NEAL v. FCb'1‘ER.:it 35
  businessformany years, and was otherwise much engaged, to retain `
Foster as superintendent of the mill, both forhis own interest, as well as
a kindly consideration for Foster, who was th’én thrown on the world
without any visible means of support, at a compensation of $75 per
month, and the use of the dwelling-house in which he lived. But Fos-
ter’s declarations to his other creditors, all of whom are represented in
the several judgments mentioned in the pleadings, do indicate that he
expected to get the mill back again, either as owner or lessee of Craw-
ford, in which case, if times "livened up," he would be able to pay all
his debts from the profits of the mill. But I am satisfied he either went
beyond the fact, or his hearers, smarting under the loss of their claims,
have remembered and repeated his statements for more than they were
worth. As is said by counsel in the brief for plaintiff, " each of these
witnesses was not only a friend of many years’ standing with Foster, but
also a creditor. Some of them had sold him wheat only a few days be-
fore the transfer; and in the presence of men whom he had so wronged,
* * * and who, nevertheless, still displayed some old-time loyalty
and friendshiptowards him, it is quite natural he should seek to placate
them, and restore himself in their esteem by an explanation that would
not leave them hopeless." _ ‘ I
Under these circumstances Foster might have made statements and
held out hopes that implied, in the willing minds of his anxious hear-
‘ ers, that, after all, the transfer was only a contrivance to tide over a finan-
cial difiiculty, and in the mean time Crawford was only holding the prop-
erty in trust for him. ·
One form of declaration attributed to him is, ‘¥ that if he could make
arrangements with his creditors he could lease the mill, and pay them
off, if times ‘livened up,’ out of the pront of it." And this declaration
is perfectly compatible with a bona fide sale. Neither would it be dith-
cult or extraordinary for those who would have it so, to remember and
relate how Foster said "he was going to get the mill back again as soon
as he could arrange with his creditors," with the implication, of course, ·
that such was the purpose of conveying it to Crawford.
However this may be, there is nothing in Foster’s possession or pres-
ence at the mill or employment by Crawford inconsistent with good faith
on the part of the purchaser. And so far as any of his declarations im-
port the contrary, assuming that he has been correctly reported, they are
easily accounted for, 311d are also contradicted by the admitted and con-
trolling circumstances of the case.
The evidence as to whether Crawford also turned in Foster’s three notes
in part payment of this property is coniiicting, but I think the weight
of it is that he did. `
Crawford and Foster both swear that in 187 6 the mill Erm of James
H. Foster & Co.——the company being the brother, John Foster—dis-
solved, and James H. took the business, and agreed to pay the debts.
At that time Crawford held three notes of J. H. Foster & Co., dated early ,
in July, 1875, for an aggregate sum of $12 ,593, with interest. The notes
are produced, and their existence is satisfactorily established. On April