One of the defendants’ objections seems to be well taken, and perhaps two. This bill will not lie for money received by the wife, under the decision of the supreme court in Phipps v. Sedgwick, 95 U. S. 3. It is not, therefore, an equitable assumpsit or trover, but replevin for the recovery of specific property conveyed by the husband to the wife by way of gift, when he was insolvent, or specific property into which the first has been converted. The plaintiffs do not make out any case, which can be admitted or denied, for the recovery of any such property. It is plain that they neither know nor have information of any such property. Some one, who was in a position to have information, has told them “that for many years prior to his bankruptcy the said William A. Saunders, from time to time, purchased bonds in Boston, to be presented to his wife, as he then stated, ” and thereupon they examined her and other witnesses, and discovered that she has property which on inquiry they do not believe was derived from her separate estate, though she and all the other witnesses swear that it was.
What specific property do the plaintiffs seek to recover ? They do not know. They wish to put the defendant Mary P. Saunders to the proof of the general denial that she holds any property by gift from her husband, made after ho became insolvent, except that for which the bill alleges that she has already paid $23,000 by way of compromise. There are no facts alleged except that by information from some person not named, who heard a statement or statements made by the husband, or who is in a position to be informed that some one else heard such statement or statements, that the husband bought bonds between 1867 and 1875, to be presented to his wife. Suppose the bill were taken pro eonfesso, what decree could be made upon it ? What injunction could be framed under it ? None, must be answered to both these questions. The parties sustain no such relation to each other that a general bill for an account will lie as it might if the defendant Mary had been a partner with or bailiff of her husband. I am of opinion, therefore, that there is nothing in the bill which requires an answer. It seems to be a bill founded on suspicion and inference, without information of any specific facts.
Then why was not the suit brought within two years ? There are general allegations of concealment, which, possibly, might save the bill on demurrer. But, taking all the charges and statements together, and supposing them sufficiently definite, it is very doubtful whether there has been any concealment. It may be that a bankrupt is bound to disclose to his assignees whatever his creditors could possibly have
Now, it is by no means clear on this bill that the wife has concealed anything. If gifts from husband to wife are assailed, it is because they are thought to be unjust to his creditors, under all the circumstances, by reason of his condition as to debts and property when they were made. They are constructive rather than actual frauds, and there is, generally speaking, no concealment of the fact that such a piece of land or such a share of stock has been given. However, my decision is placed upon the point first considered.
Demurrer sustained. Bill dismissed.