
    Burdett, Smith & Co. v. Woodworth & Co. et al.; Michigan Stove Co. v. The Same.
    Chattel mortgage: fraud: evidence to support finding of court.
    
      Appeal from Page Circuit Court.
    
    Saturday, March 5, 1887.
    These are actions at law. They involve the validity of a chattel mortgage upon a stock of hardware. The plaintiffs are creditors of the defendant Woodworth, and levied attachments upon the property. The defendant Mather asserted title to the goods under a chattel1 mortgage made by Wood-worth to him. Pending the action, Mather assigned the mortgage to the Grinnell Barb Wire Co., and it intervened and assumed the place of Mathei as a party to the action. It was alleged by the plaintiffs that the mortgage was fraudulent as to the creditors of Woodworth. This was the issue which was tried. The trial was had to the court without a jury, and judgment was rendered for the defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.
    
      8. G. McPherrin, for appellants.
    
      N. B. Moore, 8. B. Jennings and Haines, Lyman & Howell, for appellees.
   Rothrock, J.

There is but one error assigned and argued. It presents the question as to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. We have carefully examined the evidence, and have reached the conclusion that we cannot disturb the judgment. It is not necessary to set out the evidence. It is sufficient to say that, applying the same rule to the judgment which is applied by this court to the verdict of a jury, the judgment finds support in the evidence. It does not appear without conflict th at the mortgage was fraudulent. It is to be remembered that we are not required to try the cause anew in this court.

Affirmed.  