692 FEDERAL REPORTER. �AnSHUTZ V. HOEEB. (Circuit Court, W. D. Pennsylvania. February 17, 1880.) �Bakkrupt Act — "Insolvenct" Dbfined. — "Insolvency, within the meaning of the bankrupt ar.t, means inability to pay debts in the ordiDary course of business, and unless the dcbtor is able to pay such debts as they mature, with money, he is insolvent in the contemplation of said act, not- withstanding he may havo lands and gooda suiflcient in time to meet ail his liabilities." �Same — Feaudulent Judgment — Execution — Actiou bt Assignee for Proceeds of 8alb. — An assignee in bankruptcy may maintain an action against a judgment crediter of the bankrupt, for the proceeds oi' value of propertj' aold under a judgment of the state court, where such judgment was obtained in fraud of the bankrupt act, although the property was subjeot, at the time of the sale, to the lien of a valid exe- cution, subsequent to that of the defendant. �AoTiOH BT Assignee— Amount op Defendant's Liabilitt, — In such action the defendant is only liable for the amount of the fund received by him, where part of the proceeds of the execution sale went to satisfy the claim of another creditor. �Opinion &ur motion for a new trial, and on questions of law reserved. �P. C. LazeofT and D. T. Watson, for plaintiff. �R. B. Pctty and J. F. Slagle, for defendant. �AcHESON, J. This is an action on the case brought by Theodore F. Anehutz, assignee of Nicholas Wurzel, 8r., a bankrupt, against Philip Hoerr, to recover the value of cer- tain Personal property of the bankrupt, seized and sold by the sheriff of AUegheny county, by virtue of an execution from the court of common pleas No. 1, of said county, upon a confessed judgment in favor of Hoerr, alleged to be void under the bankrupt law, as giving an unlawful preference. �The case was tried before the late Judge Ketcham, and a verdict rendered for the plaintiff for the sum of $1,676, sub- ject to the opinion of the court upon questions of law reserved. The defendant having moved for a new ti-ial, that motion and the reserved questions were argued before me. �The ground mainly relied on in support of the motion for a new trial is the supposed error of the court in af&rming the plaintiff'fl second point, which was in theae worda: "That ��� �
