268 F. 114 | 5th Cir. | 1920
On September 11, 1917, J. J. Osley filed his voluntary petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court. The bankrupt’s schedules set out $1,096.05 of liabilities and no assets. A. C. Adams was appointed trustee of the bankrupt’s estate.
The plaintiff, on information and belief, averred that all of said conveyances and said transfers were executed in the year 1917 and those dated in 1913 were dated back in furtherance of said scheme.
Plaintiff averred that certain creditors now existing and listed in the bankrupt’s schedule were creditors of J. J. Osley on December 8, 1913. Plaintiff claimed the right to the possession of said land as constituting assets of the bankrupt’s estate and as transferred in violation of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act and of the Code of Georgia.
The bill prayed for a delivery of said deeds and bond for title, and that said deeds and the transfer of said bond be decreed to be void and be canceled, and that the title and right of possession of said real and personal property be vested in plaintiff and decreed to be assets of the bankrupt’s estate.
The defendant filed an answer, moving to dismiss said bill for failure to set out any good and sufficient cause of action; it being nowhere sufficiently alleged that the trustee represented any creditor whose rights existed when said conveyances were made.
Said answer also averred that the conveyances were made on the dates and for the considerations stated therein, and were not made to delay or defraud creditors, and denied the charge of conspiracy. The case was referred to a special master, who heard the evidence and found in favor of the contentions of the trustee in bankruptcy.
Exceptions to the report were overruled by the court, and a decree taken in favor of the trustee in bankruptcy.
While it may be true that the plaintiff, by introducing adversary parties as his witnesses in an equity cause in the United States courts, is as much bound by their testimony as in the case-of other witnesses, yet this does not mean that he is bound by every statement or conclusion of such witness, nor does it mean that he may not show that the witness is in error.
In this case, while the witnesses did testify generally that the deeds were made for a valuable consideration, their own testimony showed otherwise, and warranted the finding that the deeds were made without consideration, and that the actual possession of the property and its control remained at all times in J. J. Osley.
The testimony in this case as a whole fully warranted the findings of the master, and the decree overruling the exceptions, and the decree in favor of the complainant is affirmed.