SHAINWALD V. LEWIS. 761 �eary to show beyond dispute or cavil the fraudaient and col- lusive character of the suit and the sham defence that was made to it. It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to add that Mr. Sharp, the attorney for defendants, sent his bill to and was paid by Lewis, the plaintiflf. The arrangement made with the banks for a pro rata share of the proceeds of the sale on execution made it for the interests of the conspirators that Lewis should bid them in for the lowest possible price. No effort was spared to accomplish this object. Only the indis- pensable advertisements were published, and but little oppor- tunity was afforded to the public to ascertain the value and quality of the goods. But a private inventory, with the cost priees attached, was made out and given exolusively to Mr. Lewis. Efforts were made to discourage other parties from bidding, and the contents of the store were sold by the floor, and not in lots, as would have been most advantageous. Mr. Lewis succeeded in becoming the purchaser for a sum insignificant in comparison with the market value of the goods. �It is unnecessary to recount in detail the remaining steps taken to consummate the fraudulent designs of the parties. Enough to say that by various methods Lewis succeeded in obtaining possession of almost the entire assets of the firm, including the bills of lading for the goods purohased abroad by Schoenfeld. Nothing has ever been paid to any of these creditors. Several months having elapsed, Mr. Schoenfeld became impatient for the payment to Mr. Bremer of the $8,000 promised as his share of the plunder. To this Lewis demurred. A quarrel ensued, and Schoenfeld disclosed the whole affair to Mr. Cohen, who seems to have been up to that time ignorant of its real nature. Legal advice was at once taken, and Mr. Crittenden, solicitor for complainant in the present suit, on behalf of Cohen requested of Mr. Sharp to consent to his substitution as attorney for Cohen, or that Sharp should unite with him in a motion to set aside the judgment. Mr. Sharp declined both propositions, although he was advised by Mr. Crittenden of the nature and origin of the fabricated notes upon which judgment had been recov- ��� �
