Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 1.djvu/91

 PASSONS V. OASWELL. 83 �says that he bas spread the accounts along through the fol- lowing months of Deeember, January and February, and tells them be presumes they bave heard reports concerning bim, but that they must net be alarmed, and be orders from tbem more goods. �Upon an examination of the accounts and books of the bankrapt the complainant assignee has testiûed that after September 23, 1876, when the suits in question were com- menced, the bankrupt received new goods to the amount of over $13,600, and that for these goods he had paid in cash but about $2,300, the balance, amounting to over $11,300, having been purebased on credit. Sucb conduct on the part of the debtor, at a time wben the circumstances indicated so clearly that he must bave known that be was hopelessly insolvent, and wben ail of these suits were hanging over bim, makes it difficult to believe that bis was the struggle of an honest debtor to weather the storm, but ratber inclines a disinterested mind strongly to the conclusion that bis purpose was ratber to accumulate a fund wbicb sbould beyond peradventure seeure fuU payment to favored creditors, especially when we find that at the last bis total liabilities amounted to over $60,000, with a reasonable certainty that these creditors, by virtue of tbeir levies and transfers, will exbaust bis available assets. �Anotber circumstance swom to by the defendant Caswell is this: Just before the levies there were some old goods belonging to the bankrupt upon CasweH's promises, wbicb bad been previously sold by Caswell to the bankrupt, and two or tbree days before the levies they were removed to the bankrupt's premises, and Caswell testifies that the bankrupt's men removed tbem by Coe's order ; that it was "because they were going to be levied on," or, as Caswell expresses it in anotber part of the testimony, they were taken out "so as to be levied on, to be in the hands of the sberiff," as he, Caswell, did not want anytbing on bis premises that would be levied on. �As avoiding the efïect of this circumstance, counsel for defendants relied upon the case of Louchien e Brother v. Henzy, ��� �