In Error to tlie District Court of the United States for the District of Montana.

This cause is brought to this court upon the alleged error of the court below in refusing to require a witness to answer certain questions, and in directing a verdict for the defendant. It appears from the record that one Frederick A. Bartlett, residing at Butte, Mont, filed a petition in bankruptcy on February 8, 1899, and thereafter, in March, 1899, was duly adjudged a bankrupt. Alexander Mackel, the plaintiff in error, was elected trustee of the bankrupt’s, estate. On the 3d day of April, 1899, the trustee brought suit in the district court of the United States for the district of Montana, against the defendant in error, to recover the value of certain property alleged to have been sold by the bankrupt to the defendant in error within four months of the date of his petition to be adjudged a bankrupt, with the intent and purpose on the part of the said bankrupt to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors. The property thus transferred consisted of a stock of merchandise alleged to have been of the value of over $8,563, and constituted all of the property of the said bankrupt not exempt from execution. It is alleged that the defendant in error took into his possession all of the said stock of goods, and converted the same to his own use, without paying a 'fair compensation for it, and that at the time of the pretended conveyance he knew that it was made by the said Bartlett with fraudulent intent, and that he had reasonable cause to believe that said Bartlett was then insolvent. The defendant, in his answer, avers that he bought said stock of goods in good faith, paying therefor the sum of $6,344.25, which amount was paid to said Bartlett on said 4th day of February, 1899, and constituted a fair consideration for said property, and denies any knowledge of Bartlett’s insolvency or fraudulent intent in selling said property. At the close of the testimony for the plaintiff taken upon the trial of the cause, the defendant moved the court to instruct the jury to render a verdict for the defendant. This motion was based upon three grounds. • The court sustained the motion upon the third ground, — that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant, at the time of purchasing the said stock of goods, had reasonable cause to believe that the said Bartlett, was insolvent, or contemplated going into bankruptcy, or had any intention to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors, or any one. Judgment was accordingly entered for the defendant.