
    10668.
    KEITH v. SIMPSON et al.
    
    Under the evidence, the transfer which the trustee in bankruptcy sought to set aside, by which, within four months prior to the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, the bankrupt’s brother was substituted in his place as purchaser of land under a bond for title from another, was a bona fide sale, in which there was no purpose to defraud creditors; and, this being the only conclusion that could be reached from the evidence, the court did not err in directing a verdict for the defendants.
    Decided October 10, 1919.
    Petition to set aside sale; from Cobb superior court—Judge Morris. May 10, 1919.
    
      George F. Gober, Rowell Broolce, for plaintiff,
    cited: Rem. Bkr. §§ 1493-4; Moore, Fraudulent Conveyances, 1182, sec. 5; Id. 718, sec. 56; Collier, Bkr. 956; 1 Loveland, Bkr., § 67 (c); 130 Fed. 1012; 133 Fed. 878; 134 Fed. 628; 145 Fed. 466; 146 Fed. 109; 147 Fed. 438; 174 Fed. 891; 202 Fed. 250-1; 83 U. S. 489.
    
      E. W. Coleman> for defendants,
    cited: Bkr. Act of 1898, §§ 70, 67.
   Luke, J.

Keith, as trustee in bankruptcy of J. W. Lindsey, sued him and T. N. Lindsey and Simpson, seeking to set aside an alleged preference. The evidence showed that J. W. Lindsey bargained for the purchase of a tract of land for $700, giving therefor one note for $100 and one for $600. When the $100 note matured he was unable to pay it, and borrowed the money from T. N. Lindsey, his brother, and paid the note. Being unable to pay the $600 note, he negotiated a trade with T. N. Lindsey whereby his bond for title was surrendered to Simpson, the vendor, who returned his notes and executed a new bond for title to T. N. Lindsey, and accepted T. N. Lindsey’s note for the $600; and T. N. Lindsey paid for J. W. Lindsey an additional sum of $335. The value of the land was $1,000. Within four months of this transaction J. W. Lindsey was adjudged a bankrupt. The evidence failed to show that T. N. Lindsey knew that J. W. Lindsey was insolvent or otherwise involved than hereinbefore pointed out. At the conclusion of the evidence the court directed a verdict for the defendant.

There was no fraud shown, and inasmuch as the only conclusion that could be reached from the evidence was that the sale was bona fide and not for the purpose of defrauding creditors, it was not error to direct a verdict for defendant.

Judgment affirmed.

Broyles, C. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.  