to Lucius l.. Solomons this property, valued at .S2S,QQU. on which there was. a mortgage ot $15,O00 on condition that the deeq should not be recorded for twelve months, If recorded at all, and that a reconVeyanGe or the property should be made to Nanny Pleasant at the end. of that time. But on August 2l, 1887, the deed was recorded, and on Oc- tober 2S SolomonS executed deed of trust for tlffS property to Harry Block and Ben jamin Harrls to- secure a prom1ssory note for S40O0s This deed was recorded Feb ruary i. 1898 Nanny swears that she was not and. has not been since indebted . to Solomons for any sum of money what soeYer, and that .:said conveyance was wholly without cons iteration"
 Mrs. Pleasant denies that she 'Willfully suffered Judgment to be taken against her by default Ill favor of M. Seligman. On the contrary, she asserts that the judg- ment vas obtained owing. to the mad vertences and eXcusable neglect of the respondent. She denies intent to defraud in the conveyance of property or that she COnIenQldIeS any SuCn ITduQulenI trans fer orr conveyance. Of the deed to Mrs. Theresa Bell of over half of the 1855 acres of the Belletane ranch, at present leased by R. Porter Ashe, for the Ruinart stock farm, Mrs Pleasant admits that on Feb ruary 26, 1898, at Santa Rosa, deed was recorded from her to Theresa Bell but she denies that she caused it to be re- corded. The consideration was s2O 900, which 'Mammy" owed to Mrs. Bell. The deed was made September 25, 1895, ac- knowledged September 2S, and after this, and long prior to February 26, 1S9S 1t was delivered to Mrs. Bell. Said con- sveyance,' the document reciteS, was not made with any intent to hinder or delay or defraud her creditors, but was made in good faith."" At the time of making the deed none of the petitioners, she says, were creditors of hers. She ayers that they had both actual and constructive notice of said transaction prior to the recordance."
 The lengthy answer concludes with a general .denial of the charge that 1t is ''Mammy's" custom whenever she is sued to conceal herself to avoid the service of legal process. that she conceals her prop erty 50 avoid Its being attached on legal process or that she is now removing property for the same purpose.