percentage of its debt than some other creditor of the same class.
We do not see that anything would have been added to the clarity of the Referee's Order by a detailing of the evidence which he thought sufficient to sustain findings of insolvency and reasonable belief of insolvency. There was no question of credibility of witnesses, or of weighing conflicting testimony. The question before the Referee in this regard was simply whether or not he viewed the following undisputed facts as sufficient to find that petitioner had reasonable cause to believe that the Smiths were insolvent on August 25, 1961.
Those facts were that in the spring of 1961, after the Smiths had failed to pay any of the installments due under the contract, the petitioner, without notice to the bankrupts, removed some of the air heating and conditioning equipment from the diner. Thereafter, other creditors of the bankrupts pleaded with the petitioner to replace the equipment 'because they said that they (the Smiths) would have to close unless we (petitioner) would agree to put the equipment back in operation again.' (Record p. 34) The equipment was then replaced by petitioner, but first coin meters were installed which insured petitioner's collecting some money for the operation of the equipment. In light of this evidence, we think the finding of the Referee that the petitioner had reasonable cause to believe the Smiths were insolvent on August 25, 1961, was not clearly erroneous.
Petitioner also contends that there is no evidence from which the Referee could have found that the Smiths actually were insolvent on the date of the filing of the security interest. The word 'insolvent' refers to the excess of liabilities over assets. The schedules filed on August 28 by the Smiths with their petition in bankruptcy shows that their liabilities did exceed their assets: these papers were sworn to on August 25, the same day that petitioner filed its security interest. This was certainly evidence that the Smiths were insolvent, in the bankrupt sense, on August 25, 1961.
Finally, petitioner contends that there is no evidence that the transfer would enable petitioner to obtain a greater percentage of its debt than some other creditor of the same class. But as the Trustee points out in his brief, the schedules show that the unsecured creditors will not be paid in full. Since the transfer would enable the petitioner to reclaim its equipment, it would thereby enable petitioner in effect, to be paid in full, and thus obtain a greater percentage of its debt than other unsecured creditors.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we find that none of the Referee's findings were clearly erroneous. The Order of the Referee will be affirmed.