
    Loeb and another, Appellants, vs. O’Brien, Garnishee, Respondent.
    
      April 16
    
    
      May 1, 1896.
    
    
      Debtor and creditor: Fraudident conveyance: Evidence: Appeal.
    
    Bindings of the trial court to the effect that a transfer of property was not fraudulent as to creditors will not be disturbed on appeal unless there is a clear preponderance of the evidence against them..
    Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Rock county: JomrR. Bennett, Circuit Judge.
    
      Affirmed.
    
    Garnishment. The plaintiff Loeb and others were creditors of one Allen, who was operating an hotel at Janesville up to the 28th day of February, 1894. On the 1st of March,. 1894, the plaintiffs sued Allen in justice’s court, and garnished O'Brien. They obtained judgment against Allen, March 9, 1894, for $141.71, damages and costs; and on the-4th day of April, 1894, they also obtained judgment against, the garnishee for the full amount of the main judgment and costs. From this judgment the garnishee appealed to the circuit court, where the action was tried by the court without a jury. The circuit judge found as facts that the garnishee was not indebted to Allen, and did not have any of Allen’s property in his possession or under his control, at the time of the service of the garnishee summons, and rendered judgment in favor of the garnishee, from which the plaintiffs appealed.
    For the appellants there was a brief by Dunwiddie db-Wheeler, and oral argument by B. F. Dunwiddie.
    
    For the respondent there .was a brief by Sutherland diNolan, and oral argument by T. S. Nolan.
    
   Winslow, J.

The plaintiffs’ claim was that at the time of the service of the garnishee summons the garnishee was in possession of the furniture of the hotel by virtue of a bill of sale thereof from Allen which was fraudulent as to Allen’s creditors. The evidence showed that on the 27th day of February, 1894, Allen made a bill of sale of the hotel furniture to O'Brien for the expressed consideration of $575, and that on the same day O’Brien executed a bill of sale of the same property to one Charles M. Price for the same expressed consideration; that Allen left the city upon the following day, and that his wife followed him a few days later; and that Price took possession of the property on or about March 4, 1894. There was evidence tending to show that these transactions were tona fide transactions; that O'Brien paid Allen full value for the property, and took the title in good faith and pursuant to a valid agreement between Price and Allen, by which O’Brien was to take and pay for the property and hold it for a few days, when Price would be ready to take and pay for it. There was also evidence tending to show that the transfer to O’Brien was a mere cover and fraudulent as to creditors; but we are unable to say, after examination of the testimony, that there was a clear preponderance of evidence against the findings of the circuit judge. The judgment must therefore be affirmed.

By the Court.— Judgment affirmed.  