PLATT ». PBKSTÔK. 896 �and executed in pursuanoe of a common fraudnlent purpose, and as parts of a single scheme to defraud, hinder, and delay creditors. The defendants Preston and Weinfeld appeared and defended upon the merits. Diekelman died, after appear- ing to resist an application for an injunction, and the suit has been revived against his administrator, who, on the fifth day of August, 1879, appeared in the cause by his solicitor, but no answer has been put in for him, nor has any order been entered taking the bill, p^o confessa, as against him. Upon the issues raised by the answer of Preston and Weinfeld, which deny ail the allegations of fraud contained in the bill, the proofs have been taken, and the cause has been heard on the pleadings and proofs. �The supreme court of the United States, in the case of Steward v. Platt, 19 N. B. Ë. 347, having decided that the failure to file a chattel mortgage pursuant to the statute of the state of New York does not, per se, avbid the mortgage in favor of an assignee in bankruptcy, there is no question to be determined, under the answer of the defendant Preston, except whether the mortgage was, in its inception, fraudnlent in fact as against creditors. The opinion expressed when the case was before the court upon an application for an in- junction pendente lite, that the proofs then produced would not justify a finding that "the mortgage was not, in its inception, made in good faith, otherwise than as it may have been in- tended to keep it secret as regards creditors," is fuUy con- firmed by the proofs now taken ; and I am entirely satisfied that the mortgage was given and received in good faith, as security for an existing debt, and for future advances, with- out any purpose or intention of delaying, hindering, or de- frauding creditors, and not in contemplation of bankruptcy on the part of the mortgagor, and that the omission to file the same was not with any such fraudulent purpose or intention, or for the purpose of keeping it secret from creditors, but be- eause the mortgagee was advised that it was unnecessary to file it if he had, as in fact he had, confidence in the Per- sonal integrity of the mortgagor. �In respect to the lease executed by the bankrupfc to t^e ����
