Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/308

 S94 FKDEBIL BBPOBTEB. �absence of exact knowledge, we cannot say that it was only nominal, or only necessaries for whicb she was not bound to pay. �Judgment for the defendant. ���Maok & Co. V. McDaniel. {Ciremi Court, E. D. Arkanaaa. October, 1880.) �1. Attachmbnt — Removal of Pkopbrtt out op THE State— Arkansas 8TAT0TB8. — A statuts in Arkansa8 declares a crediter may have an at- tachaient against his debtor who " is about to remove, or has removed, his property, or a material part thereof, out of this state, not leav- ing enough therein to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, or the claim of said defendant's creditors." �Sdd, that a merchant who did not have property enough to pay his debts, and who invested a material portion of his assets in cotton and shipped it out of the state, was liable to attachment under this statute ; that the plaintifE did not have to show the removal was made for a fraudulent purpose ; and that the fact that the shipments of cotton out of the state were usual and customary with the defendant and with merchants generally doing business in the state, constituted no de- fence to the attachment. �Attachment. �The plaintiff sued out an attachment against the property of'the defendant. The affidavit for the attachment wasbased on the sixth subdivision of section 388, Gantt's Digest, which declares the plaintiff may have an attachment against his debtor who "is about to remove, or has removed, his prop- erty, or a material part thereof, out of this state, not leaving enough therein to satisfy the plaintiff's claim, or the claim of said defendant's creditors." �The defendant filed an affidavit denying the grounds of attachment. On the trial of this issue it was shown that the defendant was a retail merchant, doing business at Arkadel- phia, in this state; that at and before the time the attach- ment was sued out he was insolvent, and wholly unable to pay his debts; that his property consisted chiefly, if not alto- ����