President of the Bank of the United States v. Weisiger

This Court has decided that a suit could be maintained in equity, by the holder" of an /indorsed note, against a remote indorser; and upon grounds perfectly ■ familiar to courts exercising" equity jurisdiction. It has beer! decided in Kentucky, that a suit at law could not be maintained in that state b.y the indorsee, against, a remote indorser. The conclusion'then results from our own decisions, that he must be let into equity ; for an indorsement' is certainly no release to the previous indorsers ; end the ultimate assignee ' alone is entitled to the benefit of their liability. And this we understand to be consistent with the received opinions and practice in Kentucky. [34S] The law in Kentucky is settled, as it is in Virginia and in this Court; ■ that upon Virginia contracts by indorsement of promissory notes, every reasonable effort must be made to recover of the drawer by spit, before the assignee can have recourse against the assignor or indorser. It is upon the question, what constitutes such diligence, that all the difficulties arise in suits upon these contracts. And certainly this Court cannot be called upon to carry the obligations imposed upon assignees oh this point, further than :the state courts have already extended them. [348] What will be considered a sufficient compliance with the requisitions of the laws of Kentucky, imposing diligence in the prosecution of a suit against the drawer of a note, by the indorsee, in order to charge a prior indorser. The discharge of an insolvent under the statutes, is. the most satisfactory evidence of insolvency. After such discharge, it is not required that process of execution shall be issued against the party, in order to conform to the injunc- . tion of diligence. [349] The 2d, 3d and 4th sections of the act .of January 6, 1800, entitled “ an act for the relief of persons imprisoned for'debts,” make provision for the discharge of p'ersons confined under execution; and the 5th section extends “ the privileges and relief” of that act, to persons in confinement, against whom judgment is obtained, but no execution issued. Under the provisions in favour of persons charged in execution, on the day of arrest, a- notice may be served upon the person at whose suit they are confined, and at the end of thirty 'days, they may be discharged. By the- 5th section it is enacted, “ that any person imprisoned upon process issuing from any court of the United States, except at the suit of the United States, in any civil action, against whom judgment has been or shall be recovered; shall be'entitled to the privileges and relief provided by this act, after the expiration of thirty days from the time such judgment has been or shall be recovered; though the creditor should not within that time sue eut'his execution, and charge the debtor therewith.” It has been argued that under this section, the defendant must remain in prison thirty-days after judgment, before he can sue out his notice to the plaintiff; thus requiring him to remain sixty days in confinement in the cases which come under this section, whereas he remains but thirty days when confined under execution. There can be no reason for this distinction; and in favour of liberty, and with a view to consistency, the construction .should be otherwise. - If such were the true construction, the relief would not be'the same as is extended to debtors of the other class.' .The day of entering judgment under the'S.th section, is the day that corresponds tothe day of arrest, under the previous provisions of the law: and.therefore iri thirty days after the judgment, the defendant may be-discharged; complying with the other requisitions of the'law, [350] Where the agent of the plaintiff agreed in writing to dispense with the imprison- . ment required by' law, to entitle the defendant to be discharged under the in- ' solvent law of the United States ; and the defendant who was in confinement' was discharged without having been imprisoned thirty days, thisvwas not such a proceeding, as would bar the assignee of the note to recover against a subsequent assignor. The object of the imprisonment is to give the plaintiff an opportunity to ascertain the situation of the defendant, and if-he does not require this, it may be waived, without prejudice to his claims on othets., [351] A discharge under the insolvent laws of the United States,, is confined in its effects altogether to the particular cause; and even as to that, does not exempt the debtor’s present effects, or future acquisitions from the prbcéss'of the law. Nor is his person exempt from confinement for the same ddbt, should he be detected in a fraud upon the creditor. • [353]

APPEAL from,the circuit court, of Kentucky. The complainants’ bill, filed in the circuit court of, Kentucky, on the 22d of November 1822, stated that, on the 25th of July 1821, Peter G. Voorhees made his promissory note for ‡2,560, payable sixty days after date; to Daniel Wei-. sigejr; that Weisiger assigned to John H. Hanna, and Hanna to the complainants, who discounted the note. That they duly instituted a suit against Voorhees, on the .common law side of the court, recovered judgment, and prosecuted him to insolvency.. It prayed that the defendant maybe decreed to pay the amount, with interest and costs. Annexed to the .bill,is a copy of the record of the proceedings against Voorhees, from which.it appears,.that the declaration was filed on the 2d of October 1821; and on the same day a writ of capias ad respondendum was. issued, with this memorandum — “ This is an action of debt; bail required.” The marshal made, réturn to the writ; as follows — . “ Executed 6th of October 1821:‘and.committed defendant' to jail of Franklin county: receipt hereon.”-. The jailor’s receipt bears date 5th of November .1821. At November term 1821, judgment was entered for the plaintiffs, by, default, for $'2,560, with interest from the 26th of February (September) 182.1,. and costs.. Afterwards, on the 14th of December. 1821, the jailor of Franklin county surrendered the body of Voorhees into court. On the 29 th of December 1821 a fieri facias issued, which was placed in the hands of the marshal on the 19th of January; and the marshal returned*-:-" No estate found.” On the 11th of April 1822, a writ of capias ad satisfa-ciendum . issued; to which the marshal returned — “ Not found.” To this bill the defendant Weisiger moved the court for leave to file a demurrer, alleging for cause, that the bill did not aver the prosecution of ány suit against Hanna, the immediate assignee of the, complainant, and that Hanna was nbt made a-party defendant; that the bill contained no case of equitable jurisdiction, nor for a decree against Weisiger; and was. altogether void of equity. Afterwards, in the samé term, the defendant Hanna appeared, and waived all objection to a decree, on account of the want of service of process upon' him, and Weisiger waived the demurrer, so far as respected the want of proper parties. And at the following term the court overruled the demurrer. At May term 1826, the defendants failing to , answer according to rule, the bill was taken for- confessed,- and the cause came on for hearing on the bill, and exhibits; whereupon the court decreed that the complainants should recover from the defendant Weisiger the sum of $3,278 17 cents, and.costs, unless, &,c.; which decree was afterwards set aside on Weisiger’s motion, and leave given him to file an answer. The answer of Weisiger, protesting against the" jurisdiction of the court, relies and insists, by way of plea in bar to the relief claimed, that the matters contained in the bill, if true, do not constitute a case for the interposition of a court of equity, but are cognisable at law, and relies upon the 16th' section of the. judiciary , act of 1789. It admits that he may have put hjs name on the note, but denies that he ever ire-ceived any consideration for the same, or that it1 was ever passed or negotiated by him or for his use or benefit. He. answers further, thát he did not, of his own knowledge, know of the discount of the note, although he was informed that such discount had been made, and for a long time believed that it had been fully satisfied by Voorhees ; that .he is advised that the proper measures were not adopted in due season to enforce the payment; arid that the "proceedings had,. were not such as to authorise a recovery against him, inas; much as the return of the marshal shows that Voorhe.es was committed to jail, and it does not appear that he had ever been discharged, or escaped, and there does not appear to have been any order to charge him in execution; nor js there any return that he had no property or.estate on which the fieri facias might have been levied. He does not admit that Voorhees was insolvent at the time the judgment was obtained, against him, but believes he then'had estate within the- district sufficient to satisfy the same, in whole or in part. The complainants’ amended bill states, that before the rendition of the judgment against Voorhees; he.was brought before "the district judge, took the oath required by the act of congress, and was discharged as ah insolvent from the custody obthe jailor. Shortly after, and before the return of the fieri facias, he left the state, and has ever since remained . out of it, leaving no estate upon which the amount could be levied, or any part of it; all of which is averred to be personally known to Weisiger, as .is also the fact that-he indorsed the note for the accommodation of Voorhees, and to give him credit, and. with, the view and expectation that it would be discounted by the bank. The exhibit referred to in the amended bill, states the proceedings to discharge Voorhees. from imprisonment, in three suits of-the. bank of the United States, .entitled as follows-: The president, directors, and company of the Bank .of the United States, .plaintiffs, vs. Peter G. Voorhees, defendant. The same vs. the same. The same ys. George M. Bibb, Charles S. Todd, and Peter G, Voorhees. The- judge’s order to discharge, dated Idth December 1821, states that Voorhees was imprisoned in the jail of Franklin county by process in these suits; that judgment had been rendered in the suits, and he had petitioned to have the. oath administered to him ; that a citation had been served upon Henry Clay, esq- agent,' &c.; that they appeared, and no good cause being shown, the oath was administered, and he was discharged. The citation bears date the 14th of December 1821, and requires appearance on the 7th of January following. And then there is a paper of which the following is a copy: “ I agree, on behalf of the Bank of the United States, to waive the previous imprisonment by law to entitle’ the defendant to take the oath of an insolvent debtor, and.that the said oath may be now administered, with the same effect as if that imprisonment had taken place. 14' December 1821. (Signed) H. Clay, Counsel of the B. U. S.” Upon the bills, answer, and exhibits above set forth, the court, at May term 1827, decreed the complainants’ bill to be dismissed with costs. complainants below, made the .following points ■ 1. The defendant.- not being the- immediate indorser* to •the complainant, but a remote indorser, the case was cogv nisable and the complainant relievable only in equity. ' 2. That, having proceeded' at law, with due diligence, against the drawer, and the drawer being insolvent, the complainant was entitled to relief against the indorser. 3. That the discharge by the district judge, or the consent of the counsel of the plaintiff to waive the thirty days’ notice, or the thirty days’ imprisonment, or any part thereof, did not impair or affect the right to recover against the in-dorser. 4. The fact of Voorhees’s insplvency is establishec} by the oath taken by him before the district judge, which is at least prima facie evidence, and sufficient until the contrary appear, .as well as by the return to the fieri facias; and that fact being established is sufficient to entitle the complainant to recover: For, 5. The discharge could not prejudice the indorser. His cause of action against the-drawér will accrue by the payment of the money, and be unaffected by the discharge. 6: That the decree, below ought to:'b'e reversed, and a decree. rendered for the appellant. 1. As to the objection that the bill contained no case for equitable jurisdiction, and was altogether without equity; he said the whole of the questions in, the cause, the present included, depended upon a law .peculiar (as far as he knew) to Virginia and Kentucky, and derived by the latter frqm the former. It was not created by statute, but was the'common law of the state, in the case of indorsers or assignqrs, as expounded by judical decisions. The first case in the books was Mackie’s executors vs.. Davis and Young, in Virginia, 1796. 2 Wash. Rep.. 219. It makes-no distinction between bonds and notes, sealed and unsealed instruments. It established in general, “that the assignor is liable to the ássignee, provided due : diligence be used by him against the obligor or drawer, and the latter prove insolvent.” Tuck. Bl. 442, in, note. In Lee ns. Love, 1 Call, 497, 1799, it was decided that the assignee ' of a note must sue the maker before he can resort to the ! assignor. The liability of the indorser, therefore, is dependent upon a condition which elsewhere does not belong to'it, of due diligence being first used against the drawer and failing from his established want of ability to. pay. Against the immediate- indorser the remedy is at law; against a remote indorser, in equity. Mandeville vs. Riddle, 1 Crunch, ,293. Riddle vs. Mandeville, 5 Branch, 322. Drake vs. Johnson, Hardin, 218. S'. P. 3 Marsh. 163. ■ This being decided by the Supreme Court of the United States; as well as by the tribunals of Kentucky,- there can be no doubt that the''present is a case for equitable jurisdiction;. being the case of a remote, and not of an immediate indorser; there is no jurisdiction at law. That the bill was without equity is supposed to be made out, because Hanna, a subsequent indorser to Weisiger; was not first prosecuted to insolvency, and because (as alleged) there,was no consideration from the bank to Weisiger. To the first of these suggestions, after stating that Hanna was a party defendant, he replied that it was no part of the condition of the holder’s resort against. one indorser, that he should first proceed against another. Their common liability was dependent upon one and the sanie condition, that is, the failure by due diligénce to obtain the money from the drawer; upon, which condition they all became liable, and the holder might proceed against either. Such was the law as decided. Independently of this, it must be obvious that no reason can be assigned for requiring the holder first to proceed against a subsequent indorser, inasmuch as a recovery frota him would give him an immediate action against the prior indorser. This is contrary to the principle of Riddle vs. Mandeville. There is no ground, however, for the suggestion. To the other he replied, that if it appeared (which he did not admit) that there was no beneficial consideration from the bank to Weisiger.; still there was a consideration sufficient at law and in equity to support the contract1 — the’consideration of injury to the bank. The money was loaned’ (whoever may have received it) upon the credit of the' in-, dorser. His contract was the inducement to lend, without' which the loan would; not have been made.. 2. , The Complainants, he said,' had folly performed the condition to entitle them to recover from.the indorser. They had'proceeded at law with due diligence against the drawer until he became insolvent, and further pursuit became hopeless. ,To proceed further could not be required, and would be liable to censure if attempted át the expense of the' in-dorser. He is answerable for costs reasonably incurred, but not fpr expenses entirely thrown away. The note fell due the 26th of September 1821. Suit was brought against the drawer the 2d of October 1821, to the next term. At the next term judgment was obtained. A fir fa. issued December 29, 1821, and a ca. sa. the 11th of April 1822. In the mean time, to wit, December 14, 1821, Voorhees was discharged under the insolvent law of the United States. So that here there were due diligence, and established legal insolvency. There was even more than due diligence ; for after the insolvency, the process of. execution was unnecessary and could only have been taken out from abundant caution. He then examined all the decided cases in Kentucky, so far as they were accessible(a), and proceeded to state, that he perceived in them nothing which appeared to him to interfere with , the complainants’ right to recover. The -point to be .established by a reasonably diligent pursuit, is the insolvency of the drawer, or the impossibility of getting the money from him. Upon that being established, the right arises against the indorser. It may be established in various ways. 1. By showing that he was out of the state and not -within the reach of process, and without property in the. state. This he inferred from Spratt us. ,M’Kinney, l Bibb, 595. Stapp vs. Anderson, 1 Marsh. >535. . ,2. By the úse of due diligence, and inability to recover, or prosecution to insolvency. He must sue in a reasonable time. M’Kinney ns. M’Connell, 1 Bibb, 239. M’Ginnis vs. Burton, 3 Bibb, 6. But there is no fixed time. Collyer vs. Whitaker, 2 Marsh. 197. . Perhaps it must generally be the next term. Clair vs. Barr, 2 Marsh. 25,5. He must use the ordinary remedies. Smallwood vs. Wood; .1 Bibb, 542. But he is not bound to use extraordinary ones. Oldham vs. Bengan; 2. Ldttell, 132. He must in general- issue fi. fa. and ca. sa. and issue them in succession. He cannot issue them together. No decided case gives any.countenance to the suggestion that he can do so. The records in this court show tnat.he cannot.. The return to the fi. fa. directed to the county where party resides, is conclusive to show that there is no property in the county, and, prima facie, that there is none in,the state. The result is to be insolvency, evidenced by legal pursuit. The-end and. object is to make this appear. But there is another case: ■•3. Insolvency, legally ascertained by other means. When tbis'occurred after the note fell due, he contended, that.it. dispensed with legal pursuit., When it occurred after proceedings begun, he contended it dispensed with furtherpro-secution., .The contrary, doctrine would be absurd, the object being to ascertain .insolvency. Why proceed after it had beén ascertained4? Upon this point, there was a seeming contradiction in the decided cases, but. it. was not a real one. It'was explained by the principle of the decisions, which was this: that parol evidence should not be received to prove insolvency. It must be a legal insolvency, legally or judicially ascertained. This would appear from a brief attention to the cases. In Collyer vs. Whitaker, 2 Marsh. 197, it. is'said, “ insolvency, in.general, only legitimately proved by suit.” “ The prosecution of suit, however, is essential, barely as the means of ascertaining, &c.” In Young vs. Cosby, 3 Bibb, 227, if the assignee prosecute diligently as far as a prudent man would do in a case where, he was, solely interested,.that is all that is required.” In Stapp vs. Anderson, 1 Ma.sk. 535, insolvency and removal of7 the drawer from.the. state were .held sufficient, per se, to subject assignor, without suit against. drawer. “ The law,” says the court, “ does not require any one to dp a vain or idle act.” If sued to insolvency on one note, therefore,, not necessary .to sue upon another. These cases are supposed to be contradicted by Clair vs. Barr, 2 Marsh. 255. In that case, the drawer was living when the note fell due. He died on the third day of the first term, being about two, months after the note fell due. The court decide that proof of insolvency did not absolve the holder from the necessity of suing: “ he (the drawer) may have had credit, though he had no property.” The decision, therefore, amounts to' nothing more, than that, at a ^subsequent time, parol evidence shall not be received to prove that the party was actually insolvent at a prior time. In other words, actual insolvency no excuse. The debtor was going on in business, “ had credit,” and possibly might have paid. How could this be if he were legally divested of all his property, and stripped of all his credit, by judicial insolvency ?• It is a reasonable distinction; the same .that is made.-by the priority laws of the United. States. ■ They disregard actual in-, solvency. This case, therefore, leaves in full force the reasonable doctrine of Young vs. Cosby, and Stapp vs. Anderson: otherwise understood, it would be contrary to the very principle of the law, and, would go far towards .extinguishing all liability of the indorser, already sufficiently reduced. 3. The discharge by the judge, and the waiver of the thirty days imprisonment, or thirty days notice, did not take away the right of the complainants. Why keep him in prison1? The insolvency would no more have been ascertained át the end of thirty days, than at the beginning. It would have been mere wanton cruelty to keep the debtor in prison. The law does, not require it. The decisions in Kentucky, which are in the spirit of humanity to the debtor, do not require it. Else why not require the creditor to pay the prison fees, and thus continue the debtor’s imprisonment? It is not necessary to use undue severity or indulge ^unproductive cruelty. Young vs. Cosby., 3 Bibb, 227. It has.'been supposed (and perhaps the belief led to this decision) that Clair vs. Bari-established the doctrine, that, a creditor was bound to keep iri prison a destituté and insolvent debtor, in the hope that, though hé had nothing himself, something might be extortéd 6y his sufferings from the charity of his friends. This is not a just motive^ nor one that a court ,.eán countenance. Imprisonment of a debtor is not to be used at this time of day for inflicting a punishment upon him or his friends. Why then, it is said, is a ca. sa. given 9 The answer is. very easy: It is to compel the surrender of property, which, from its nature or locality, cannot be made amenable to other process,' But Clair vs. Barr does not proceed-upon the principle imputed to it. Rightly understood, it is in harmony with the other cases, and with the. obvious dictates of humanity and justice. . . . As to the supposed neglect to charge Voorhees in execution, he said he doubted whether it was in any case required, Or even admissible; for the decisions in Kentucky,made it nécessáry first to issue a fi. fa. But without entering into that question, he said that, in this case the discharge under the insolvent law dispensed with that step, and, indeed, made it impossible He submitted, therefore,' that the decree below, was not; warranted by the principles upon which, the liability of-in-dorsers rests, nor by the decisions in Kentucky; which had certainly gone' far enough in limiting, and cripplihg the. rights of the holder. stated that it was denied that any consideration had been received for his indorsement by Daniel Weisiger; and he also denied that the bank had used due diligence to obtain payment of the note from the drawer. The facts of the cáse are uncontradicted upon the pleadings and exhibits, as there was no evidence introduced tb oppose the statement and allegations in the answer of the appellee in the circuit courts The Court should be aware of the nature and legal character of paper of the description of that upon which the appellants claim, to receive. Such instruments are not negotiable by the laws of Kentucky; the statute of Anne never having been in force in that state. The party who sues may do so upon, a statute of Kentucky, which authorises the suit in the name of the assignee, but goes no further. The true, principle upon which the responsibility of the assignor-depends, and upon which it can alone be supported, is the general liability' to refund that which he may have received, on a consideration which has failed. 1 Bibb, b45. In 1 Marshall, 544, it was decided that this liability was thus restricted, and did not extend to the amount stated in the note;. Under the authority of cases in Kentucky, the assignor is- not liable without a consideration received by Aim; nor unless the consideration bé alleged and proved. ÍBÍ&M96. 2 Bibb, 425.. The only case which impugns the uniform current of decisions in Kentucky upon these principles, is that of Allen' vs. Prior, 3 Marshall, 305. The appellee received nothing for his indorsement of the note; arid he is, therefore, protected from all liability upon it, .by the decisions of the courts of Kentucky. There cannot be a liability by the appellee, considering him as .having, guarantied the debt. Such a liability should have been in writing-; as, unless it is so, the.statuteof frauds destroys it. It is not denied , that the. injury a promissee may-receive, as well as a benefit given to the promissor, is a good con- . sideration; but if the principle is otherwise, it can be.claimed only in favour of an original indorsee. In this case the bank stands independent of such a principle, for to the bank no pro-; mise