208 FEDERAL REPORTER. �Coleman to the bankrupt, who continued in the possession of them to the day of his death, receiving for eeveral years the interest accruing upon them. �In the absence of ail contradiotory proof I have no hesita- tion in holding that the deposit of the bonds with Coleman was a device of the bankrupt to get the property out of the reach of his creditors, and that under the deed of assignment the assignee of the bankrupt was entitled to have and receive the same as assets of the bankrupt estate. �2. I do not find evidence of laches on the part of the assignee in bringing the suit which should bar him from a recovery at this late date. The action was commenced within a f ew weeks after the assignee discovered the fraud. He had had some knowledge of the existence of the bonds, and none appearing upon the swom schedules of the bankrupt he made inquiry of him, and was led to believe that they were not the property of the bankrupt, bixt belonged to his son. There is no proof that the assignee, living in North Carolina, had any informa- tion of the acts of the ownership subsequently exercised by the bankrupt over the bonds in New Jersey. Nothing appears which ought to have put him on inquiry. The supreme court, in Bailey, Assignee, v. Glover, 21 Wall. 342, held that where an action was interceded to obtain redress against a fraud concealed by the party, or which from its nature remained a secret, the bar of the statute of limitations did not commence to run until the fraud was discovered. Any other doctrine, said Mr. Justice Miller, speaking for the whole court, would make the law, which was designed to prevent fraud, the means by which it is made successful and secure. �There must be a decree for the complainant, but as there ÎB no evidence that the defendants Abby Fullings, executrix, and George D. G. More, had any knowledge of the fraud, no costs are awarded against them. ����
