74 FEDERAL REPORTER �Parsons, Assignee, etc., v. Caswell and othera. {Œreuit Court, E. D. Wïscomin. January 5, 1880.) �BaNKBTJPT LAW — UNLAWF0L JfKBFEKENCB OF OrEDITOK. — AlthOUgh, Un- �der a sound construction of the bankrupt law, mere passive non-resist- ance by the insolvent debtor will net defeat a judgment and levy where the debt was due and there wasno defence to the same, still, very slight evidence of an affirmative cliaracter of a desire to prefer a cred- iter, or of acts done to secure such preference, may be sufflcient to inval- idate the whole transaction. �Circumstances in this case considered, and held sufBcient to establish the fact that certain judgments were obtained and executions levied through the secret co-operation of an insolvent debtor, and were there- f ore void. �F. C. Winkler, for complainant. �E. Mariner, for defendants. �Dyer, J. This is a bill filed by complainant, as assignee in bankruptcy of Albert W. Coe, to annul and set aside certain execution levies in favor of certain creditors of the bankrupt, as fraudulent under the bankrupt law. The bill not only oharges that judgments were obtained and the levies made for the purpose of securing to judgment creditors unlawful pref- erences, but attempts to charge that such judgments were obtained by actual collusion between the parties, and that some of the claims in favor of these creditors were in whole or iu part fictitiouB, and had no foundation in actual indebfced- ness. Upon the argument the bill was much criticised by counsel for defendants, as insufficient in respect of such charges. However liable the bill may be to such crifcicism, I deem its allegations sufficient as chargingtheprocufement of forbidden preferences by means of the judgments and levies, and through the aid and co-operation of the bankrupt. �The bill also seeks to avoid and set aside certain transfers of persoual property made by the bankrupt to the defendant Caswell, to secure certain indebtedness owing by the former to the latter, and the allegations of the bill are also sufficient to the extent that they charge such transfera to have been pref- erential and unlawful. �Counsel for complainant, upon oral argument and in writ- ��� �
