Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/284

BROWN V. THE JBFFEESON COCNTY NAT. BANK. 269 �more than one-third of the $24,206.22, but such debts, less the 141.13, were more than one-third of the $24,206.22, less the $41.13; and the petitioning creditors were the same in number, excluding the $41.13, 60 that the petition would have been effective on the thirty- first of March, excluding the $41.13. �The proof shows that all which McCartin & Williams said to Mr. Grouse or Mr. Brown, in regard to the affairs of the debtors, was said as representing the debtors, and was authorized by them. Therefore, the debtors are bound not only by what H. V. Cadwell said, but by what McCartin & Williams said. What was so said is competent evi- dence to affeet the bank on the question as to the procuring by the debtors. On that question the intent of the debtors, in connection with the fact as to what they said or did themselves or by their au- thorized agents, as an element in procuring their property to be seized, is the vital question, and the proof must necessarlly be as to what the debtors said and did, showing intent and having the effect to bring about such procuring, aside from the other things mad6 essential by the statute. Such proof is independent proof of the statiis and action of the debtors, aside from proof as to the statuttot the creditor in respect to reasonable cause to believe insolvenoy, and knowledge that the transaction was intended to be and would be preferential. It must be held that the necessary proof bas been made as to the intent and procurement by the debtors, and by compe- tent evidence. �In regard to the status of the bank, Mr. Camp,' the piresident of the bank, in his testimony, says that he did not know before he sued the Cadwells that McCartin & Williams were their attorneys; that Mc- Cartin & Williams had previously had one suit for the bank, it hav- ing no regular attorney; that he brought the suits mainly on his own judgment of what was best, without any suggestions from any one as to suing, and took the notes sued to McCartin & Williams; that he sued them because they failed to pay the paper as it became due, but he had no reason to suppose they were not just as able to pay as ever before; that the suits comprised their entire liabilities to the bank, and the bank had never sued them in that way before ; that they had been sued before by the bank on notes, and had taken up the notes when sued; that when he now sued, his confidence in their financial ability was less than before, because they had declined to pay paper which they had promised to pay, and had failed to meet their obliga- tions as they matured in the bank, and their obligations in the bank were increasing, and that during the winter of 1877 H. V. Cadwell ��� �