CORNELL LAW LIBRARY QforttfU Ham i>rl|aol Slibratg KF1534.M82""""""""'"-"'"^ 3 1924 019 310 295 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis bool< is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924019310295 A. TREi^TISE ON Fraudulent Conveyances AND Creditors' Remedies AT LAW AND IN EQUITY INCLUDING A CONSIDERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE BANKRUPTCY LAW APPLICABLE TO FRAUDULENT TRANS- FERS AND THE REMEDIES THEREFOR, AND THE PRO- CEDURE OF TRUSTEES IN BisSERUPTCY IN ACTIONS EITHER IN STATE OR FEDERAL COURTS FOR THE RECOVERY OF PROPERTY FRAUDU- LENTLY TRANSFERRED BY THE BANKRUPT. ByDEWITT C. MOOREl OF THK JOHNSTOWN (NEW YORK) BAB, AUTHOR OV " THE LAW OF CABRIBBS." IN TWO VOLUMES VOL. 1. ALBANY, N. Y.: MATTHEW BENDEE & 00. 1908. COPYBIGHT, 1908, By MATTHEW BENDER & CO. PREFACE The subject of fraudulent conveyances has been from the earliest times one of great interest to the public and to the legal profession. Notwithstanding the enlightened efforts of modern jurisprudence to remedy the evils growing out of the fraudulent acts of embarrassed, failing, or dishonest debtors and to devise means for the suppression of such practices, the reported cases involving fraudulent alienations and covinous schemes devised by debtors to defeat the just claims of their creditors are sufficient to demonstrate that this peculiar vice of society is in our day increasing rather than diminishing. The subject is, therefore, one of present and of great and far-reaching importance. The Bankruptcy Law now in operation can hardly be said to have proved effective in ameliorating this condition of affairs, and indeed it in no way lessens the value and importance, from a professional standpoint, of the fullest understanding of the estab- lished principles and rules of law pertaining to this subject. On the contrary, the Bankruptcy Law gives an added importance to a thorough knowledge of the law of fraudulent conveyances. The Bankruptcy Law makes a fraudulent transfer of his prop- erty by a debtor, if made within four months of the filing of a petition in bankruptcy, an act of bankruptcy, and declares such a transfer void, and if the transfer is also voidable under State laws, it may be set aside and the property or its value recovered by proper proceedings begun in the State courts, within the lim- itations of time fixed by the State statutes, or in the federal courts. But what is or is not a fraudulent conveyance is not determined by the BankrTiptcy Law, nor are the proceedings for setting it aside or recovering the property or its value prescribed by that Act. Hence, the general rules and principles of the law of fraudulent conveyances, the statutory law of the various States on the subject and its exposition, the methods of procedure in the State courts. iv Peeface. and all kindred questions, become of prime importance when a fraudulent transfer is to be dealt with. ISTone of these questions" comes properly within the province of a work on Bankruptcy, as the greater portion of the Bankruptcy Law is foreign to the sub- ject of Fraudulent Conveyances. These views have led me to believe that this work will be a timely and possibly useful one to my professional brethren. Briefly, the statutes and decisions cqpcerning fraudulent con- veyances to defeat creditors, from that landmark of our statutory law, the Statute of Elizabeth, and its exposition, to the present time, have been reviewed, and the law and the practice thereunder fully, accurately, and concisely stated. The recent decisions, in which the fundamental principles of the law are applied to the facts which reflect present day conditions and the skill, cunning, and ingenuity of fraudulent debtors in devising new schemes and methods for the cover of fraudulent transactions, have also been col- lated, and given precedence in the citations as, perhaps, the most valuable, being on some questions controlling, because they are the latest. I, however, present the result of my labors with hesitancy, knowing that, as it must necessarily fall short of one's ideal, it cannot escape the criticisms of the exacting for any shortcomings which it may reveal. But, with the consciousness of having made it as accurate, full, and complete as the time which I could give to the work and the ability which I had to bestow upon it would permit, I submit it to the consideration of the profession, trusting that it may be well received and serve a useful purpose. Johnstown, ![. T., June 1, 1908. DEWITT C. MOOKE. T^BLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTEK I. Feaudulent Conveyances Geneeallt. PAGE Section 1. No positive definition of fraud 1 2. What constitutes a fraudulent conveyance 3 3. Tiests as to fraudulent conveyances 5 4. Characteristics of fraud 6 5. Circumstances establishing fraud 7 6. Origin of written law against fraudulent conveyances 9 7. Early English statutes avoiding fraudulent conveyances ... 10 8. Statute of 13 Elizabeth for the protection of creditors 11 9. Statutes in the United States 12 10. Statutes merely declaratory of the common law 13 11. Statute of 27 Elizabeth in favor of subsequent purchasers. . 14 12. Construction or interpretation of statutes 16 13. Effect of subsequent statutory provisions 17 14. Twyne's Case 18 15. Prevalence of fraudulent transfers 20 16. History and comparative legislation 22 CHAPTEK II. !N"atttee and Foem of Teansfee. Section 1. Nature and form of transfer generally 26 2. Particular forms of fraudulent conveyances 28 3. Transfers as security 31 4. Conditional sales 33 5. Purchase of property through or in name of third person. . 35 6. Purchase of property by husband in name of wife 38 7. Purchase of personal property by husband in name of wife. . 40 8. Payments of liens. — Loans. — Improvements on lands of another 40 9. Collusive and fraudulent legal proceedings 41 10. Collusive judgments 42 11. Confession of judgment 44 12. Statutory requirements as to confessions of judgment 48 (V) vi Table of Coa'tents. PAaB Section 13. Foreclosure of mortgages and deeds of trust 50 14. Execution and other judicial sales 52 15. Collusive attachment 55 16. Fraudulent organization of corporation 56 17. Waste or loss through debtor's negligence 59 18. Payment of debt before it is due 60 19. Cancellation or release of debt or claim 60 20. Eescission of contracts and neglect or failure to take con- veyance 60 21. Conducting business in the name of another 61 22. Keeping mortgage in force after payment 63 23. Keeping judgment open after payment 63 24. Keeping certificate of execution sale in force 63 25. Antedated note 63 26. Fraud directed against debtor 64 CHAPTER III. The Effect of Fraudulent Conveyance. Section 1. The effect of fraudulent conveyance in general 66 2. Transactions fraudulent in part 71 3. Fraud in one or more of several transactions 74 4. Effect of prior fraudulent transaction on subsequent valid transfer 76 5. Effect of subsequent fraudulent transaction on prior valid transfer 77 6. Conveyance must be fraudulent when made 80 7. Purging conveyance of fraud by matter ex post facto 80 8. Conveyance validated by assent or aflSrmance of creditors. . 83 9. Prejudice to rights of creditors 84 10. Conflict of laws. — ^What law governs 86 CHAPTEE IV. Peopeety and Eights T'eansfeeeed Whiich Ceeditoes May Eeach. Section 1. Property subject to claims of creditors in general 90 2. Estates which may be reached 92 3. Personal property 93 4. Property or rights without pecuniary value 94 5. Interest of debtor in property conveyed 96 Table op Contents. vii PAGE Section 6. Conveyance of property in another county 98 7. Eights or choses in action 98 8. Earnings or wages of debtor 103 9. Earnings, services and savings of wife 105 10. Earnings or wages of debtor's minor child 108 11. Earnings or wages of public officers or their deputies Ill 12. Services, labor, talents and industry of debtor Ill 13. Services rendered by husband for wife 112 14. Services rendered by parent for child 116 15. Earnings of debtor's property 116 16. Good-will of a business 116 17. Membership in stock or merchant's exchange 117 18. Patents, Copyrights and trade-marks 117 19. Fire insurance 118 20. Life insurance policies and proceeds thereof 119 21. Payment of premiums for life insurance 122 22. Payment of premiums not voluntary or fraudulent 127 23. Premiums not paid by debtor 128 24. Improvements, rents and profits of real estate 129 25. Crops, ores and other products of the land 131 26. Equitable estates, rights and interests 133 27. Equity of redemption 135 28. Interest under contract of purchase 135 29. Property purchased in name of third person 135 30. Reservations by debtor 136 31. Property conveyed by debtor to equitable owner 137 32. Conveyance in pursuance of parol trust 139 33. Conveyance by husband to or for wife 140 34. Reconveyance by fraudulent grantee 143 35. Property subject to power of appointment 144 36. Separate estate or property of debtor's wife 145 37. Husband's curtesy or other interest in wife's property 147 38. Wife's dower or other interest in husband's property 149 30. Community property 150 40. Property of adopted child 150 41. Exempt property in general 151 42. Homestead in general 159 43. Homestead included in conveyance of other property 166 44. Crops grown on homestead 167 45. Purchase of homestead and payment of liens 167 46. Improvements on homestead 169 47. Insurance on homestead 170 48. Change in character of property and following proceeds... 170 49. Stock in trade sold in bulk 173 viii Table of Contents. CHAPTEK V. Who Mat Attack Validity of Conveyance. PAGE Section 1. Persons who may attack conveyance generally 176 2. Pre-existing creditors 179 3. Subsequent creditors 186 4. Effect of fraud as to pre-existing creditors 191 5. Effect of prior and continuing indebtedness 194 6. Knowledge or notice of fraudulent transactions 195 7. Creditors whose claims are barred or satisfied 196 8. Nature of claims of creditors 198 9. Claims for torts ' 200 10. Claims for alimony 202 11. Persons representing creditors 203 12. Receivers in supplementary proceedings 204 13. Sureties and endorsers 205 14. Purchasers at judicial sales 206 15. Officers levying attachment or execution 207 16. Personal representatives 208 17. Estoppel and waiver 209 18. Knowledge or assent 210 19. Affirmance or ratification 211 20. Participation 212 21. Receipt of benefit under conveyance 213 22. Subsequent purchasers in general 214 23. Who are subsequent purchasers 216 24. Bone fide purchasers for value 217 25. Effect of notice 218 CHAPTER VI. Badges of Feafd. Section 1. Badges of fraud in general 222 2. Recital of false consideration 225 3. Consideration fictitious in whole or part 229 4. Consideration inadequate 230 5. Excessive security 235 6. Excess in amount secured 237 7. Transfers in anticipation of or pending legal proceedings . . 238 8. Transfers of all the debtor's property 243 9. Excessive effort to give appearance of fairness 246 10. Suspicious circumstances unexplained 246 Table of Contents. ix PAGE Section 11. Transfer without change of possession 247 12. Reservation of trust or benefit for grantor 248 13. Relationship of parties 248 14. Indebtedness or insolvency of debtor 249 15. Absolute transfer intended as security 250 16. Concealment of or failure to record or file instrument 251 17. Secrecy and haste 254 18. Sales on credit 256 19. Transactions not in usual course of business 257 20. Other circumstances indicating fraud 259 21. Repelling badges of fraud 261 CHAPTEE VII. Indebtedness oe Insolvency of Geantoe. Section 1. Effect of indebtedness of grantor upon conveyances for valuable consideration 262 2. Effect of indebtedness of grantor upon voluntary convey- ances 263 3. What constitutes indebtedness 266 4. Payment or provision for payment of debts by grantor 268 5. Assumption and payment of debts by grantor 270 6. Effect of insolvency of grantor upon conveyances for valu- able consideration 271 7. Effect of insolvency of grantor upon voluntary conveyances 273 8. What constitutes insolvency 275 9. Retention of property sufficient to pay debts 277 10. Effect of insolvency subsequent to transfer 283 11. Executory contract or gift consummated after insolvency.. 285 12. Insolvency at time suit is. brought. 286 CHAPTEE VIII. CONSIDBEATION. Section 1. Nature and sufficiency of consideration generally 289 2. Nominal consideration 292 3. Illegal consideration 293 4. Fictitious consideration 294 5. Natural love and affection 294 6. Moral obligation 295 7. Executory consideration 296 8. Promissory notes and bonds 297 X Table of Contents. PAGE Section 9. Future services 297 10. Future support 298 11. Future advances 300 12. Contingent liability in general 302 13. Security to endorser, surety or guarantor 303 14. Assumption of liability in general 305 15. Assumption and payment of debt by indorsee or surety. . . . 307 16. Assumption of mortgage or other lien 308 17. Executed agreement to pay debt 308 18. Pre-existing liability.- — Payment or satisfaction of, or security for, pre-existing debt 309 19. Property in excess of debt 313 20. Amount secured in excess of actual debt 316 21. Debts not yet due 319 22. Debts barred by limitation 319 23. Taking additional security for debts amply secured 320 24. Conveyance in execution of prior valid agreement 321 25. Marriage as consideration. — ^Ante-nuptial settlement 322 26. Effect of marriage on prior voluntary conveyance 325 27. Conveyance after marriage in accordance with ante-nuptial agreement 325 28. Post-nuptial agreement 327 29. Adequacy of consideration 329 30. Partial invalidity or illegality of consideration 331 31. Consideration usurious in part 334 32. Voluntary conveyance. — Effect of want of consideration .... 335 33. Voluntary conveyances as to existing creditors 336 34. Conveyance in accordance with prior parol gift 345 35. Statutory rule 345 36. Voluntary conveyances as to subsequent creditors 347 37. Insufficiency or inadequacy of consideration 352 38. Transactions between husband and wife. — Nature, adequacy, and sufficiency of consideration 356 39. Eelease of wife's dower right 357 40. Eelease of homestead right 360 41. Property vested in husband by marriage 360 42. Effect of failure to reduce property to possession 361 43. Earnings, services and savings of wife 362 44. Consideration paid by husband for property purchased in name of wife 363 45. Assumption of husband's debts 365 46. Payment of pre-existing debts in general 365 47. Repayment of money loaned by wife 369 48. Appropriation of wife's separate estate 370 49. Rents and profits of wife's separate estate 370 60. Satisfaction of wife's paraphernal rights 371 Table of Contents. XI PAGE Section 51. Property in excess of debt 371 52. Laches of wife in asserting claim 372 53. Conveyance in execution of prior agreement 373 54. Conveyance to confirm prior conveyance 374 55. Efi'ect of want or insuflfioiency of consideration 375 56. Transactions between parent and child. — ^Nature, adequacy, and sufficiency of consideration 376 57. Earnings of minor child 379 58. Services rendered by minor child 379 59. Services rendered by a child after majority 380 60. Services rendered by grandchild 382 61. Future support generally -. 382 62. Future support as part consideration... 383 63. Past support as part consideration 384 64. Assumption of debts 384 65. Payment of pre-existing debts 385 66. Effect of want or insufficiency of consideration 387 CHAPTEK IX. Confidential Relations op Parties. Section 1. Transactions between persons in fiduciary and friendly relations 389 2. Transactions between employer and employee 391 3. Transactions between relatives in general 391 4. Transactions between husband and wife 396 5. Purchase of husband's property at private or public sale . . 400 6. Conveyances to wife from third persons 401 7. Giving false credit to husband 404 8. Transactions between parent and child 407 9. Procuring conveyance from third person 411 CHAPTER X. Reservations AND Trusts for Grantor. Section 1. Benefits reserved to grantor in general as element or evi- dence of fraud 412 2. Conveyances in trust for grantor 417 3. What constitutes conveyances in trust for grantor 420 4. Keservation of life estate in grantor 422 5. Keservation of life estate with power of appointment at death 423 xii Table ok Contents. PAGE Section 6. Reservation of power to revoke 424 7. Reservation of support or care of grantor or family 425 8. Reservation of surplus 427 9. Reservation of power to direct application of proceeds .... 42^ 10. Employment of debtor 430 11. Reservation of right of repurchase or return of property. . . 431 12. Reservation of power to appoint substitute trustee 432 13. Reservation of exempt property 432 14. Secret reservations or trusts as element or evidence of fraud 433 15. What constitutes a secret reservation or trust 438 16. Absolute conveyance intended as security 440 17. Absolute sale with reservation of surplus 444 18. Reservation of right to repurchase 446 19. Employment of debtor 447 20. Future support of grantor 449 21. Purchase at execution or other sale for benefit of debtor. . . 450 22. Subsequent disposition of property by debtor in creditor's favor 451 23. Discharge of secret trust by subsequent agreement 452 CHAPTEE XI. Peefeeences to Ceeditoes. Section 1. Right to prefer creditor and validity of transaction in general 455 2. Statutory provisions 467 3. Constitutionality of statutes 469 4. What law governs 469 5. Nature and form of preference in general 470 6. Sale to pay debts to preferred creditors 476 7. Failure to apply proceeds to debts 478 8. Splitting demand to expedite recovery 478 9. Delegation of power to prefer 479 10. Nature of property transferred 479 11. Nature of debts preferred in general 480 12. Debts not due 481 13. Contingent debts and liabilities on behalf of debtor 482 14. Usurious interest 483 15. Attorney's fees 483 16. Debts arising out of breach of trust 484 17. Secured debts generally 485 18. Discharge of mortgage on homestead 485 19. Transfer of incumbered property in payment of incumbrance 486 Table of Contents. xiii PAGE Section 20. Transfer of all the debtor's property 486 21. Knowledge and intent of parties generally 488 22. Participation of preferred creditor in fraudulent intent. . . 493 23. Preference not invalidated by mere fraudulent intent 494 24. Secrecy and haste 498 25. Preference pending suit in general 499 26. Intent to defeat judgment, execution or attachment 500 27. Agreement to prefer 502 28. Transfer partly as preference and partly on other considera- tion 503 29. Where present consideration is exempt 505 30. Present consideration to be paid by debtor to other creditors 505 31. Other debts assumed by transferee 506 32. Creditor's promise to compoimd felony 507 33. Preferences between relatives generally 508 34. Preference of husband and wife 512 CHAPTEE XII. Retention of Possession oe Appaeent Title by Geantoe. Section 1. Retention of possession as element or evidence of fraud. . . 517 2. Transfers presumptively or prima facie fraudulent 517 3. Transfers fraudulent per se or conclusively 524 4. Sufficiency of change of possession. — Open, visible, and notorious possession 528 5. Exclusive possession necessary 530 6. Exclusive possession necessary where parties live together. . 531 7. Gifts to minor children 532 8. Question for the jury 533 9. Continued change of possession 534 10. Subsequent possession by vendor after change of possession . 535 11. Possession by vendor as agent or bailee of purchaser 536 12. Possession by vendor as clerk or servant of purchaser 537 13. Possession by vendor as lessee of purchaser 538 14. Constructive and symbolical delivery 539 15. Where actual delivery is impossible or property is not susceptible of complete manual delivery 540 16. Bulky, cumbersome, and ponderous articles 542 17. Property in possession of third party as bailee 543 18. Grain stored in elevator 545 19. Possession by agent or servant of vendor 546 20. Delivery of a part for the whole 546 21. Intangible property 547 xiv Table of Contents. PAGE Section 22. Delivery of bill of sale 548 23. Possession of land on which personal property is situated . . 548 24. Delivery to common carrier 549 25. Vendee already in possession 549 26. Separation or marking of property purchased 550 27. Time of delivery. — ^Must be within reasonable time 551 28. Change of possession before levy 552 29. Assignment in trust for creditors 553 30. Possession remaining with mortgagor 554 31. Effect of retaining vendor's sign 555 32. Notice of transaction. — Publicity and notoriety 556 33. Judicial and public sales 556 34. Effect of knowledge or notice as to existing creditors 558 35. Effect of knowledge or notice as to subsequent creditors .... 558 36. Constructive notice and want of it. — Eecording instrument of transfer 659 37. Effect of failure to record or file instrument in general. . . . 559 38. Rule as to conveyance of real estate 562 39. Growing crops 565 40. Burden of proof 567 CHAPTEE XIII. Featjdtjlent Knowledge and Intent. Section 1. Intent of grantor to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. . . . 568 2. Intent to defraud one or more creditors 575 3. Accomplishment of purpose 576 4. Knowledge and intent of grantee. — Effect of want of knowl- edge or notice where transfer is for a valuable considera- tion 577 5. Effect of want of knowledge or notice where transfer is voluntary 584 6. Effect of knowledge or notice where transfer is to one not a creditor 587 7. Effect of proper application of proceeds 591 8. Knowledge of co-grantee 691 9. Effect of knowledge or notice where transfer is to a cred- itor. — Participation in fraudulent intent where debt is sole consideration 592 10. Participation in fraudulent intent where debt is only part of consideration 602 11. Recital of false consideration 605 12. When creditor's intent is immaterial 606 13. Participation of trustee imputable to beneficiary 607 Table of Contents. xv PAGE Section 14. Participation of one creditor imputable to all 60S 15. Time when knowledge or notice is acquired 608 16. Duty to see to application of proceeds of property 611 17. Constructive or implied notice as equivalent to actual knowledge 611 18. Knowledge of facts to put on inquiry 615 19. Mere suspicion 616 20. Matters of common or general knowledge 617 21. Knowledge or notice of indebtedness or insolvency of grantor 617 22. Inadequacy of consideration 619 23. Sale of business and entire stock of goods 621 24. KLnowledge or notice of the pendency of suits against the grantor 622 25. Knowledge that debtor is about to abscond 623 26. What inquiry is sufficient 623 27. Examination of books and papers 623 28. Knowledge of, or notice to, agent 624 29. Knowledge or notice implied from relation of parties 625 30. Transactions founded on consideration 626 CHAPTEE XIV. Rights and Liabilities of Paeties and Puechasees. Section 1. Validity of transaction as between original parties 63& 2. Right to impeach or rescind transaction as fraudulent. . . . 638 3. Where parties are not in pari delicto 643 4. Mutual rights and liabilities. — EflFect of transaction as to property rights in general 645 6. As to title subsequently acquired 647 6. Adverse possession as between grantor and grantee 648 7. Effect of setting aside conveyance 649 8. Right to recover property fraudulently conveyed 649 9. Effect of voluntary conveyance 653 10. Right to redeem property transferred as security 654 11. Enforcement of fraudulent contract or conveyance in general 655 12. Enforcement of fraudulent mortgage 656 13. Enforcement of trust for grantor in general 657 14. Purchase at execution sale for benefit of debtor 659 15. Right to proceeds or profits 660 16. Right to enforce payment of consideration 661 17. Enforcement of note given as consideration 662 18. Recovery by grantee of consideration paid 663 xvi Table op Contents. PAGE Section 19. Eights and liabilities of several grantees inter se 664 20. Contribution between several grantees 665 21. Rights and liabilities as to third persons in general 665 22. Rights of maker of note fraudulently transferred 667 23. As to creditors of grantee 667 24. Eights and liabilities of grantees as to creditors and sub- sequent purchasers. — ^As to creditors. — ^As to property and proceeds thereof 669 25. Right to require resort to other property 672 26. Intermingled goods 673 27. Increase or product of property generally 673 28. Right to growing crops 674 29. Several fraudulent transactions 675 30. Possession of grantee adverse to creditors 675 31. Right of grantee to attack execution sale 676 32. Right of grantee to pay creditor's claim and retain prop- erty 677 33. Personal liability of grantee in general 678 34. Conveyances in name of third person 681 35. Liability as to property never in possession 684 36. Liability as garnishee 685 37. Extent of liability in general 685 38. Eents, issues, and profits 687 39. Interest 689 40. Reimbursement of consideration and expenditures, indem- nity, and subrogation, in case of constructive fraud.... 690 41. Where conveyance is actually fraudulent 694 42. Care of property and expenses in general 698 43. Compensation for improvements 700 44. Purchase of judgment against grantor 701 45. Title subsequently acquired by grantee 702 46. Eights of grantees as bona fide purcliasers 702 47. Nature and extent of consideration in general 705 48. Rights and liabilities of grantees as to subsequent pur- chasers 707 49. Rights and liabilities of purchasers from grantee generally. 708 50. Eights and liabilities as to original grantor 709 51. Eights and liabilities as to original grantee 710 52. Eights and liabilities as to creditors of original grantor. . . 711 53. Mortgage or conveyance to creditors of grantor 713 54. Eights and liabilities of iona fi,de purchasers from grantee generally 714 55. Notice 715 56. Consideration 718 57. Eights and liabilities as to original parties 719 Table of Contents. xvii PAGE Section 58. Rights and liabilities as to creditors of original grantor generally 720 59. Protection according to nature and extent of consideration 723 60. Mortgagees and pledgees 724 61. Creditors of grantee 725 62. Purchaser from bona fide grantee 726 63. Original grantor claiming under hona fide purchaser from grantee 727 64. Bights and liabilities as to purchasers from original grantor 728 CHAPTEE XV. Eemedies. Section 1. Nature and form of remedy in general 731 2. Remedy by action at law 731 3. Remedies of creditors on ground of nullity of transfer generally 733 4. Execution generally 737 5. Where property has been disposed of by grantee or pur- chaser 739 6. Where conveyance was made before rendition of judgment. 740 7. Attachment generally 740 8. Property which may be seized 741 9. Garnishment generally 743 10. Where lands are subject of conveyance 746 11. Debtor's fraudulent transfer of claim due from garnishee. . 747 12. Statutory provisions 747 13. Ejectment 748 14. Eight of creditor or levying officer to attack conveyance in action by grantee generally 748 15. Contest of claim to property levied on. . . .' 750 16. Right of creditor on intervention by grantee 750 17. Intervention by creditors 751 18. Remedy where equitable interests in real estate are sought to be reached 752 19. Right of creditor to appropriate property without legal process 754 20. Collateral attack on fraudulent judgment or transfer 755 21. Remedy by action for damages 756 22. Action for penalty 757 23. Remedy by suit in equity generally 758 24. Action in equity in aid of remedy at law 762 25. Effect of statutory provisions for proceedings supplementary to execution 764 b xviii Table of Contents. PAGE Section 26. Action by personal representative after death of grantor. . 765 27. Action by creditor after death of grantor 766 28. Relief in equity on theory of resulting trust 767 29. Jurisdiction with respect to transfers of personal property. 768 30. Election of remedies 768 31. Conditions precedent. — ^Necessity of exhausting legal remedy generally 770 32. Necessity of judgment in general 772 33. Statutory modification of rule as to necessity of judgment. 777 34. Sufficiency of judgment generally 779 35. Effect of foreign judgment 780 36. Effect of judgment of justice of the peace 781 37. Effect of having acquired lien by attachment 782 38. Effect of lien acquired otherwise than by judgment or attachment 785 39. Circumstances excusing failure to obtain judgment gen- erally 785 40. Non-residence of debtor or absence from jurisdiction 787 41. Enforcement of claims against estates of decedents 789 42. Adjudication equivalent to judgment 791 43. Waiver of failure to secure judgment 791 , 44. Necessity of issuance of execution generally 791 45. Rule where judgment is not per se a lien 7<)2 46. Rule where creditor has acquired a lien 793 47. Necessity of levy of execution 795 48. Necessity of return of execution unsatisfied generally 795 49. Rule where action is brought in aid of execution or legal remedy 793 50. Sufficiency of return 799 51. Effect of return of execution as evidence 801 52. Necessity of outstanding execution 801 53. Issuance and return of execution against decedent's estate. 802 54. Necessity of lien in general 8O3 55. Necessity of exhausting other assets of debtor 805 56. Exhaustion of estate of deceased debtor 808 57. Necessity of pursuing legal remedy against debtor's co- o^'ligor 808 58. Reimbursement of grantee or other creditors 809 59. Joinder of causes of action gjQ 60. Jurisdiction of the person and cause of action 812 61. Venue ojo 62. Parties plaintiff gj< 63. Parties defendant in general gig 64. Grantor or debtor as defendant gjg 65. Representatives of grantor or debtor 820 Table of Contents. xix PAGE Section 66. Co-grantors or co-obligors 822 67. Grantee as defendant 822 68. Intermediate grantees 824 69. Purchasers from grantee 825 70. Representatives of grantee. — ^Assignees 825 71. Preferred creditors under trust deed 826 72. Intervention and change of parties 826 73. Defenses in general 828 74. Impeachment of creditor's claim or judgment 829 75. EiTeet of judgment obtained by creditor 830 76. Effect of judgment in absence of fraud or collusion 831 77. Alternative defenses 832 78. Limitation of actions generally 832 79. Nature of action 834 80. Accrual of right of action 835 81. Prior establishment of creditor's claim 837 82. Laches 839 OHAPTEE XVI. Pleadings. Section 1. Pleadings; the bill, complaint, or petition. — Jurisdictional facts 841 2. Statutory provisions 845 3. Eight to sue in general. — Existence of creditor's claim .... 846 4. Time when claim accrued 847 5. Ownership and description of property conveyed 848 6. Nature and execution of conveyance 850 7. Insolvency of debtor or want of assets other than property conveyed 851 8. Necessity of alleging facts constituting fraud 855 9. Facts need not be minutely alleged 858 10. Fraudulent intent of grantor 859 11. Knowledge and intent of grantee 860 12. Fraudulent Intent and knowledge as to subsequent creditors or purchasers 862 13. Suing in behalf of all creditors 863 14. Excusing laches 864 15. Pleading evidence 865 16. Prayer for relief 866 17. Multifariousness 868 18. Amendments 871 19. Supplemental pleadings 872 ■srx Table of Contents. PAGE Section 20. Demurrer ^' ^ 21. Cross bill ^'^^ 22. Plea or answer in general 8^" 23. Voluntary conveyance ' ^^^ 24. Purchaser from fraudulent grantee 877 25. Exempt property ^^^ 26. Justifying seizure °'° 27. Answers, denials, and admissions as evidence 878 28. Replication 880 29. Bills of particulars 880 30. Venue 881 31. Issues, proof, and variance generally 882 32. Under a general denial 883 33. Confession and avoidance 885 34. Variance 885 35. Disclaimer 886 CHAPTER XVn. Evidence. Section *. Presumption and burden of proof generally 889 2. Burden of proof under pleadings 890 3. Fraudulent character of transaction in general : . . . 891 4. Transactions between parties generally 894 5. Transactions between husband and wife 896 6. Plaintiff's right to sue 900 7. Nature and value of property conveyed 901 8. Solvency or insolvency of grantor 901 9. Consideration 903 10. Knowledge and intent of grantee 906 11. Retention of possession 910 12. Reservations and trust for grantor 911 13. Intent to defraud subsequent purchasers 912 14. Good faith of purchasers from grantee 912 15. Presumption from failure to testify or produce evidence. . . 913 16. Admissibility and relevancy of evidence in general 914 17. Financial condition of parties 919 18. Pendency or threat of action 921 19. Declarations and acts of grantor 921 20. Statements of debtor as to financial condition 923 21. Other and separate fraudulent conveyances and transactions 923 22. Subsequent conduct of parties and persons interested 926 23. Testimony of parties as to their motive, purpose, or intent. . 927 24. Fraudulent instrument or conveyance 928 Table of Contents. xxi PAGE Section 25. Admissibility of pleadings in evidence 929 26. Nature and form of transaction 929 27. Plaintiff's right to sue 930 28. Attack on plaintiff's right to sue 932 29. Proof of date of plaintiff's claim 932 30. Indebtedness of grantor 933 31. Solvency or insolvency of grantor 935 32. Consideration in general 937 33. Statements of parties. — Books of accounts 940 34. Recitals in instrument of transfer 941 35. Knowledge and intent of grantee generally 942 36. Knowledge of grantor's indebtedness or insolvency 944 37. Testimony of grantee as to his own knowledge or intent. . . 945 38. Participation in fraudulent intent 946 39. Separate conveyances or transactions 94T 40. Good faith of purchaser from grantee 948 41. Title to or control of property 949 42. Retention or change of apparent title or control 950 43. Weight and sufiSciency of evidence generally 951 44. Circumstantial evidence 953 45. Evidence of plaintiff's right to sue 955 46. Adjudication of creditor's claim 956 47. Pleadings 957 48. Nature and circumstances of transaction generally 958 49. Transactions between relatives 964 50. Indebtedness and insolvency of grantor 969 51. Consideration 970 52. Intent of grantor to defraud creditors 975 63. Knowledge and intent of grantee or purchaser from grantee 978 CHAPTEE XVIII. Teial. Section 1. Trial. — Mode and conduct in general 982 2. Submission of issues to jury 983 3. Reference and accounting 984 4. Questions for jury. — Questions of law and fact. — Fraudu- lent intent in general 985 5. Nature and form of transaction 989 6. SuflScieney of transfer of possession to vendee 990 7. Nature, source, and sufficiency of consideration 991 8. Indebtedness and insolvency 993 9. Knowledge and participation of grantee 994 xxii Table of CoNTEiirTs. PAGE Secti6n 10. Existence of creditors. — Secrecy. — Preferences. — Withhold- ing instrument from record 995 11. Submission of case to jury 995 12. Instructions. — Province of court and jury 997 13. Form and sufficiency of instructions 999 14. Requests for instruction 1005 15. Verdict and findings generally 1006 16. Special interrogatories and findings by jury 1007 17. Findings by court 1007 18. New trial 1009 CHAPTEE XIX. Judgment oe Deckee and Enpoecement Theeeof. Section 1. Judgement or decree. — Requisites and validity in general. . 1001 2. Nature of relief granted 1012 3. Conformity of judgment to pleadings 1017 4. Judgment under prayer for general relief 1018 5. Amount of recovery 1019 6. Setting aside conveyance 1020 7. Ordering sale of property 1021 8. Personal judgment 1023 9. Operation and eflfeot 1025 10. Persons entitled to claim benefit 1026 11. Enforcement of judgment or decree 1027 12. Sales and conveyances under order of court 1028 13. Disposition of property and proceeds. — Subjection to claims of creditors 1030 14. Costs and attorney's fees 1032 15. Mortgages and other liens 1033 16. Liens and priorities of creditors 1033 17. Rights of grantee or purchaser as creditor 1036 18. Rights of creditors of grantee 1037 19. Application of payments to judgment or execution 1038 20. Right to surplus 1038 21. Discovery 1039 22. Injunction to restrain fraudulent conveyance by debtor. . . . 1041 23. Injunction to restrain disposition of property by fraudu- lent grantee 1043 24. Injunction to restrain sale under fraudulent judgment or mortgage 1045 25. Violation of injunction and punishment 1046 26. Appointment of receiver 1040 27. Appeal and review 1050 Table of CoNTENTa. xxiii CHAPTEE XX. Penal Actions and Ceiminal Pboseoutions. PAGE Section 1. Penalties and actions tlierefor. — ^Nature and extent of liability in general 1054 2. What constitutes a fraudulent transfer 1055 3. Persons liable to penalty 1056 4. Fraudulent intent necessary 1056 5. Persons entitled to enforce penalty 1057 6. Conditions precedent to action to enforce 1058 7. Limitation. — Jurisdiction and venue. — ^Parties 1058 8. Pleading. — Defenses. — Evidence 1059 9. Criminal prosecutions 1061 10. Offenses. — Fraudulent transfers 1061 11. Preliminary affidavit on application 1062 12. Indictment 1063 13. Defenses 1064 14. Evidence 1064 15. Trial and review 1065 CHAPTEE XXL Feaubttlent Conveyances Undee the Bankettptoy Law — Acts of Bankeuptoy. Section 1. General nature and effect of the bankruptcy law 1067 2. Effect of bankruptcy law upon State insolvent law 1070 3. Interpretation or construction of statute 1072 4. Important statutory definitions. — ^Insolvency 1073 5. Definition of conceal 1075 6. Definition of transfer 1076 7. Definition of preference 1077 8. Definition of property 1078 9. Acts of bankruptcy, statutory provision 1078 10. Acts of bankruptcy in general 1080 11. Who may commit acts of bankruptcy 1080 12. First act of bankruptcy; a fraudulent transfer. Subs. a(l) 1081 13. Intent 1083 14. Insolvency 1085 15. Meaning of words and phrases 1087 16. Concealment and removal 1087 17. Second act of bankruptcy; a preferential transfer. Subs. a(2) 1088 18. Intent to prefer 1090 xxiv Table of Contents. PAGE Section 19. Transfer of property 1093^ 20. Third act of bankruptcy; preference through legal pro- ceedings. Subs. a(3) 1094 21. Meaning of words 1096 22. Provision liberally construed 1097 23. Fourth act of bajikruptey; a general assigsment. Subs. a(4) 1098 24. What is a general assignment 1099 25. What is not a general assignment 1100 26. Amendment of 1903, receiver or trustee in charge of prop- erty 1101 27. Meaning of words; precedents 1103 28. Fifth act of bankruptcy; a confession of bankruptcy. Subs. a{5) 1104 29. Solvency and the first act of bankruptcy 1105 30. Solvency and the second and third act of bankruptcy. . . 110ft 31. Fraudulent transfer as objection to discharge. Sec. 14b (4) 1107 CHAPTEE XXII. Eeaudulent Liens and Teansfees. Section 1. Statutory provision 1109 2. Scope and meaning of section 1112 3. Claims void for want of record. Subs, a 1113 4. Unfiled chattel mortgages and contracts of conditional sale. 1114 5. Subrogation of trustee to rights of creditor. Subs, b 1118 6. Valid liens in general. Subs, d 1119 7. Mechanics' liens 1120 8. Landlords' liens 1121 9. Other valid liens 1122 10. Fraudulent transfers. Subs, e 1125 11. Scope of subsection 1129 12. Insolvency not essential 1129 13. " Within four months prior to filing the petition " 1129 14. " With intent to hinder, delay or defraud " 1130' 15. "Except purchasers in good faith and for a present fair consideration " 1131 16. Transfers and incumbrances under State laws 1132 17. Suits to recover property 1132 18. Miscellaneous invalid transfers or incumbrances 1134 19. Mortgages to secure antecedent debts II34. 20. Chattel mortgages 1 135 21. Voluntary transfers 1138 22. General assignments for the benefit of creditors 11 39 23. Practice 1140 Table of Contents. xxv page- Section 24. Liens through legal proceedings. Suba. c and f 1140 25. Invalid liens by judgment and execution 1142 26. Invalid liens by attachment. 1144 27. Invalid liens by creditor's bill 1145 28. Suits to annul liens 114& 29. Preserving liens 1 146 30. Saving clause 1147 CHAPTEE XXIII. Pebfeeeed Ceeditoes. Section l. Statutory provision 1148 2. What is a preference; history and comparative legislation. 1149 3. The present definition; the elements of a preference. Subs, a 1150 4. Being insolvent 1152 5. Within four months 1153. 6. Running of time where the evidence of transfer must or may be recorded 1154 7. Procured or suffered a, judgment 1156. 8. Made a transfer of his property 1157 9. Effect, a greater percentage 1160 10. Creditors only may be preferred 1161 11. What preferences are voidable. Subd. b 1163 12. Reasonable cause to believe a preference intended 1164 13. Belief or knowledge of agent or attorney 1168 14. Recovery 1169 15. Property or its value; damages; costs 1171 16. Set-off of a subsequent credit. Subs, c 1172 17. Preference to bankrupt's attorney. Subs, d 1174 CHAPTEE XXIV. PowBES AND Duties of Teustees as to Peopeett Teansfekeed IN Eeaud of Ceeditoes. Section 1. Title to property; statutory provision 1176 2. Scope of section 1177 3. When title vests. Suba. a 1178 4. Nature of trustee's title in general 1179 5. Property transferred in fraud of creditors 1182 6. Effect of a general assignment 1184 7. Property which might have been transferred or levied upon. 1184 8. Remainders and interests in trust 1186. xxvi Table of Contents. PAOE Section 9. Dower and curtesy rights 1188 10. Licenses, franchises, and personal privileges 1189 11. Life insurance policies 1190 12. Property sold to the bankrupt on condition 1192 13. Property affected by fraudulent representations 1194 14. Reclamation proceedings 1195 15. Eights of action 1198 16. Burdensome property 1199 17. Exempt property 1200 18. Exemptions in property fraudulently transferred or con- cealed 1201 19. Transfers fraudulent under State laws may be avoided by trustee. Subs, e 1203 20. The saving clause 1205 21. The amendment of 1903 1206 22. Jurisdiction of courts; statutory provision 1206 23. Jurisdiction of courts generally 1207 24. Jurisdiction of suits to recover property 1207 25. Jurisdiction of the circuit courts. Subs, a 1208 26. Jurisdiction of the district courts. Subs, b 1210 27. Amendment of 1903 1211 28. Summary jurisdiction 1213 29. Effect on auxiliary remedies 1217 30. Jurisdiction of State courts 1220 31. Suits by and against bankrupt; statutory provision 1222 32. Suits by trustees generally 1222 33. Stays of suits begun after filing of petition 1224 34. Stays of suits against bankrupt 1224 35. Of suits or proceedings in rem 1226 36. To enforce a lien 1227 37. General assignments 1228 38. Of suits or proceedings in personam 1229 39. Practice 1230 40. Papers and procedure 1231 41. Duration of stays 1232 42. Continuance of suits. — Where bankrupt is defendant 1233 43. Where bankrupt is plaintiff 1234 44. Practice 1234 45. Limitation on suits by trustee and when it begins to run. . 1235 TABLE OF CASES. PAGK Abbe V. Newton, 19 Oonn. 20. . 343 Abbey v. Commercial Bank, 31 . . Miss. 434 .. 761, 836 Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343.. 23, 24, 111, 112, 113, 115 Abbott V. Hurd, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 510. 207 Abbott V. Tenney, 18 N. H. 109 99, 274, 340, 635 Abegg V. Bishop, 142 N. Y. 286. 456 Abegg V. Schwab, 9 N. Y. Supp. 681 .. . Aber v. Brant, 36 N. J. Eq. 116 337, 356 Aberholtzer v. Hazen, 92 Iowa, 602 963 Abney v. Kingsland, 10 Ala. 355 170, 377, 557, 669, 672, 697, 721, 722 Aborn v. Rathbone 54 Conn. 444 641 Abrahams v. Cole, 5 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 335 67, 735 Acker v. Acker, 1 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 1 48 Acker v. Leland, 96 N. Y. 383. 881 Acker v. White, 25 Wend. (N. Y.) 614 558 Aekerman v. Arbaugh, 97 111. App. 155 970 Aekerman v. Merle, 137 Cal. 169 692 Aekerman v. Peters, 113 La. 156 650, 656 Aekerman v. Salmon, 31 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 259 918 Acme Food Co. v. Meier, 18 Am. B. R. 550 1084, 1086, 1090, 1094, 1095 xxvii PAOB Acme Lumber Co. v. Hoyt, 71 Miss. 106 555 Adair v. Adair's Trustee, 30 Ky. L. R. 857 1188 Adair v. Feder, 133 Ala. 620. . 964 Adam, etc., Co. v. Stewart, 157 Ind. 678 313 Adames v. Hallett, L. R. 6 Eq. 468 181 Adam Roth Grocery Co. v. Ash- ton, 69 Mo. App. 463 574, 706 Adam Roth Grocery Co. v. Lewis, 69 Mo. App. 463 256 Adams v. Branch, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 178.. 344, 387, 620, 677, 707, 722 Adams v. Broughton 13 Ala. 731 13, 423 Adams v. Bruske, 135 Mich. 339 403, 953 Adams v. Coons, 37 La. Ann. 305 1026 Adams v. Curtis, 137 Ind. 175 . . 508 Adams v. Dempsey, 35 Wash. 80 435, 436, 965 Adams v. Dempsey, 29 Wash. 155 947, 1000 Adams v. Dempsey, 22 Wash. 284 951, 987, 998, 999 Adams v. Holcombe, Harp. Eq. (S. C.) 202 675 Adams v. Irwin, 44 W. Va. 740 263, 280, 347, 955 Adams v. Kellogg, 63 Mich. 105 571 Adams v. Laugel 144 Ind. 608 227, 238, 317 Adams v. Miller, 4 Neb. (Un- ofF.) 464 1041 Adams v. Niemann, 46 Mich. 135 303, 333, 473, 482 Adams v O'Rear, 80 Ky. 129.. 36, 38, 363 XXVlll Table of Cases. PAGE Adams v. CEear, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 605 683 Adams v Paletz (Tenn Oh. App.),43 S. W. 133 741 Adams v. Pease, 113 111. App. 356 226, 317, 574 Adams v. Riley, 122 U. S. 382. 191 Adams v. Ryan, 61 Iowa, 733. . 392, 395, 504, 510, 892 Adams v. Collier 122 U. S. 382 1139 Adams v. Merchants' Bank, 2 Fed. 174 1138, 1158 Adams v. Meyers, Fed. Cas. No. 62 1193 Adams v Storey, 1 Paine (U. S.), 79, Fed. Cas. No. 66.. 1069 Adams v. State, 87 Ind. 573. . . 901 Adams v. Weaver, 117 Cal. 42. . 536 Adams v. Wheeler, 27 Mass. 199 301, 521, 552 Adee v. Biger, 81 N. Y. 349. . 842 Adkins v. Adkins, 7 Ky. L. Rep. Adkins v. Bynum, 109 Ala. 281. Adkins v. Loucks, 107 Wis. 587 Adlard v. Rogers, 105 Gal. 327 . Adler v. Apt, 31 Minn. 348 Adler v. Fenton, 65 U. S. 407 . . • 199, Adler v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266 Adler, etc.. Clothing Co. v. Hell- man, 55 Neb. 266. . .240, 358, Adler-Goldman Commission Co. V. Hathooek, 55 Ark. 579 255, 259, Adoue V. Spencer, 62 N J. Eq. 782 443, Adoue V. Spencer, 59 N. J. Eq. 231 310, Adsit V. Butler, 87 N. Y. 585. . 772, 786, 792, 796, 802, 803, Aetna Nat. Bank v. Manhattan Life Ins. Co. 24 Fed. 769 20, 98, 119, Aetna Nat. Bank v. U. S. Life 631 91 823 638 915 756 986 359 620 897 790 842 791 „ PAGE Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 770 123, 124, 127 Ager V. Murray, 105 U. S. 126 117 Agricultural Bank v. Dorsey, 1 Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 338.. 81, 306, 452, 465, 718, 721 Ahlering v. Speekman, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 940.., 179, 369 Ahl V. Thorner, Fed. Cas. No. 103 1164 Ahlhauser v. Doud, 74 Wis. 400 763, 798, 1047 Ahl's Appeal, 129 Pa. 49 . . 569, 638 Aigeltinger v. Einstein, 143 Cal. 609 185, 783, 784 Aikin v. Ballard, Rice Eq. (S. C.) 13 675 Aiken v. Bruen, 21 Ind. 137 . . 219, 728 Aiken v. Edringer, 1 Fed. Cas. No. Ill 848 Aiken v. Kilburne, 27 Me. 252, 32, 1056, 1058, 1060 Aiken v. Peck, 22 Vt. 255 1060 .Ainswoo-th v. Roubal (Nelb.), 105 N. W. 248 783, 838 Alabama Iron, etc., Co. v. Aus- tin, 94 Fed. 897 886 Alabama Iron, etc., Co. v. Mc- Keever, 112 Ala. 134 778 Alabama L. Ins. & T. Co. v. Pettway, 24 Ala. 544 228, 229, 489, 570, 593, 606 Alabama Warehouse Co. v. Jones, 62 Ala. 550 810 Alamo Cement Co. v. San An- tonio, 23 S. W. (Tex.) 449.. 304 A. Laudreth & Co. v. Schevenel, 102 Tenn. 486 181 Albee v. Webster, 16 N. H. 362 299, 332, 384, 414, 426, 427, 446, 453 Alberger v. National Bank of Commerce 123 Mo. 313.. 314, 460 Alberger v. White, 117 Mo. 347 460, 580, 594, 599, 1000 Table of Oases. XXIX PAGE Albert v. Besel, 88 Mo. 150 .. . 482, 567, 910 Albert v. Lindau, 46 Md. 334 . . 63 Albert v. Winn, 5 Md. 66. .322, 327 Albert v. Wynn, 7 Gill (Md.), 446 71 Albertoli v. Branham, 80 Cal. 631 852, 855 Albrecht v. Cudihee (Wash.), 79 Pae. 628 175 Aldelberg v. Horowitz, 32 App. Div. (N. Y.) 408 726, 727 Alden v. Gibson, 63 K. H. 12 . . 758, 848, 857, 862 Alden v. Marsh, 97 Mass. 160. 258 Alderson v. Temple, 4 Burr. 2235 1150 Aldous V. Olverson, 17 S. D. 190 193, 349 Aldridge v. Muirhead, 101 XJ. S. 397 113 Alexander v. Dulaney, 16 So. (Miss.) 355 999 Alexander v. (Jould, 1 Mass. 165 198 Alexander v. Hemrich, 4 Wash. 727 56, 963 Alexander v. Quigley, 63 Ky. -399 846, 847, 956 Alexander v. Tarns, 13 111. 221. 866 Alexander v. Todd, 1 Bond (U. S.), 175.. 296, 342, 564, 626, 913 Alexander v. Young, 23 Ga. 616. 478, 481, 482 Alexandria Sav. Int. v. Thomas, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 483.... 301, 302 Alford V. Baker, 53 Ind. 279 . . 809, 849 Alkire Grocery Co. v. Ballen- ger, 137 Mo. 369 405 Alkire Grocery Co. v. Riehesin, 91 Fed. 79 832 Allaire v. Day, 30 N. J. Eq. 231 188 Allan V. McTaviah, 8 Ont. App. 440 582, 595 Allee V. Slane, 26 App. Div. (N. PAGE Y.) 455 397 Allein v. Sharp, 7 Gill. & J. (Md.) 96 339, 758 Allen V. Allen, 41 N. C. 293 . . 148, 361 Allen V. Antisdale, 38 Mich. 229 513, 975 Allen V. Berry, 50 Mo. 90.. 688, 696 Allen V. Berry, 40 Mo. 282 977 Allen V. Caldwell, Ward & Co. (Ala.), 42 So. 855 347, 519 Allen V. Carpenter, 66 Tex. 138 603 Allen V. Carr, 85 111. 388 526, 528, 534 Allen V. Cowan, 23 N. Y. 502 . . 569 Allen V. Edgerton, 3 Vt. 442.. 531 Allen V. Erie City Bank, 57 Pa. St. 129 747 Allen V. French, 178 Mass. 539 57 Allen V. Gilliland, 5 Ky. L. Rep. 320 580 Allen V. Hall, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., Section 1279 164 Alton V. Harrison, L. R., 4 Ch. 622 463, 472, 488, 501 Allen V. Grant, 14 Am. B. R. 349 1199 Allen V. Holland, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 343 138 Allen V. Hollander, 11 Am. B. R. 753 1126, 1186 Allen V. Johnson, 27 Ky. 235 . . 557 Allen V. Kennedy, 49 Wis. 549. 463 Allen V. Kinyon, 41 Mich. 281. 576 Allen V. Kirk, 81 Iowa, 658 .. . 939, 1003, 1004 Allen V. Knowlton, 47 Vt. 512. 840 Allen V. McLendon, 113 N. C. 321 511, 938, 1050 Allen V. McMannes, 19 Am. B. R. 276 1171 Allen V. McRae, 91 Wis. 226. 753, 857 Allen V. Massey, 84 U. S. 351. 17, 530 XXX Table of Cases. PAGE Allen V. Merriwether, 9 S. W. (Ky.) 807 370, 373, 661, 663 Allen V. Montgomery R. Co., 11 Ala. 437 823, 870 Allen V. Mower, 17 Vt. 61 671 Allen V. Perry, 56 Wis. 178 .. . 153, 360, 398, 899 Allen V. Riddle (Ala.), 37 So. 680 907, 952, 978 Allen V. Rundle, 50 Conn. 9 . . 16, 576 Allen V. Smith, 129 U. S. 465. 43, 892, 963, 967 Allen V. Smith, 10 Mass. 368 . . 541 Allen v. Stingel, 95 Mich. 195. 507, 603 Allen V. Tritoh, 5 Colo. 222... 764, 820 Allen V. Trustees of Ashley School Fund, 102 Mass. 262. 1038 Allen V. Vestal, 60 Ind. 245. . . 821, 850 Allen V. White, 17 Vt. 69 671 Allen V. Wheeler, 70 Mass. 123. 521, 996 AUentown Bank v. Beck, 49 Pa. St. 394 563 Alley V. Connell, 40 Tenn. 578. 691, 696 Alley V. Daniel, 75 Ala. 403 .. . 151, 157 Allgear v. Walsh, 24 Mo. App. 134 652 Alliance Trust Co. v. O'Brien, 32 Or. 333 709, 720 Allis V. Newman, 33 Neh. 597. 806 Allison V. Hagan, 12 Nev. 38 . . 632, 639, 668, 727, 728 Allison V. Weller, 3 Hun (N. Y.), 608 819 Allyn V. Thurston, 53 N. Y. 622. 790, 792, 842 Almond v. Gairdner, 76 Ga. 699 1001 Almond v. Wilson, 75 Va. 613. 870 Almy V. Piatt, 16 Wis. 169... PAGE 1041, 1044 Alnutt V. Leper, 48 Mo. 319. . . 774 Alsop V. Catlett, 97 Va. 364... 538, 979 Alston V. Rowles, 13 Fla. 117.. 36, 38, 363 Alt V. Lafayette Bank, 9 Mo. App. 91 157 Alton V. Harrison, L. R. 4 Ch. 622 6, 239 Altschuler v. Cohurn, 38 Neb. 881 947 Alvarez v. Bowden, 39 Fla. 450. 977 Amaker v. New, 33 S. C. 28. . . 835 American Academy of Music v. Smith, 54 Pa. St. 130 28 American Agricultural Chemi- cal Co. V. Huntington, 99 Me. 361 179, 817, 1016 American Brewing Co. v. Mc- Gruder, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 762. 580 American Forcite Powder Mfg. Co. V. Hanna, 31 App. Div. (N. Y.) 317... 117, 284, 287, 902 American Freehold Land, etc., Co. V. Maxwell, 39 Fla. 489. 142, 148, 560, 897, 969 American Hoist, etc., Co. v. Hall, 208 111. 597... 895, 951, 979 American Lumber, etc., Co. v. Taylor, 14 Am. B. R. 231 .. . 1167 American Nat. Bank v. Thorn- burrow, 109 Mo. App. 639 . . 284, 340, 342, 903 American Nat. Bank v. Viterbo, 46 La. Ann. 1313 396 American Net., etc., Co. v. Mayo, 97 Va. 182.. 225, 857, 894 American Trust Co. v. Wallis (C. C. A.), 11 Am. B. R. 360. 1178 American Varnish Co. v. Reed, 154 Ind. 88 892, 907, 952 Ames V. Dorroh, 76 Miss. 187. 205, 266, 311, 341, 669, 680, 902 Ames V. Gilman, 51 Mass. 239. 1234, 1235 Table of Cases. XKXl PAOE Ames V. Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537.. 231, 232, 3SS Ames V. Sheehan, 161 Mass. 274 760 Ames Iron Works v. Warren, 76 Ind. 512 86 Ammondson v. Ryan, 111 III. 506 162 Amoss V. Robinson, 2 Har. & J. (Md.) 320 303 Amsden v. Fiteh, 67 Vt. 522 . . 245 Amsden v. Manchester, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 158 924, 939, 942 Amsinck v. Bean, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 395 1159 Amundson v. Wilson, 11 N. D. 103 774 Amy V. Ramsey, 4 Mo. 505 665 Anbie v. Gil, 2 La. Ann. 342 . . 652 Anders v. Barton, 3 Colo. App. 324 75 Anderson v. Anderson, 64 Ala. 403.-12,13,16,177,182,343, 585 Anderson v. Anderson, 80 Ky. 638 361 Anderson v. Anderson, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 579 373, 811 Anderson v. Bachs, 59 Mass. Ill 466 Anderson v. Beleher, 1 Hill (S. C), 246 732 Anderson v. Blood, 152 N. Y. 285 614 Anderson v. Bradford, 28 Ky. 69 69, 177, 787, 804 Anderson v. Brooks, 11 Ala. 953 557 Anderson v. Brown, 72 Ga. 713. 69, 209, 641, 765 Anderson v. Dunn, 19 Ark. 650. 209, 635, 765 Anderson v. Etter, 102 Ind. 115. 15, 69, 218, 635 Anderson v. Fuller, 1 McMul. Eq. (S. C.) 27 432, 563, 691, 692, 694 PAGE Anderson v. Green, 7 J. J. Marsh (Ky. ) , 448 219 Anderson v. Hooks, 9 Ala. 704. 13, 333, 593 Anderson v. Hunn, 5 Hun, 79 (N. Y.) 199, 785 Anderson v. Kinley, 90 Iowa, 554 1005 Anderson v. Lassen County Bank, 140 Cal. 695 .. . 42, 44, 856 Anderson v. Lindberg, 64 Minn. 476 850, 857 Anderson v. McNeal, 82 Miss. 542 810 Anderson v. Mossy Creek Woolen Mills Co., 100 Va. 420 613, 816, 827 Anderson v. Mundo & McGraw, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1644 150 Anderson v. Odell, 51 Mieh. 492 152 Anderson v. Pilgram, 41 S. C. 423 583 Anderson v. Provident Life, etc., Co., 25 Wash. 20 . . . 763, 764 Anderson v. Rhodus, 12 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 104 641, 654 Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johns. (N. Y.) 515 191,720, 723 Anderson v. Smith, 5 Blaekf. (Ind.) 395.... 305, 459, 476, 477 Anderson v. Temple, 4 Burr. 2235 1150 Anderson v. Tuttle, 26 N. J. Eq. 144 640 Anderson v. Tydings, 3 Md. Ch. 167 460, 471 Anderson v. Warner, 5 III. App. 416 593, 1000 Andreae v. Bourke, 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) .638... 231, 233, 353 Andress v. Lewis, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 293 351 Andrews v. Donnerstag, 171 III. 329 843, 856, 861, 794, 1018 Andrews v. Durant, 18 N. Y. 496 775, 785 XXXll Table of Cases. PAGE Andrews v. Filmore, 46 Mich. 315 583 Andrews v. Jones, 10 Ala. 400. 29, 256, 322, 329, 906 Andrews v. Kaufmans, 60 Ga. 669 478 Andrews v. LewiSj 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 293. ; 418, 422 Andrews v. Marshall, 48 Me. 46 635 Andrews v. Marshall, 43 Me. 272 650, 735 Andrus v. Burke, 61 N. J. Eq. 297 253, 562 Angell V. Draper, 1 Vern. Ch. (Eng.) 399 186 Angell V. Pickard, 61 Mich. 561 290 567, 910, 915, 918, 929, 946 Anglin v. Conley, 114 Ky. 741. 201, 240, 563 Anglin v. Conley, 27 Ky. L. E«p. 1177 580 Anglo-American Packing, etc., Co. V. Baier, 31 111. App. 653. 914 Angrave v. Stone, 25 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 167. . . .572, 924, 958, 971 Anheuser-Busch Brew. Assoc. V. McGowan, 49 La. Ann. 630 42, 43 Annett v. Coffey, 1 Colo. App. 34 865 Annin v. Annin, 24 N. J. Eq. 184 337, 375, 696, 700, 815 Annis v. Bonar, 86 111. 128 299 Aniiis V. Butterfield, 99 Me. 181 204, 1183 Anniston Iron Co. v. Anniston Rolling Mill Co., 11 Am. B. R. 200 1094, 1101 Anonymous, 2 Desaus. Eq. (S. C.) 304. 959, 961, 971 Ansell V. Cox, 50 S. E. (W. Va.) 806 336 Ansorge v. Barth, 88 Wis. 553. 62 Anthes v. Schroeder, 3 Neb. PAGE (UnoS.) 604 178 Anthony v. Boyd, 15 E. I. 495. 718 Anthony v. Wade, 64 Ky. 110. 152 Anthony v. Wheatons, 7 R. I. 490 523, 544 Anthony v. Wood, 96 N. Y. 180. 742, 743, 752 Anthracite Ins. Co. v. Sears, 109 Mass. 383 98, 120 •Antrim v. Kelly, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 494 1138 Antram v. Burch, 84 Mo. App. 256 669 Appeal of Bardwell, 1 Lane. Bar (Pa.) Dec. 18.. 959, 960, 972 Appeal of Blakley, 7 Pa. St. 449 474 Appeal of Brown, 86 Pa. St. 524 110, 381 Appeal of Byrod, 31 Pa. St. 241 68, 211, 1034 Appeal of Candee, 193 Pa. St. 644 464, 474 Appeal of Craig, 77 Pa. St. 448 557 Appeal of Dungan, 88 Pa. St. 414 1029 Appeal of Fowler, 87 Pa. St. 449 1044, 1045 Appeal of Frank, 59 Pa. St. 190 322, 324 Appeal of Haak, 100 Pa. St. 59. 85, 1031 Appeal of Henderson, 133 Pa. St. 399 1032 Appeal of Hoffman, 44 Pa. St. 95 1034 Appeal of Jones, 62 Pa. St. 324. 322 Appeal of Kelly, 77 Pa. St. 232. 340 Appeal of Kistervook, 51 Pa. St. 483 573 Appeal of Lenning, 93 Pa. St. 301 334 Appeal of Mackason, 42 Pa. St. 330 418, 422, 423, 424 Appeal of Mead, 46 Conn. 417. 