Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/436

422 FBDBBAL REPOBTBB. �■ As Gillies was called as a witness merely, and not in any pro- oeeding by his firm as such, his refusai to answer was a matter wbolly Personal. It is of no consequence in -wlaose ultimate interest his refusai to answer was made—whether for the firm's beneat or the bankrupt's, or otherwise. If adjudged in contempt, the punish- ment or penalty must have been personal, and so also are the ex- penses of this reference in the endeavor on his part to justify his refusai. For this reason the taxation of the bill, as against the firm, must be overruled. The views of the court have been expressed on the other points raised, to enable the parties to adjust the matter between themselves without further application to the court. ���JuDsoN, Assignee, etc., v. The Cotjbiee Co. �(District Court, S. D. New York. July 23, 1881.) �1. AGKEEMBiras BBTWEBN Creditoks— Pbbpbrences— Rbt. St. § 5128. �A transfer, by one in failing circumstances, of the greater portion of his assets to. a crediter is not void under section 5128 of the Hevised Statutes, as involving unlawful preference of such crediter, where all known creditors, and all whom the grantee suspected were creditors, and all the creditors of whose existence he was bound to know, joined in the arrangement under which the transfer was made; though such crediter thereby secured a preference. �In Equity. �E. H. Penn, for complainant. �Hamilton Cote, for defendant. �Bbown, D. J. This action was brought to have declared void a transfer of the effects of Montgomery Queen, a bankrupt, to the de- fendant, one of his creditera, made on October 27, 1877, and to recover the proceeds, or the value thereof. �The proceedings in bankruptoy were commenced by petition of the bankrupt on February 8, 1878, and the plaintiff was thereafter duly appointed his assignee. �In October, 1877, the bankrupt was the owner of what was known as Queen's traveling circus and menagerie, which he had for several years prior thereto been engaged in exhibiting about the country. The defendant, a printing company of Buffalo, New York, had been accustomed to do bis printing, for which he was usually considerably in debt to them, paying on a running account as was found con- venient. In October, 1877, thia. indeb tedness amounied to abou $18,000, but up to that time the defendant had no reason io believe ��� �