assigned  and  disposed  of  their  property  with  intent  to
defraud  their  creditors,  reliance  was  placed  by  the
plaintiffs  on  two  facts.  These  were  that  they  had  paid
to  Max  Wolff  a  fictitious  debt  of  $13,754.91,  and  that
they  had  together  drawn  from  the  firm  the  sum  of
$12,061.81,  to  be  appropriated  to  their  own  individual
uses  and  benefit,  and  not  to  be  passed  to  the  assignee
under  the  general  assignment.  While  the  books  of
the  defendants  contained  no  authentic  account  of  the
alleged  indebtedness  to  Wolff,  it  was  still  made  to
appear  that  the  firm  was  indebted  to  him  in  the  amount
he  had  received.  There  was,  therefore,  although  the
payments  made  to  Wolff  were  suspicious,  no  neces-
sarily fraudulent  disposition  of  the  debtors'  property
in  making  that  payment.  But  as  to  the  amount  di*awn
by  themselves  from  the  firm's  assets  the  case  was
entirely  different,  for  it  was  shown  that  this  amount
consisted  of  sums  drawn  by  the  different  members  of
the  defendants'  firm.  It  is  stated  to  have  been  ad-
mitted by  Louis  Wolff,  in  the  presence  of  the  other
defendants,  whq  made  no  denial  of  the  admission  at  a
meeting  of  the  creditors,  that  the  different  sums
aggregating  this  amount  of  $12,061.81  had  been  drawn
by  the  individual  members  of  the  firm  to  pay  indi-
vidual family  debts,  and  to  be  devoted  to  the  support
and  maintenance  of  their  respective  families  during
the  time  that  should  elapse  between  their  failure  and
the  date  of  effecting  a  settlement  with  their  cred-
itors ;  and  if  they  effect  such  a  settlement  at  forty
cents  on  the  dollar  the  money  drawn  out  would  be  at
the  disposal  of  the  creditors  in  part  payment  of  the
compromise,  but  if  they  did  not,  then  the  money  with-
drawn would  be  devoted  to  the  support  of  their  re-
spective families.  The  affidavits  made  by  the  defend-
ants in  substance  admitted  that  these  sums  of  money
had  been  drawn  by  them  from  the  moneys  of  the  firm
previous  to  the  execution  and  delivery  of  the  assign-


CIVIL    PROCEDURE    REPORTS.  75

Yietor  «.  Henlein.
