m BE wM. s. ooBwm. 847 �The case of In re Beal, 2 N. B. R. 587, is directly in point, and was not so strong a case for the crediter as the present. In that case JudgeLowell says: "The question is one of fact whether this bankrupt had, at the time of his bankruptcy, any estate or effeots which he has concealed. If he had such de facto, though by a defeasible title, he must set them out in his schedules, and give them to his assignee. It is not for him to rely on the title of a third person which he has not himself respected. The presumption is that he surrendered ail his property in 1866; but that is a presumption of fact, and if he did not it is not important whether his motives were good or bad — whether his acts were done with the consent or concurrence, or against the wiU of his then assignees, and in frand of their rights. The possession of assets, in the use and enjoyment of the bankrupt, makes a sufficient title for his assignee, until the earlier assignees shall dispute it. " �Let an order be entered referring it to the register to take the proofs. ���In THE Matter op William S. Corwin. �(Distnct Court, S. D. JVew Ywh. April 8, 1880.) �Baukrdptct — Spbcificationb in Opposition to Dischabgb of Bank. EUPT — NbwIiT Discovbrbd Evidence — Rev. St. f 5120. — Section 6120 cl the Revised Statutes does not authorize a rehearing or new trial upon specifications flied in opposition to tie discharge of a bankrupt heard and determined before the discharge, even if the opposing cred- iter can adduce new facts, happening since the discharge, which would he competent evidence if a new trial were authorized by the statute. �Starr & Hooker, for petitioners. �H. E. Howland, for bankrupt. �Choate, J. This is a petition under Rev. St. § 5120, to vacate the discharge of the bankrupt. It was filed wilhin two years af ter the discharge was granted. It appears by the petition that these petitioners filed specifications in opposi- tion to the disoharge, which were tried, and resulted in a ��� �
