Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 9.djvu/500

BMITH V. SOHWED. e85 �guilty of fraud in another separate and independent transaction, not in any way connected with the matter in controversy. Courts will not go into such extraneous matters. But if the transaction souglit to be shown in evidence can be connected with the transaction in controversy, as evidence of a connected scheme of fraud, it is admis- sible. Clark V. White, 12 Pet. 193, �Judged by this rule, I think the evidence tending to show fraud in the Pennsylvania transactions is admissible. The two transac- tions were manifestly but parts of one scheme; whether honest or fraudulent, is to be considered presently. They were between the same parties. The balance claimed by Heller as due him from Seh-wed & Newhouse was divided into i two notes, and the collection of the sums due on said notes, respectively, was the ostensible purpose of the confession of the two judgments. They were rendered on the same day, and unquestionably in pursuance of an understanding between the parties. The two notes were, in fact, parts of the same debt. The two stores were branches of the same business, and the two judg- ments were, therefore, bo connected together as to be justly regarded, for the purposes of this question, as parts of one transaction, tOrwit, a scheme by which it was intended to procure judgments and execu- tions in favor of Heller, and sell all the stock of Schwed & Newhouse, both in Kansas City and in Pittsburgh. There is also testimony tending to show that it was the purpose of tho parties to prevent competition at both sales, so as to enable Heller to purchase the prop- erty for less than its value. Of this evidence I will speak in another connection. I mention it now only as bearing upon the question whether there was a connection between the transactions at Kansas City and Pittsburgh ; and I say, without hesitation, that it is the duty of the court, under the circumstances of tho case, to consider the whole transaction, embracing the procefedings at both places, in deter- mining the question of fraud in the Missouri judgment. �2. Looking thus at the transactions, can it be said that fraud on the part of Heller is establishod by such a preponderance of proof as the law requires ? This depends upon facts and circumstances shown in the evidence. The goods seized were worth largely more than the claim of Heller. The stock at Kansas City was worth at least $14,000, and that at Pittsburgh probably as mueh. This circumstance of itself would have but little weight, for a bonajide judgment crediter has a right to levy upon property of his debtor of a value greater than Lis judgment; but the value of the goods seized in this case is signifi- cant, in view of the further fact, which is clearly established, that ��� �