Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/499

484 FEDERAL REPORTER. �rendition of said judgment, engaged in business as wholesale Jeweiers in Pitts- burgb, Pennsylvania, and at Kansas City, Missouri. iheir store at Kansas City was established as a branch of their business in Pittsburgh. In the course of their business they borrowed money, from time to time, from the respondent Heller, and made numerous payments on aecount of such loans ; but whether, at the time the judgment was coiifessed, there was a balance due, as claimed by respondents in the case, is one of the questions in dispute. On the same day in which the said judgment in the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri, was confessed, another judgment, for $5,009.33, was con- fessed bySehwed & Newhousein favorof Ileller, on another note, in the court of common pleas of Allegheny county, Pennsylvania. It appears that the alleged balance due from Schwed & Newhouse to Heller was dlvlded into two notes, — one for $5,000, and the other for $9,000,— dated, respectively, Decem- ber 22, 1879, and February 8, 1879, and each due one day after date, and on the former judgment was confessed in the Pennsylvania court, and upon the latter in the Missouri court. Executions were issued at once on both judg- ments, and the stores at Pittsburgh and Kansas City were simultaneously closed by the sherifls, �Complainants, who are cieditors of Schwed & Newhouse, instituted this suit in the state court to enjoin the execution of the judgment of the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri, and to set the same aside as fraudulent. They also brought in the state court suit, by attachment, on their respective elaims, and caused the Kansas City stock of jewelry to be attached. These attachment suits have been prosecuted to judgment in the state court. Since the institution of this suit the property attached (the stock of watches and jc.welry) has been sold under an oyder of the state court, by the sherifE of Jackson county, Missouri, to one 0. W. P. Bailey, who is made a party de- fendant hei-ein, and the sum of $8,250 was realized therefor, which sum is now in the hands of said sherifC to abide the final resuit of this litigation. The complainants pray for decree to set aside said judgment as fraudulent and void, and also for distribution of the f und in the hands of the sherifi amoug the several judgment creditors of Schwed & Newhouse. �This case was removed from the state court on the ground of the citizen- ship of the parties. The further facts, so far as necessary to be considered, are stated in the opinion. �Botsford e Williams and Scarrett e Riggins, for complainants, ' Bryant e Holmes and Tichenor e Warner, for respondents. �McCeaey, C. J. I will consider the several questions of law and fact in this case in the order in which they have been argued by counsel. �1. It is insisted on the part of the defence that proof of fraud in the confession of the judgment in Pennsylvania, and in the sale of the Pittsburgh stock under execution thereon, is not admissible to show fraud in the judgment in Missouri. The true rule upon this subject is this : It is not competent, for the purpose of showing fraud ia a particular transaction, to show that the same party has been ��� �