347 rnnnmu. imronrsa. r
reason of at decline in fiour during the winter, he had lost or failed to .
realizeone dollar a barrel on about 30,000 barrels shipped to Liverpool.
V Hewas also short about 20,000 bushels of wheat, for which he had ~
“ . given receipts, on any one of which he was liable at any moment to a
criminal prosecution. There is no room to doubt that John A. Craw-
ford was then liable as surety on Foster’s paper for $15,900, namely, to r
_ the Bank of British Coltunbia, $5,000; to John Conner and the Bank of
Albany, $6,000; and to Frank Parton, $4,900,-and that he afterwards
A ,i paid the same, as part of the consideration for the transfer to him.
Neither is there any room tot doubt that Crawford settled with the
farmers and others holding Foster’s wheat receipts for 19,541 bushels of
wheat that the latter had used. But the amount disbursed for this pur-
poseis notcertain. The evidence on the point is not clear or satisfac-
tory. Wheat, at the time of the transfer, was 90 cents per bushel. But -
it was rapidly declining, and soon fell to near 50 cents. It is altogether
probable that from $10,000 to $15,000 was paid out for Foster on this `
score,-say $12,500. This, added to the amount paid by Crawford, as ‘
surety or indorser, -makes~$28,310 paid on the property in cash. In
addition, Crawford claims Yto have turned in an open account of $5,803 `
against Foster, as a part of the consideration for the purchase. Under —
the circumstances, the claim is a probable one. Crawford seems to have '
. beencarrying Foster in every direction; and, on the proof, it cannot be '
rejected. This, with the cash,`makes a consideration of $34,113 paid ’
for the property, real and »personal,—more than it would have probably i
sold for at sheriff’s sale, and more than three-fourths of the value that
the master places upon it, which,.in my judgment, is its full market V
value. t c “ ~ 3
. If the purchase was made in good faith,,that is, for the purpose of
providing for the payment of the debts due' the purchaser, or the obliga-
tionsonwhich he wassurety for the grantor, and not merely to hinder,
T delay, and defraud creditors, theconveyance is not within the statute of
frauds, and is valid. Theamount and character of the consideration is
not material, except as it may affect the question of good faith. Bump,
Fraud. Conv. 207. N eitherthe amount nor character of this considera-
tion tends toprove that the purchase was not made in good faith.
T The only specific circumstance urged against the good faith of this
transfer is the fact that Foster remained in possession of the mill and
dwelling-house, and his declarations while there. The acts and declara- 3
tions of a vendor in possession after the sale are competent evidence
against the vendee on the uestion of the character and purpose of such.
sale and possession. Buhip, Fraud. Conv. 589; U S. v. Griswold, 7 by
Sawy. 316, 8'Fed. Rep. 496. But such acts and declarations are not
conclusive, and must be considered in the light of all the circumstances.
Mr. Foster wasan old man, who had done business in Albany as mer-
_ ` chant and miller 'forover 30 years. When he failed and transferred his
i property to his life-long friend and principal creditor, John A. Crawford,
it was not unreasonable, nor out of the ordinary course of business, for
thelatter, whowas over 70 years of age, and had been out of the mill-