i3;J FEDERAL REPORTER. �Upon the whole case I think, if the indebtedness to his brother and wife and to Northrup & Co. was genuine, the defendant had the right to prefer them to his other creditors in the way he did, although the effect might be to hinder or delay, or even prevent entirely, the collection of the claims. And I have no reason to doubt, from the evidence, the genu- ineness of either of these debts. They are positively sworn to by both E. H. and P. E. Brown, with ail circumstances of time, place and occasion, which it would be very dangerous, if not impossible, to create if the facts -were not so. And there is no opposing testimony. The fact that one preferred ered- itor is a brother and another a wife, is, of itself, enongh to raise suspicion of good faith and put the court on its guard; but, when the indebtedness is clearly proven, there is no doubt but a debtor may prefer his own wife and brother, and that they stand on a like footing with other creditors. Hill v. Bowman, 35 Mich. 191 ; Waddams v. Humphrey, 22 111. 601-663 ; Giddings v. Sears, 115 Mass. 505; Banfield v. Whipple, 14 Allen, 13; Ferguson v. Spear, 65 Maine, 277; French v. Motley, 63 Maine, 326-328; Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, 218- 223; Waterman v. Donalson, 43 111. 29; Smith v. Acker, 23 Wend. 653-679; Beard v.Deloph, 22 ^Nis. ISQ-liO; Carpen- ter\. Tatro, 36 Wis. 297-301; Monroe v. May, 9 Kan. 466. �The declarations and admissions of defendant and his brother, allowing them to have been made as testiiied to by Joseph Brown, would hardly show more than an intent to delay the other creditors. But the allegation in the affidavit is that the defendant had conveyed or disposed of his prop- erty with intent to defraud, and an intent to hinder and delay is not made, under the statute, one of the grounds- for issuing an attachment. What the plaintiff must prove to sustain the issue is an intent to defraud, and so long as the defendant had the right under the law to prefer and pay in full the creditors whom he did pay, tlhough it took the most of his available property, and the effect undoubtedly was to delay or per- haps wholly prevent the other creditors from coUecting their claims, these declarations of the defendant, in regard to the intent of the transaction, have much less bearing than ��� �
