4.86 FEDERAL REPORTER. �there was a systematic effort both at Kansas City and at Pittsburgb to prevent the sale of the goods at their full value. �At Pittsburgb, the stock was levied upon and advertised for sale as "two large safes and contents, a large lot of clocks, lot of wateh- makers' tools, one desk, four tables, three chairs, a lot of slielving, " etc.; certainly, a very imperfect description of the valuable stock of watches and jewelry to be disposed of, and not well calculated to invite competition in bidding. At the sale only two bidders appeared, who were not there, apparently, in the interest of the defendants, and these were deterred from bidding by statements made to them by persons acting in the interest of Schwed, Newhouse, and Heller, to the effect that the goods were to be purchased for a friend of theirs, and that it was desired that outsiders should not interfere. Heller, who was personally present at the sale, requested one Koemer, who was present, not to bid, and offered him his choice of several articles of jewelry to desist from doing so. The sale was made in a hurried manner, — large lots of jewelry being sold in a lump, — and the whole stock, excepting a very fe-w articles, was bid in by Heller, who never took possession of it, but left it with Schwed & Newhouse, who at once resumed business, with no change in the style of the fii'm, except to have printed on their sign, in very small letters, the word "Agts." It is claimed by respondents that Heller gave the stock to bis sister, who was the wife of Schwed, one of the firm of Schwed & Newhouse, and that it was as her agent that the firm continued the business. If, however, it be true that Heller obtained the confession of judgment by an arrangement with Schwed & Newhouse, and with the intent to have the stock sold, bid it in, and gave it to the wife of Schwed, and if all parties combined to prevent competition at the sale, so as to accomplish this resuit, then the judgment and sale were fraudulent and void as to the creditors of Schwed & Newhouse. �I am inelined to the opinion that such a transaction is fraudulent, in law, for the reason that it is not a honafide effort to collect a debt, but a method of transferring property from a husband to his wife so as to place it beyond the reach of his creditors, which the law will not tolerate. In this case, I am quite clear that the transactions from their inception were fraudulent in fact. If it had been other- wise, there would have been no effort on the part of Heller, Schwed, and Newhouse to prevent competition at the sale ; on the contrary, they would have been anxious to see the stock sold for the highest possible price. If it sold for more than Heller's judgment, Schwed & Newhouse would have received the exeess. In that event, Heller ��� �
