Fraud as to Creditors—Preference of Creditor—Transfer of Property to Pay Debt.—As between creditors not claiming under the Insolvency Act, in the absence of actual fraud, a debtor may prefer one creditor, by transfer of property to pay the debt, and the contract will be valid as against all other creditors who had acquired no lien upon the property so transferred.

Id.—Misrepresentation by Debtor—Innocence of Creditor.—The fact that one of the debtors made false and inconsistent statements as to the financial standing of a firm of which he was a member, which was unable to meet its obligations, at the time of the transfer of property, to pay a creditor of the firm, cannot affieet the preferred creditor, who had no knowledge on the subject of their financial standing, and was not shown to have had any knowledge of or participation in the misrepresentations made.

Id.—Burden of Proof—Fraud of Debtor—Valuable Consideration— Knowledge of Fraud.—The burden is upon one who assails a transfer as fraudulent against creditors to prove the fraudulent intent of the vendor, and the burden is then upon the transferee to show a valuable consideration, whereupon the burden again shifts to the assailing party to prove the transferee's knowledge of the fraudulent intent of the debtor.

Id.—Suspicion as to Good Faith of Preferred Creditor—Presumption—Proof ¡Required.—It is not enough that the circumstances tend to raise a suspicion as to the good faith of the preferred creditor. The presumption of law is in favor of the fair dealing of the parties; and the evidence of the facts and circumstances, taken together, must amount to proof of fraud, and not to a mere suspicion thereof.

Id.—Replevin—Value of Property—Support of Finding—Conflicting Evidence.—In an action of replevin, brought by a bailee of the property transferred to the creditor, against a sheriff who had levied upon the property, under execution against the debtor firm, where the court found the value of the property, as alleged by the plaintiff, upon evidence for the plaintiff, sufficient to support the finding, the fact that the evidence for the defendant conflicts therewith will not justify the appellate court in disturbing the finding.

Id.—Recovery by Bailee—Deposit for Sale upon Commission—Special Ownership—Right of Possession.—The special ownership and right of possession of a bailee or depositary for sale upon commission, to whom the preferred creditor of the debtor firm had delivered the property transferred to pay the debt, is sufficient to support a recovery of such property by the bailee, and proof of general ownership in the plaintiff is not required.

Id.—Omission in Findings—Facts Admitted.—Where the defendant sheriff admitted the talcing and carrying away of the property, and sought to justify the taking, an omission by the court specially to find upon the facts so admitted is not material, and the court was not required to find thereupon.