Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event. —
FOLLETT, J.:
The facts in this case are the same as those in Sinclair v. Dwight (see ante, p. 297), except the plaintiff did not know of the sale made December 27, 1893, by the appellant of his share to Sinclair, and the debts due this plaintiff arose October 1, 1894, and January 9, 1895, after the sale by the appellant of his share to Sinclair had been registered, and the decision in that case controls this case. The judgment should be reversed and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. All concurred.