Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 4.djvu/539

 W SB EBAFT. '^S5 �re Ooldsmidt, S N. B, E. 164; In rë Zasson, 18 N. B. E. 8T9?. It bas been doubted whether it is not competent to show that the actual intent of the debtor in making the general assign- ment was not to have his estate wound up apd distributed, but to make it subserve some temporary purpose not inconsist- ent -with an intent to have the property afterwards pass to an assignee in bankruptcy and be distributed under the bank- rupt law. In re Seeley, 19 N. B. E. 12. The authorities cited above are, perhaps, against the competency of any such evidence ; but in the present case it is unneeessary to decide the point, because, upon the whole testimony, I think it is clear that when the bankrupt Kraft executed the general assignment he intendedandexpected that the estate of the copartnership would be wound up under it. That purpose is certainly etrongly shown upon the face of the assignment, ànd neither his own testimony as to his purpose, nor the testimony in respect to his contemporaneous declarations, shows anything to the contrary. It is true that he testifies that at a meeting of the creditors after the execution of the assignment a ques- tion arose between him and his creditons as to*what was to be done, and it was determined. that the estate should be dis- tributed under the assignment. I do nut perceive that thia alters the case; It does not appear what else anybody pro- posed to do, This transaction is not inconsistent with a purpose on his part, at the time of the execution of the assignment, to have its provisions carried into effect. His conversations, as testified to by other witnesses, and partially, also, as testified to by himself, show that at the tinie of exe- cuting the assignment, his partner had absconded, and the firm was insolvent, and that the assignment was resorted to for the purpose of distributing the estate among his creditors. Any mere use of the assignment as a temporary device ia inconsistent with his conversations with Mr. Vail, the presi- dent of one of the contesting banks, and Mr. Fowler, the assignee, and Mr. Sanders, who drew the assignment. �The amendment to the bankrupt law passed July 26, 1876 which provides that a general assignment, made in good faith and without preferences, and valid according to the ����