Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/327

IN BB 8TEENZ. 313 �creditors. The specifications charge also that the sale was designed to give a preference to Graham & Aitken ; but this is not sustained by the proofs, which show that Strenz was not indebted to them either then or afterwards. Strenz was insolvent ; he had been so for some time, but was not disturbed by Ms creditors. Graham & Aitken knew this, and the object of the purchase by them was to extricate them- selves and their goods, which formed three-fourths of the stock, from any complications with his affairs. Ordinary prudence in business required them either to withdraw their goods, thus practically break- ing up the store and tuming Strenz out of employment, or else to buy him out and become the unquestioned owners of the whole stock. They chose the latter and bought him out, agreeing to pay, and sub- sequently paying, the full value of the goods. In the sale itself (and that is all that is here in question) I see nothing objectionable. �The purchase could not in my opinion have baen impeached by an assignee in bankruptcy within six months afterwards, under section 5129. As respects the creditors of Strenz and his estate it was an advantasteous sale. Tt was not wholly closed up until about a year after. There are no marks of secrecy, haste, or fraudulent intent about the transaction. The assignee in bankruptcy, if then proeuredj would have received the proceeds of the sale, or the greater part of them, which were still unpaid. The transaction did not lessen Strenz's ostate, nor tend to defeat or embarrass proceedings in bankruptcy, nor to divert his effects from any assignee that might have been appointed. Clark v. Iselin, 10 Blatehf, 204, 208. It therefore involved no fraud upon the bankrupt act, and none was intended. If an insolvent trader can sell out his remaining stock for its full value, it is fortunate for him and for his estate : and in the absence of all fraudulent in- tent there is certainly no law against his doing so, any more than there is against his selling out by piecemeal. The only exception, if any, to he taken in such cases is to any preference or unequal distri- bution of the proceeds of sale. The proceeds in this instance were paid out to various creditors from time to time as received. But there was no design in selling out in this case to get money to prefer any particular creditor or to hinder any creditor in collecting his debt. Had the creditors put Strenz into bankruptcy in time, they might, perhaps, have avoided what preferences were thus made. But they could not have impeached the sale itself under section 5129; and the same language employed in subdivision 9 of section 51 10 must recoive the same construction, except as to the limitation of time, as to which ��� �