Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/766

 752 J^DEBAL BBPOBTBB. �real estate, they had resolved to issue execution. They were induced, however, by the debtors, and the representatives of Mrs. Benton and Judge Waller, to withhold for 48 hours, under a promise. that the sinall judgments wonld be paid, and a statement furnislied, in the mean time. Instead of making any serions effort to redeem this promise, (and it is quite manifest that none was intended to be made,) the debtors and the representatives of Mrs. Benton and Judge Waller immediately had judgraent entered on the $20,000 note, and an exe- cution isSUed, covering more than twioe the value of all the property the .debtors owned. Here, again, was. an attempt to secure advan- tage by means of bad faith and. imposition. The subject need :nfit be pUrsued. 'Sufficient bas been sadd to justify the eeaiolusion that the Benton-Waller execution must be postponed. It seems proper ta say in this connection, that. Judge Waller, who resides at ^ distance, had very little personal.,ponnection with the transaction involved, aiid probably no personad knowledge of the particular.fea- tures whioli have given rise to this oontroversy. The general soope of iiis attorney's authority covered all matters involved, and he tniist bear the consequences. The authority of the attorney bas not been questioned by him-; and no one elsoican question it. �We do not see anything in the evidence to justify a belief that the execution on the syndicate judgment was procured by the debtors, in violation of the bankrupt law. It is true that an agreement was entered into when the judgment was confessed, that these creditors should have a preference over all others, of execution against the personalty of the debtors; and be notified by the debtors when dan- ger thf eatened from other sources. As we have seen, however, the debtors not only failed to perform this agreement, but sought to defeat these creditors by a preference of the Benton-Waller judgment, whose amount exeeeds twice the value of all their property. The subsequent notice was unimportant, The debtors then supposed the plaintiffs could get nothing, It was notice that an execution would do no good, and was as well calculated to induce them to desist, as to proceed. They could get nothing except by defeating the object of the debtora. It would be a perversion of language to say that this execution was procured to give the plaintiffs a preference. The master's finding as respects the rights of the syndicate creditors, between themselves, is adopted. �McKbnnan, C. J., concurred. ��� �