24 FEDERAL Rm=omER.`
$23,000+-in six years; and yet, when we consider the business done by
Mr. Cook at so many different places, and the expenses attending the
work at each place, it is obvious that he must have somewhere obtained
funds therefor. I do not think it strange that at the commencement of
` the years 1882 and 1883, in view of the expected advances, Mr. Culbert»
son should ask chattel mortgage security as further collateral. I think
he may well have anticipated the difficulties and embarrassments which
subsequently befell Mr. Cook; and insisting on all the security he could
, obtain is not to be charged against him as evidence of fraud. It may
be that thesechattel mortgages, under the rules laid down by the su-
preme court of Iowa, could not have been sustained if challenged; but
that does not show that Mr. Culbertson was trying to defraud, but simply
that he mistook as to the validity of the extra security which he was ob-
taining. It is also true that just before the September term, 1883, of
the courts in which suits were pending against Cook brought by some
' of the creditors, Mr.‘Culbertson received sundry conveyances as security.
It does not seemto me, from the testimony, that all the security which
Mr. Culbertson has can be considered excessive for the indebtedness
_ which he shows; and the mere fact that a banker presses for and obtains
security,`unless grossly excessive, is not to becharged against him as
fraudulent. I do not believe that anything will be gained by noticing
s in detail the various transactions commented upon by counsel in his
brief. i ~ . r
It may be that Mr. Culbertson has not given full credit for the pro-
ceeds of all the property received from Mr. Cook, and converted by him
since thesetroubles commenced; and perhaps there should be a credit
of $2,000 more, as claimed. But, after all, that which impresses me the
, imost is the fact that an itemized account of the transactions after Janu-
Tary, 1882, was presented, and not a single item is shown to be wrongl
The burden of proof, of course, is on the complainant. Before wrong
and fraud can be adjudged against the defendants, there must be some-
'thing more than a mere suspicion,—there must be proof; and I have read
·‘ and reread the testimony without being able to come to any other con-
V clusion than that the transactions and the indebtedness between Cook
‘ and Culbertson were substantially as stated, and that no excessive or un-
reasonable security was exacted or received by Culbertson. Under these
circumstances, I do not think the complainant is entitled to any relief
as against these mortgages. Defendant Culbertson is therefore entitled
to a decree in his favor dismissing the bill. The complainant can take
a decree against Mrs. Smith’s interest in the lot hereinbetbre referred to.