m EB DUFF. 521 �Burety, or gives his own collateral bond, which, on its face, shows that it is given by him as surety. The difference is one of form only, and not of substance. How it may be in the case supposed by the learned counsel for the creditor, of commercial paper given by the bankrupt, and which he signs as maker for the accommodation of the indorser, if proved by a holder who had no knowledge of the nature of the transaction except what the face of the paper shows, it is unnecessary to .decide. In this case the suretyship appeared on the face of the instrument. �2. It is also objected that the bankrupt, being a merchant or tradesman, did not keep proper books of account. The bankrupt was a theatrical manager. It did not appear thai he had any other business. He bought costumes, machinery, etc., for use in his business. It was also shown that ori a few occasions he had sold some such property. I think he can- not be considered a merchant or tradesman within the mean- ing of the statute. The case of In re Odell, 17 N. B. E. 73, is relied on by the opposing creditors. That was the case of a keeper of a livery stable. He was, under the peculiar cir- cumstances shown in respect to his business, held to be a merchant or tradesman. It was held that, in connection with his business of keeping a livery stable, he was also engaged in the business of buying and selling horses, and food for horses. The present case is essentially unlike that. I can- not find on the evidence that this bankrupt made the selling of anything a regular part of his business, as was the case in lu re Odell. The sales that he made were isolated transactions, and not, as in OdeU's case, within the regular scope and pur- view of the business he undertook to carry on. �3. It is also objected that the bankrupt, in contemplation of bankruptcy, made certain fraudulent transfers of his prop- erty to his father, John A. Duff, and to one Banvard, his landlord, with intent to prefer them as creditors, and to pre- vent his property from coming to the hands of his assignee, and being distributed among his creditors. The transfers tbus attacked were in March, 1878. The petition waa filed. August 31, 1878. ����
