The Portland daily press., 1869-07-28

rupts was due and unpaid, and that a stili
larger amount would soon mature, in order 10
secure and protect them, this scheme OF pay
ing these demands, both the overdue and
those not yet matured, and taking mortgage
for the amount thus paid, was devised Dy 5ne
parties. 1t is quite apparent that they uIs,
trusted the sovency OF the DankruP.S; anu
were desirous of being relieved from thelr re-
sponsibilities They did not propose 70 make
these advances without security, and Judging
from their conduct, they were determined to
be secured beyond all question. Chadbourne
saws, his proposition at first was, TO mortgage
the Stock. but Cole demanded in addition.
mortgage of Chadbourne's real estate. II
they had no doubt of the bankrapts' ability
to pay their Liabilities, why take any security
the effect OF which would be so detrimental
to the credit of the firm? If they were in
good credit, and believed by the respondents
to be responsible and the stock was So large
as to aiford ample security, why not, at least
be contented Herewith, and be satisfied with
the mortgage OF that only, leaving the real es-
tate of Chadboume unincumbered. This
would not answer their purpose, they were
not willing to rely Oh. the chattel mortgage,
but they proposed and received in addition
thereto mortgage of all Chadbourne's real
estate. Not satisfied with the lien on Chad
bourne's homestead, they included in the
mortgage, the adjoining lot worth but a few
hundred dollars, by the whole proceeding,
quite clearly indicating, to my mind, their
distrust OF the financial condition of their
debtors and their purpose TO obtain security
upon all the property which the bankrupt had
to convey.
The parties appear to have been aware of
the provisions of the bankrupt act, for Cole
testifies, that he consulted with Mr. Good
win as to these mortgages, asking him If Chad
nxrrffI y, In pd n
them. He said that he had and that he would
make them out.
think that a question arose as to the va
lidity of mortgages .under the bankrupt law.
He SAID that under certain circumstances
they were not good think that he may
have stated the circumstances.
Being thus advised OF the provisions
of the bankrupt act, it seems to me
that these parties undertook to evade
and clrcnmyent them by paying the
existing demands and taking new security
therefor. which they claim by Their answers as
present consideration for the mortgage.
Such proceeding cannot receive the sane
tion OF court administering the bankrupt
law, ard If the final result should be an en-
tire loss to these respondents OF all right to
share in the bankrupt's estate il may not be
entirely without profit and advantage, as i.
may prove saluta.y lesson TO them and the
puuiiC ScHeIily, HOJ W dtJSuipL 10 eVaQe tne
provisions of SO just and equitable law as
the bankrupt act
They have read in evidence the testimony
of the President and Cashier OF one of the
Biddeford banks, and of other residents of
that place, that in the opinion of these wit
nesses Chadbourne and NOVEL;, at the time
OF giving the mortgage were solvent and in
good credit, and that they would have loaned
them money. A conclusive answer to this
testimony is the belief OF these respondents,
on these points, to be determined from their
own conduct. They were unwilling 10 make
the loan at that time, without receiving as
security all the real and personal estate, both
of the firm aud of its members, and were so
doubtful of the solvency of the firm that they
were not content with the mortgage OF all the
Company property. From their business rela-
tious with the baDkrupts, may well infer
that the respondents were better cognizant
OF their situation and were unwilling to trust
to their personal responsibility.
Decree for complainant declaring the con.
veyance void and case referred to Master to
take account of property remaining as well as
OF that sold by respondents.
Rand for complainant. Shepley and Strout
for respondents.