Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/280

 BROWN V. THE JEFFBBSON COUNTY NAT. BANK. 265 �The questiorr is whether the debtors acted on such desire, and whether they did or said anything which efficiently contributed to the postponement of the filing of the petition in hankruptcy until after the judgments had ripened into executions. This could be done as ■well by delaying the hankruptcy proceedings until after the judg- ments had matured in the regular cause, as by speeding the entry of the judgments before their regular time. The debtors contemplated making a voluntary assignment of all their property for the benefit of their creditors, and H. V. Cadwell testifies that they intended to let the judgments mature, so that executions on them should be issued before such assignment should be executed. The other two debtors testify to the same effect. The voluntary assignment was made on the sixth of April, 1877, and was recorded in the county clerk's office one hour and three-quarters after the execntions were levied, aud one hour and a quarter after the petition in hankruptcy was flled. The judgments were entered at 8 o'clock a. m.; the executions were levied at 8J o'clock A. M. ; the petition in hankruptcy was filed at 9 o'clock a. m.; and the voluntary assignment was recorded at lOJ a. m. The attomeys for the bank in the suits were McCartin & Williams. Mc- Cartin & Williams had been attomeys for the debtors for some years, and were consulted by them about their financial affairs and embar- rassments after the suits were brought, and as to what was best to be done, McCartin & Williams also drew the voluntary assign- ments. There is no evidence that any suggestion to the bank that it ought to sue came from the debtors, or from McCartin & Williams. Nothing appears to have been done by McCartin & Williams, or by the debtors, to facilitate the suits or the entry of the judgments. Failing sooner to make a voluntary assignment was no facilitation of the judgments, as respected any rights of the assignee in hankruptcy, nor would it have been, even if the voluntary assignment had pre- ceded the petition in hankruptcy. As it was, the petition in hank- ruptcy preceded the voluntary assignment. Failing to file a voluntary petition in hankruptcy was, legally, no facilitation of the judgments, and, notwithstanding the wish on the part of the debtors that the judgments should precede an involuntary petition in hankruptcy, the question still remains whether there were any things said or done by the debtors, or by McCartin & Williams, influencing the action or non- action of the creditors who ultimately filed the petition in hankruptcy, which hindered the filing of such petition until after the judgments were recovered. �The plaintiff, Mr. John G. Brown, whose firm was at the titoe a ��� �