The trustee of the bankrupt estate of Hall, whose declaration of bankruptcy was entered June 7, 1921, in pursuance of an involuntary petition of some of his creditors filed June 3d of the same year (he having- theretofore been doing business in the city of Portland under the firm name of C. M. Hall Produce Company), brought suit against the appellant bank, the complaint setting out 10 causes of action, all but the first of which relate to alleged preference payments- made by the bankrupt to the bank while he was hopelessly insolvent, of which insolvent condition the bank is alleged to have had at the time full knowledge. The remaining cause of action — the first counted -on — relates to the payment to the bank of $10,000 to be hereafter specifically referred to.

The case was referred to a special master, before whom the evidence, including a large'number of book accounts, was introduced, all of *57 which, as appears from his report and findings of fact, was most carefully considered, resulting in the conclusion that all of the payments referred to in the last 9 counts of the complaint were preferential payments under the United States Bankrupt Law (Comp. St. §§ 9585-9656), resulting in a net loss to the estate of 'the bankrupt, for which the appellant bank was liable. That conclusion respecting those payments was approved by the court below.

An attentive reading and consideration of the statement of evidence and of the findings and report of the special master, and of the opinion of the trial court, satisfies us that in that respect both the court and the special master were right — especially in view of the well-established law that under such circumstances the conclusions of the master have every reasonable presumption in their favor and are not to be set aside or modified, unless there clearly appears to have been error or mistake on his part. See Tilghman v. Proctor, 125 U. S. 136 , 8 Sup. Ct. 894, 31 L. Ed. 664 ; Callaghan v Myers, 128 U. S. 617 , 9 Sup. Ct. 177, 32 L. Ed. 547 ; Kimberly v. Arms, 129 U. S. 512 , 9 Sup. Ct. 355, 32 L. Ed. 764 . The master also sustained the claim of the trustee of the bankrupt estate made in the first count of the complaint, relating to the $10,000 payment made to the appellant bank, which conclusion the court below rejected, holding that that payment was not a preferential one.

The substance of the evidence concerning the money with which that payment was made is as follows: Hall was, for a number of years, doing business in Portland under the name of C. M. Hall Produce Company, dealing largely, if not entirely, in butter, eggs, and cheese, receiving such produce from various places in the states' of Oregon, Washington, and California. The appellant bank, which became his bank, was well aware of the nature of his business, and from the time that that relationship was established until the bankruptcy proceedings against him were commenced, loaned to him from time to time, sometimes upon his note, sometimes upon securities that he gave it, and often allowing him to overdraw his account in very considerable amounts. His business with the bank was conducted through its assistant cashier, Mr, Blohm.

When Hall moved with his family to Portland for the purpose of •establishing the business that has been referred to, he purchased a two-story residence known as 1245 Laddington Court, located on lot 6 and a part of lot 5 in block 60 of the Eaurelhurst tract, where he established the family home and continued to occupy it as such throughout the period in question, the purchase price being $8,000, which included the assumption by the purchaser of an existing $3,000 mortgage thereon; $1,200 was paid in cash, and the remaining payments were to be made monthly, which Hall made from the proceeds of his business. He subsequently made improvements on the house at a cost of from $1,500 to $1,800, which he likewise paid. All of these payments were made prior to the year 1921. He had the title to the property put in his wife’s name, at the suggestion of her mother. Hall testified that he “just did it as a matter of convenience.” He further said:

Both he and his wife testified that there was no prior arrangement or agreement regarding the conveyance. They both testified that it was the home of the family, the expenses of which Hall paid out of his business. The evidence shows without conflict that the business of Hall was' quite extensive, but that it gradually went from bad to worse. The witness Gemmel, an accountant, testified:

He further testified that during the last week in January or the first week in February of 1921, at the request of Blohm and Hall, he prepared a statement of Flail’s condition up to January 1, 1921, and made notations on it from Blohm’s notations. The statement is as follows:

The notation which the witness testified was in Blohm’s handwriting is as follows:

The further statement so requested, marked Exhibit No. 1, the witness testified was prepared and completed by him about March 1st, 2d, or 3d. “I think,” said the witness, “it was earlier than the 3d of *59 March, My judgment is that it was about the 2d day of March it was completed — about the 2d, because on the 4th of March, as I remember, he took it down to the bank early, and he had to wait until afternoon before he got to see them. That was on the 4th of March.” Exhibit 1 is as follows:

That March statement showed that Hall’s assets, including $12,086.46 (the stated value of the property the title to which was in his wife’s name), amounted to but $42,971.66, whereas his liabilities amounted to $87,890.40. The record shows that at that time Hall was indebted to the bank on his notes in the sum of $30,000, and from $6,000 to $7,000 in overdrafts. Out of that condition of affairs, the $10,000 matter arose. Hall testified to the effect that, upon the submission of the last-mentioned statement, in which, as has been seen, the residence property was listed as among his assets, Blohm did not know that the property was in his wife’s name, although he knew that it was occupied as the family home; that he told Blohm he “was in the hole,” but did not know to what extent; and that Blohm replied that, “if you are in the hole, you have a house out there, and we can loan you some money on it.” The witness continued:

The check was made by the Nedra Company to the order of Cecil M. Hall for $10,000, and was at once indorsed by Hall and turned over to the bank, to be applied on his indebtedness as it saw proper. In Schedule B, filed by Hall in the bankruptcy court, he deliberately *60 swore that he was not the owner of any real property, and by a subsequent amendment to that schedule made oath that he “had at the time of the adjudication therein and still has in his possession at the home of his wife at 1245 Haddington Court, Portland, Oregon,” certain designated household furniture. Moreover, the record shows that Mrs. Hall presented a claim against the bankrupt estate, in which she made oath that:

Blohm’s testimony was to the effect that the $10,000 loan was made' through the Nedra Company, substantially all of the stock of which was owned by the bank, for the reason that at that time the bank was making no mortgage loans; that he conducted the negotiations for the Nedra Company, but was called away before the closing of the loan,, and therefore was not aware that the check was made in the name of Hall, instead of to Mrs. Hall; but his testimony is positive to the effect that the understanding was that the loan was made to her on her property, and that she was to turn the money over to the bank to her husband’s credit, and that testimony finds strong support in this testimony of Mrs. Hall:

The master found and held in effect that the conveyance in the name of the wife was not intended by either husband or wife as a gift to her, but that, as the property was purchased by Hall with his creditors’ money, the wife became a mere custodian or trustee of the fee. The court, however, as has been said, rejected that view, saying, among other things, that its effect is that:

It is undoubtedly the law that a presumption arises from such a conveyance as is herd presented that it was intended as a gift or advance to the wife, which presumption may be overcome by the facts and circumstances of the case. It was so adjudged by the Supreme Court of Oregon in the case of De Roboam v. Schmidtlin, 50 Or. 388 , 92 Pac. 1082 , where that court said:

We agree with the court below that the evidence in the present case was far from overcoming that presumption.

The judgment is affirmed, without costs to either party.