Decision of
McCully, J.This case is submitted to the Court, the jury being waived, on an agreed statement of facts.
Upon consideration of them and of the records referred to, I think judgment should be for the plaintiff.
The finding of the Court in the case of See Hop & Co. vs. Soper (in Banco, January Term, 1887: see VII Hawn.) was, that the giving of the mortgage, found to be fraudulent, was in itself an act of bankruptcy. The payment of this amount ($286.90) was directly in pursuance of the mortgage and the possession thereunder. This fact will distinguish this payment from payments which might be made by a person actually insolvent to creditors not colluding with him in a fraudulent transfer of his whole property. The diligence and assiduity of a creditor who secures payments from a debtor, who afterwards becomes bankrupt, is a different thing from the receipt of realizations from property transferred by fraud, which itself works bankruptcy.
I do not regard the payment of money under the former circumstances as such a “transfer of property” as contemplated by Section 14 of the Bankruptcy Act (1884) ; but the act in question is the payment of money received for property so transferred.
Judgment for the plaintiff.