Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/274

 BEOWN V. THE JEPFEESON COUNTY NA.T. BANK. 259' �ited intent on the part of the debtor leaves the creditor's levy to stand, even though the creditor had reasonable cause to believe, when the property was taken, that the debtor vras insolvent, and then knew that a preference was being seeured as against other creditors. There is nothing in Wilson v. City Bank, or in any other case, which sanctions the view that the mere existence of a desire on the part of the debtor that the creditor may secure and maintain the preference, although concurrent with the not interposing any hindranoe to the suit and the levy, is a procuring or suffering of the levy with the forbidden intent. In that case the debtors were insolvent when the suit was brought, and the creditor then had reasonable cause to believe they were insolvent, and knew that they had committed an act of bankruptey. �The case of Wilson v. City Bank arose under the act of March 2, 1867, (14 St. at Large, 534, 536.) The thirty-ninth section used the words "procure or suffer his property to be taken on legal process, with intent to give a preference," etc. The thirty-fifth section used the words, "with a view to give a preference to any creditor * * * procures any part of his property to be * * * seized on execu- tion." The court said that as both of these sections had the common purpose of making such preferences void, and both of them made the illegality to depend on the intent with which the act was done by the bankrupt and the knowledge had by the other party of the bankrupt's insolvent condition, and as both of them described substantially the same acts of payment, transfer, or seizure of property so declared void, it was very strongly to be inferred that the act of suffering the debtor's property to be taken on legal process in section 39 is pre- cisely the same as procuring it to be attached or seized on execution in section 35. The court also noted the fact that the word "procure" and the word "suffer" were both of them used in section 39. In the Revised Statutes, section 5021 contained a re-enactment of the above part of section 39 of the act of 1867, using the words "procures or suffers." By section 12 of the act of June 22, 1874, said section 39, and consequently said section 5021, was amended by striking out the words "or suffer," so as to read "procure his property to be taken on legal process, with intent to give a preference," etc. In the Revised Statutes, section 5128 contained a re-enactment of the above part of section 35 of the act of 1867, but altered the word "procure" to the words "procures or suffers." The amendatory act of June 22, 1874, did not amend section 35 of the act of 1867 as to the above language. The Revised Statutes were enacted June 22, 1874. Thus, apparently ��� �