MACK V. m'daniel. 2'95 �gether, of a small stock of goods and accounts and notes; that for some time before and up to the date the attachment -was sued out the defendant was converting his goods and credits into cotton, and shipping this cotton out of the state. Wîthin 60 days immediately preceding the date of the attachment, a large and material portion of his property was thus converted into cotton and the cotton shipped out of the state, and at the time, and after this cotton was shipped, the defendant did not have property enough in the state to payhis debts, or the debt of the plaintiffs, which was overdue, and was for goods purchased, and which the defendant had declined to pay or secure for want of ability to do so. �It was further shown that it was the custom of merchants to sell goods for cotton and receive payment of debts due them in cotton, and to ship suoh cotton out of the state in the ordinary course of their business ; and that the purchase and shipment of the cotton by the defendant was in the usual course of his business as previously conducted. �Ehen W. Kimhall, for plaintiffs. �F. W. Comptoti and J. M. Moore, for defendant. �Caldwell, D. J., {charging jury.) Counsel for defendant have argued with earnestness and ability that the shipment of cotton out of the state by the defendant, though such cot- ton constituted a material part of his property, and though he may not have had left in the state enough property to sat- isfy his debts, is not a removal of his property out of the state within the meaning of the statute, because such ship- ment was made in the usual course of business of the defend- ant, as a merchant, and was in accordance with the usual course of business of merchants generally in this country. �It is conceded that the shipment of cotton in this way is in accordance with the usual custom of merchants. Undoubt- edly a merchant who pays his debts, or has property enough left in the state to pay his debts, may convert a part or ail of his capital invested in his business into cotton, and ship it out of the state, and he is not liable to attachment under this section. Such a merchant is not within either the letter or spirit of the statute. But because a solvent merchant who ����
