suronn v. coox. 23
good faith. The first question is whether these real-estate mortgages
.were to secure bona. fide indebtedness. In reference to those executed
before January, 1882, both Culbertson and Cook testify as to the genu-
ineness of the debts. Mr. Culbertson was a banker, with whom. Mr.
Cook did business; and, while it does not appear from their testimony
that either of these tive mortgages represented a distinct loan made at
the time, it does appear from such testimony that the full amount thereof
i was from time to time advanced from the banker to his customer.
The account of the dealings between Cook and Culbertson during these
years is not presented, though Mr. Culbertson offered to produce such
account, if desired; but it was not called for. With_reference to the
transactions between Mr. Culberts0n’s bank and Mr. Cook from January
1, 1882, onward, an itemized account is presented, and testified to by
Mr. Culbertson as correct. The correctness of this account is notchal-
lenged by any direct testimony, though, if not correct, means of attack
were plainly disclosed by the account itself. It embraces alarge num-
ber of items, both, of debt and credit, with such distinctness as would
enable the complainant easily to prove their falsity, if they were false.
The various creditors of Cook in whose favor drafts were given by Cul-
bertsoncould easily have been interrogated, and the truth orgfalsity of
those items shown thereby. In the absence of such testimony, and
with thegpositive testimony of Culbertson as tothe correctness of the ac-
count, its truth must be considered as proved. As the prior account
was not called for when proffered, I think the same conclusion as to its
genuineness follows. I know there are some things which make against
_ this conclusion, and the learned counsel for complainant has presented
these various matterswitha great deal of ingenuity andforce. _ Obvi-
ously they throw a good deal of _suspicion around the transactions of the
banker and his customer. I think the careless and extravagant way in
which Cook was carrying on his businessysufliciently explains most of
thi: suspicious circumstances. He was carrying on the agricultural im-
plement business, partly as an independent trader and partly doing a I
commission business; He had warehouses and agencies in six or eight
different places, having many agents, and going tolarge expense in the
matter of warehouses, freights, employes, and other-expenses. He put
his real estatein the name of his wife by reason of some priorpecuniary
A embarrassments of his own. On several of theselots that stand in his
wifelsuame he put warehouses, and seems to have been frequently trading
umachines for real estate or mortgages. His banking business was done
principally with Culbertson, and it is not strange that in giving his tes-
timony as to the various transactions, without his books or accounts be-
fore him, some inaccuracies have crept in; but of the general fact that
he was doing a large business, and having his banking transactions with
Culbertson, there can be no doubt. Something more, then, than mere
suspicion should appear to invalidate the securities given for the bal-
ances shown by the banker’s books. It seems strange that a banker
starting in 1876 with a limited capital-$10,000, as Mr. Culbertson tes-
tines—should have made such large advances to one customer—s0me