, 40 FEDERAL REPORTER.
V creditors and others interested against the Crawfords, testify to various
conversations with John A., which strongly imply, when they do not
assent, that the mill notes were paid before the transfer. .
Thomas I. Anderson testifies that 13 or 14 months before the transfer
he asked John A. Crawford if he had anything to do with the mill, when
he answered: "Oh, that is all settled. I have nothing more to do with
the mill than you have."
It is true that John A. had then nothing to do with the mill in his
own right, nor, so far as appears, ever had. But he always speaks in
the first person when speaking for his brother William or of his affairs.
And what he meant to say was "all settled,” concerning this mill, unless
it was William’s mortgage thereon, is past finding out._
Thomas Monteith testifies that in the latter part of 1883 he had a con-
versation with John A., in which the latter said that Foster seemed to be
getting along well. When he said, "Why don’t he pay off the mortgage
that has been on record, then, ever since he bought the mill‘?" John A.
replied, "Why, that mortgage was paid off long ago." —
There never was but one mortgage between Foster and the Crawfords,
and that was the one to William on the mill, and unless these witnesses
are false or mistaken, John A. said to them in effect if not in words,
· " these mill notes are paid off`." ’
In answer to the testimony of all these witnesses concerning these state-
‘ ments of his,-John A. Crawford, when called as a witness for himself,
can only say, "I do not remember."
‘ Another circumstance of which there is no doubt is entitled to some
weight in this connection. I
Between the giving of the mill notes in 1867 and the transfer in 1884,
Foster expended $40,000 on the mill property in repairs and improve-
ments. He also built the brick block in question, whigh cost- him prob-
ably not less than $12,000, his dwelling—house and his share of the water-
works. T0 my mind it is quite improbable that a person with this
I amount of money at his disposal would allow a mortgage, to secure a.
` debt of` $10,000, to remain on his mill for 17 years. And it is equally
improbable that William Crawford. or his other self, John A. Crawford,
` would allow the unpaid interest on such debtto accumulate to $6,000,
and then take a note for the amount without interest or security. Being
unableto deny the cancellation of the mortgage, as stated by Stewart,
the Crawfords offer in their testimony this explanation: It was done to
avoid the operation of the mortgage tax law of 1882. In other words,
I they swear that, rather than pay the taxes on the mortgage, they released
security for the debt; and this, notwithstanding the law of 1854 gave the
mortgagee the right to pay the taxes on the whole interest in the land,
and add the same to the mortgage, if not paid by Foster. Dundee, etc.,
, O0. v. School-Dist., 10 Sawy. 61, 19 Fed. Rep. 359, and 21 Fed. Rep. 151.
On the whole, my conclusion is that the mill notes were paid before
the conveyance to William Crawford was made, and therefore it is vol-
untary,-—without consideration. And, this being so, it is fraudulent as
against the plaintiffs and others, the E creditors of Foster, the grantor