Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/647

D. Ohio, 2 Fed. Rep. 304; Washburn v. Western Ins. Co. U. S. Cir. Court, S. D. Ohio, October term, 1879, Swing, J.,) and he ruled in the same way.

Now, I must say that, under these circumstances, upon a mere doubt, and technical criticism and objection, of the importance of those which have been urged upon my attention, I am not quite bold enough to overrule these adjudications. In my judgment, they decide the question before me. I do not mean that the views of these gentlemen are in anywise conclusive—not at all; or that the same result would follow if a like adjudication had been made by one of my peers and brethren, or any number of them. But there is, doubtless, a moral binding force in the very indications to which I have adverted, which gives them a sufficient amount of gravity in my judgment, and rightfully gives it to them, to turn the scale of this case in favor of the plaintiff, and judgment will be rendered accordingly.

Judgment for plaintiff for amount of policies and interest.

---

Metcalf, Assignee, v. Officer & Pusey.

(Circuit Court, D. Iowa.⁠———, 1880.)

Dormant Partner—Evidence—General Reputation—While evidence of general reputation may not be admissable to prove a partnership, still it may be competent upon the issue as to whether a member of a firm is a dormant partner.

Same—Ostensible Partner—Name not in Firm Style.—A partner is not to be deemed dormant because his name does not appear in the firm style; nor is it necessary to constitute one a dormant partner that his membership be universally unknown. It is sufficient if he is not an ostensible partner.

Bankruptcy—Fraudulent Preference.—To constitute, a payment made, a fraudulent preference, under the bankrupt law, it is necessary to be shown that the person to whom payment was made had reasonable cause to believe the debtor insolvent, and knew that a fraud upon the bankrupt law was intended.

Same—Same—Sufficiency of Evidence.—Evidence in this case held sufficient to sustain the verdict that a payment made was a fraudulent preference under the bankrupt law.