Opinion
June 22, 1938.
Present — Hill, P.J., Rhodes, Crapser, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.
The trial court held that there is no substantial proof in the case which would justify a holding that the chattel mortgage was actually fraudulent, and also held the inference warranted that the chattel mortgage was in place of a chattel mortgage for the same amount, previously given by the husband to one Benjamin S. Tupper, "which was paid or acquired." Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.