¶1Bankruptcy <&wkey;467 — PreferencHg—Fact Questions.
¶2It being conceded Hint a bankrupt’s conveyance to Ms sons was made within four months prior to the adjudication, while the grantor was inso'vont, and that it would secure the grantee's a greater proportion of their claims than other «■editors of Huir class would secure, it was a quest ion of fact for the trial court whether the grantees had reasonable cause to believe the grantor was insolvent and that the conveyance would effect a preference.
¶3Appeal from the District Court of the United States for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg, in Bankruptcy; Henry Clay McDowell, Judge.
¶4Bill by Ward C. Swank, as trustee in bankruptcy of William C. Whitmore, bankrupt, against William C., Jas. IT., and Howard S. Whitmore. Decree for complainant, and defendants Jas. H. and Howard S. Whitmore appeal.
¶5Affirmed.
¶6D. O. Dechert and H. W. Bertram, both of Harrisonburg, Va., for appellants.
¶7George E. Sipe, of Harrisonburg, Va. (Sipe cSz Harris, of Harrison-burg, Va., on the brief), for appellee.
¶8Before KNAPP and WOODS, Circuit Judges, and ROSE, District Judge.
¶10In this suit by the trustee in bankruptcy of William C. Whitmore, the court below set aside a conveyance by the bankrupt to two of his sons of certain real estate in Harrisonburg, Va., comprising the bulk of his property, on the ground that it was a voidable preference. The grantees appeal.
¶11It appears to be conceded: (1) That the conveyance was made within four months prior to- the adjudication; (2) that the grantor was insolvent at the time; and (3) that the conveyance, if allowed to stand, will give the grantees a greater percentage of their claims than other creditors of the same class will be able to secure. The only question in dispute is whether the sons had reasonable cause to believe that their father was insolvent and that the conveyance to them would effect a preference. But this was purely a question of fact for the trial court to determine, and its decision necessarily implies a finding adverse to the appellants. True, they stoutly denied any knowledge of their father’s embarrassment; but direct testimony to the contrary, the relationship of the parties, and the circumstances attending the transaction warranted the conclusion of the learned district judge.
¶12We find no occasion to disagree with that conclusion, and the decree appealed from is accordingly affirmed.