Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/308

 296 tPEDEBAIj BËFOBTES. �see the neceasity of the application of the rule as te knowl- edge as required by the amendment. �, Now, as to the questioa of fact, what is the evidence to show that Swan, Clark & Co., the creditors of the bankrupt, Graves, and the complainants in this cause, had, at the time of the transfer of the stock aforesaid, viz., first of August, 1873, and four months before the ûling the petition in bank- ruptcy against Graves, "reasonable cause to believe said Graves was insolvent," and that "such transfer was mr.da in fraud of the provisions of the bankrupt act." �1. In the mind of the court it is the resuit of the whole tes- timony (without going into detail) that Olark, one of the part- ners of the aforesaid firm, made himself thoroughly acquainted with the business affairs, embarrassments, and diffioulties of Graves in the month of July, 1873, before the first of August of that year, the date of the transfer in question; and they, (the firm of Swan, Clark & Co.,) as a consequence, must be charged with and made reôponsible for Clark's knowledge on this subject. �2. It is not to be doubted from the testimony that Graves, during July, and at the time of the transfer of the stock in question, was insolvent within the meaning of the bankrupt law, in that he was entirely unable to pay bis commercial indebtedness as it matured, and that Graves was fully ac- quainted with that fact. �3. The evidence shows that Clark was acquainted with the circumstances of the bankrupt, out of which arose bis ina- bility to pay his debts as they matured, and under the decisions of the supreme court must be treated as having presumptive knowledge of an intended fraud on the bankrupt act, — a con- dition of things not necessary, as before intimated, to be proven in the present case. �4. A presumption agaiûst tue compiamants ariseg from the fact that this transfer was not made in tho ordinary course of the business transactions of the bankrupt, and that of itself is prima facie evidence of fraud. In re Butler, e B. B. 302. �Swan, Clark & Co. were mannfacturers and dealers infuj- ����