was ever made by the appellee, Lis engagement having been made to Hanna, the preceding indorsee. But if aresponsi-bility by the assignor does exist, in a case where, he received no benefit, and á chancellor will interposé and enforce the contract; this will only be where the condition imposed.by the law governing the contract has been performed. The next inquiry is, therefore, has the law creating this liability of the assignor been complied with The law in Kentucky stands thus : The assignee ought ]to take every compulsory process of law against the original debtor, until his insolvency is established; or the suit and all incidental remedies are found insufficient to coerce payment. Smallwood vs. Woods, 1 Bibb, 546. . To omit holding to bail, when bail is of right demandable, if on a có. sa. the return is non est inventus ; is negligence. 2Márshall,í97. The assignee is;bound to issue afi. fa. and a ca. sü. and if the ,debtor is 1104. found, to; proceed against the bail. Nothing'short of this will do. iBibb, 147. In M’Einnéy vs. M’Connél!, 1 Bibb, 239, it was decided that a delay of fourteen months,'is per se negligence, no matter what other steps may have been taken. . Averment of insolvency, and consequently proof of. that fact, by any other means than ■ a legal proceeding on the note assigned, will not be sufficient id chafed, the indorser, -3 Bibb, 6: Mr Wickliffe also cited the case of Hogan vs.'Vanel, 2 Bibb, 34; Thompson vs. Caldwell, , 2 Bibbj 290; also 3 Bibb, 6 ;. apd Young vs. Cosby,'3 Bibbj 227; upon ,these points. Also 2 Marshall, :524; 2 Littell, 134; and Parker. V8i 0wingson, in 3 Marshall. These authorities, he contended; maintain the absolute obligation of industry and vigilance on the part.of the assignee; and they also establish the principle, that'the rules in relation to a guarantee are to be construed Under the law,-with greaf strictness. He alsoi argued that the proceedings under w,hich the drawer wad discharged from the process against him, by the district judge, were irregular, and subjected the appellants to alfthe consequences of their illegality. By-the pleadings and evidence it appeared- that .the note fell due on the 23d of September. A writ was issued oh the 2d,of‘Oct0.ber, in which bail was required: this was returned “ executed” on the 6th of November, the defendant having been committed to prison on the preceding day. Oh the 20th of November, judgment was entered by default, and af-terwards in UecemberjdMnwg the añina Jem, the jailor surrendered the body in court. It was the duty of the plaintiff to charge the'defendant' in execution; and if not so charged within, thirty days, then, and not before, he might be discharged under the insolvent law. The discharge by the district judge was before the- thirty days, of a.prisoner not in execution; and this was done by a waive* bf the timé required by law. The assignee is not permitted to run a-head of the law, and discharge a debtor before, under, its provisions, he is entitled to it. By not proceeding According to law, and. failing to pursue the course the law toarks'out, he releases the assignor from all responsibility: to him. The district judge had no jurisdiction. His áuthority was .to administer the oath; but.the act of congress directs him not to do so until after , thirty days. The period of thirty days is given for the benefit of the creditor, and of those who are interested that the debt should be paid. All such are therefore, parties interested in the proceeding; and if the consent of the creditors can give the right to discharge, all should consent. The assignor should have consented, as his responsibility became consummate by the discharge. The consent of the counsel for the appellant's, alone gave jurisdiction to the district court; or was so. considered. If it did not, where is the prisoner.1? The discharge being, illegal, he lias escaped, and may be pursued and retaken, or the jailor was'liable. . It is manifest that the appellants considered that-they had not used the diligence required of them. They proceeded afterwards by aji.fat which was issued on the 29th of December, but which did not reach the hands of the marshal until the 9 th of January following; and Which was in March returned “ no effects.” After the return in March, a ca.-$«., issued in April, one month having expired. It has, been decided, that it is'-the duty of the patty, to plaéé his writ in the hands of the officer in a reasonable time. Tremblers. Webb, 1 Monroe, 100. . He further argued, that if the discharge of the drawer by. the district judge was not in the suit, brought upon the "note for which the appellee was7 now claimed to be liable, and this might be inferred .. from the record, .the discharge in another suit was not evidence of insolvency.; In reference to one of the cases cited by the counsel for the appellants, he argued, that where it had beenconsidered that not holding to bail was. pot laches, the case was one in which a speedier , remedy^ was obtained by petition, apd summons, in which no bail was allowed, and good faith was presumed.