442 Table of Cases. xxxiu Appeal of Meekley, 102 Pa. St. 536 238, 370 Appeal of Morgan, 20 Pa. St. 152 475 Appeal of Nippes, 75 Pa. St. 472 268 Appeal of Nusbaum, 1 Pa. Cas. 109 1037 Appeal of Second Nat. Bank, 85 Pa. St. 528 334 Appeal of Sharplesa, 140 Pa. St. 63 295 Appeal of Winch, 61 Pa. St. 424 71, 753 Appeal of Woolston, 51 Pa. St. 452 352, 903 Apperson v. Burgett, 33 Ark. 328 231, 520, 563, 1021 Apperson v. Ford, 23 Ark. 746. 708 Apple V. Gaaong, 47 Miss. 189. 106 Appleby v. Lehman, 51 La. Ann. 473 468 Applegarth v. Wagner, 86 Md. 468 250 Applegate v. Applegate, 107 Iowa, 312 726, 834, 840 Applegate v. Dowell, 15 Or. 513 1026 Appleton V. Bancroft, 51 Mass. 231 544 Appolos V. Brady, 1 C. C. A. 299 1099 Apponang Bleaching, etc., Co. V. Eawson, 22 R. I. 123 654 Apthorpe v. Comstock, Hopk. (N. Y.) 143 876 Arbertoli v. Branham, 80 Cal. 631 862 Arbuckle Bros. CoflFee Co. v. Werner, 77 Tex. 43 774, 805 Archenhold v. B. C. Evans Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App.' 138 823 Archer v. Long, 38 S. C. 272 . . 884, 941, 1004 Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Hun (N. Y.), 146 456, 495, 496 c Ardis V. Theus, 47 La. Ann. 1436 371 Aretz V. Kloos, 89 Minn. 432 . . 952 Argenti v. San Francisco, 6 Cal. 677 620 Argo V. Fox, 95 111. App. 610. . 45 Arkansas City Bank v. Cassidy, 71 Mo. App. 186 87 Arkansas Nat. Bank v. Sparks (Ark.), 103 N. W. 626 1166 Armfield v. /irmfield, 1 Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 311 ...180,322, 707 Armington v. Ran, 100 Pa. St. 105 184 Armour Packing Co. v. London, 53 S. C. 539... 690, 693, 697, 1033 Armstrong v. Bailey, 43 W. Va. 778 438 Armstrong v. Croft, 71 Tenn. 191 789 Armstrong v. Dunn, 143 Ind. 433 815, 851 Armstrong v. Elliott, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 41 611 Armstrong v. Oil Well Supply Co., 47 W. Va. 455 478 Armstrong v. Tuttle, 34 Mo. 432 418, 421 Armstrong Co. v. Elbert, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 141 210, 212, 618, 744 Arn V. Hoersman, 26 Kan. 413. 459 Amdt V. Harshaw, 53 Wis. 269 899 Arnett v. Coflfey, 1 Colo. App. 34 187, 351, 933 Arnett v. Wanett, 28 N. C. 41 178, 279 Arnholt v. Hartwig, 73 Mo. 485 609, 705 Arnold v. Bastin, 116 Ky. 686 977 Arnold v. Eatis, 92 N. O. 162. . 153, 162 Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186 303 Arnold v. Harris (Mich.), 105 N. W. 744 920 XXXIV Table of Cases. PAGE Arnold v. Hoschildt, 69 Minn. 101 693, 715 Arnold v. Maynard, Fed'. Caa. No. 561 1092 Arnold v. Peoples, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 26 570, 662 Arnold v. Smith, 80 Ind. 417 . . 727 Arnold V. Wilds, 77 Iowa, 593. 512 Arnoldi v. Stewart, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 252 114 Arnot V. Beadle, Lalor (N. Y.) 181 752 Arnwine v. Carroll, 8 N. J. Eq. 620 134 Arper v. Baze, 9 Minn. 108 734, 742 Arthur v. Commercial, etc.. Bonk, 17 Miss. 394 301, 413, 572 Arthur v. Wallace, 8 Kan. 267 152 Artman v. Giles, 155 Pa. St. 409 1045, 1046 Arundell v. Phipps, 10 Ves. Jr. 139 262, 518 Arzbacher v. Mayer, 53 Wis. 380 850 Asbill V. Standley (Cal.), 31 Pac. 738 .. . 951 Asbwy Park Bldg., etc., Asi- soc. V. Shepherd, 50 Atl. (N. J.) 65 253 Ashcroft V. Simmons, 163 Mass. 437 521 Ashcroft V. Walworth, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 580 118 Ashland Coal, etc., R. Co. v. McKenzie, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 636 972 Asland Sav. Bank v. Mead, 63 N. H. 435 716 Ashley v. Brown, 17 Ont. App. 500 463 Ashmead v. Baylor, 59 N. J. Eq. 469 310 Ashmead v. Hean, 13 Pa. St. 584 588 Ashurst V. Given, 5 Watts & S. PAGE (Pa.) 323 138 Ashworth v. Outram, 5 Ch. Div. 923 10» Askew V. Reynolds, 18 N. C. 367 949n Aspden v. Nixon, 4 How. (U. S.) 467 781 Aspinall v. Jones, 17 Mo. 209 678, 679, 737 Astor V. Wells, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 466 578 A. T. Albro & Co. v. Fountain, 162 N. Y. 498 968 Atchison, etc., R. Co. v. Hurley (C. C. A.), 18 Am. B. R. 396 1180 Athey v. Knotts, 6 B. Mon. (Ky.) 24 130 Atkins V. Hoeberlin, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1547 469 Atkins V. Spear, 49 Mass. 490. 1163 Atkinson v. McNider, 105 N. W. (Iowa) 504 459, 561, 569, 579, 907 Atkinson v. Phillips, 1 Md. Oh. 507 8, 69, 249, 265, 295, 328, 339, 632, 902 Atlanta Nat. Bank v. Fletcher, 80 Ga. 327 1045 Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Travener, 130 Mass. 407 369, 460, 513 Atlas Nat. Bank v. Abram French Sons Co., 134 Fed. 746 571, 977 Atlas Nat. Bank v. John Moran Packing Co., 138 Mo. 59 . . . 770 Atlas Nat. Bank v. More, 152 111. 528 43, 45, 755 Attorney General v. Harmer, 16 Grant Cii. 533 953 Atwater v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 152 111. 605 1036 Atwater v. Manchester Sav. Bank, 45 Minn. 341 47, 49 Atwell V. Miller, 6 Md. 10.. 541 Atwater v. Seeley, 2 Fed'. 133. . 645 Atwill V. Belden, 1 La. 504... 1028- Table or Cases. xxxy PAGE Atwood V. Dolan, 34 W. Va. 563 Ill Atwood V. Holcomb, 39 Conn. 270 110, 379 Atwood V. Impaon, 20 N. J. Eq. 150 575, 581, 588, 613, 618 Atty.-Gen. v. Harmer, 16 Grant Or. (U. C.) 533 463, 464, 466, 495 Atty.-Gen. v. Newcombe, 14 Ves. Jr. 1.. 864 Auburgh v. Lydston, 117 111. App. 574 357 Auburn Exch. Bank v. Fitch, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 344. . . .456, 487, 489, 491, 492, 495, 497, 510 August V. Seeskind, 42 Tenn. 166 778 Augusta Sav. Bank v. Cross- man (Me.), 7 Atl. 396 36, 136, 694, 758, 895, 973 Augusta Sav. Bank v. Stelling, 31 S. C. 360 814 Aulick V. Eeed, 104 Ky. 465. . 875 Aulman v. Aulman, 71 Iowa, 124 459, 487, 492, 593 Ault V. EUer, 38 Mo. App. 598 91, 146, 147 Aultman v. Booth, 95 Mo. 383 139 Aultman v. George, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 457 141, 146 Aultman v. Heiney, 59 Iowa, 654 593 Aultman v. Hudleston, 31 111. App. 556 339 Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 260 397 Aultman v. Salinas, 48 S. C. 299 161, 166 Aultman v. Utsey, 34 S. C. 559 994 Aultman & Oo. v. Pikop, 56 Minn. 531 91 Aultman & Co. v. Witcik, 60 Iowa, 752 703 Aultman & Taylor Co. v. DaJen, 56 Minn. 531 95 PAGE Aultman, etc., Co. v. Syme, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 344.... 278 Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Weir, 34 111. App. 615 583, 593 Aurand v. Shaffer, 43 Pa. St. 363 898 Austin V. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co., 14 R. I. 464 918 Austin V. Barrows, 41 Conn. 287 756 Austin V. Bell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 442 71, 412 Austin V. Bowman, S'l Iowa, 277 395 Austin V. Bruner, 169 111. 178 773, 775, 790 Austin V. Bruner, 65 111. App. 301 776 Austin V. Figueira, 7 Paige ( N. Y.), 56 771 Austin V. First Nat. Bank, 47 111. App. 224 799, 344, 387, 799 Austin V. Johnson, 26 Tenn. 191 414, 416, 428 Austin V. Morris, 23 S. C. 393 778, 797 Austin V. Soule, 36 Vt. 645. . . 557 Austin V. Winton, 1 Hen. & M. (Va.) 33 644, 660 Autrey v. Bowen, 7 Colo. App. 408 553 Avart V. His Creditors, 8 Mart. N. S. (La.) 528 835 Averill v. Iioucks, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 70 638 Avery v. Eastes, 18 Kan. 505. 459 Avery v. Johann, 27 Wis. 246 269, 611 Avery v. Mead, 12 St. Kep. (N. Y.) 293 884 Avery v. Street, 6 Watts (Pa.), 247 240, 247, 254, 563, 986 Avery v. Wilson, 47 S. C. 78.. . 16, 94 Ayer v. Bartlett, 23 Mass. 71 . . 34 XXXVl Table of Oases. PAGE Ayers v. Adams, 82 Ind. 109 . . 473 Ayers v. Harrell, 111 Ga. 864 268, 283, 285 Ayers v. Hulated, 15 Conn. 504 307 Ayers v. MeCandless, 147 Pa. St. 49 543, 550 Ayers v. Wolcott, 66 Neb. 712 190, 193, 348, 885, 886, 895, 910 Ayers v. Woloott, 62 Neb. 805 352, 586 Axtell V. CuUen, 3 111. App. 527 597 B Babbett v. Burgess, Fed. Cas. No. 693 i. 1179 Babbitt v. Kelly, 9 Am. B. K. 335 1168 Baby v. Ex)ss, Ont. Pr. 440.. 112, 114 Babcoek v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 623 7, 9, 179, 264, 281, 346, 573, 928, 985, 1138 Babcoek v. Hamilton, 64 Iowa, 558 179 Bach V. Leopold, 8 La. Ann. 386 777 Bachman v. Packard, Fed. Cas. No. 709 ,.... 1208 Bachman v. Sepulveda, 39 CaJ. 688 821, 1014 Bachs v. Tomlinson, 1 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 484 130, 139 Backer v. Meyer, 43 Fed. 702. 168 Backhouse v. Jett, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 710 .645, 674, 685, 688, 690 Backman v. Secrest, 2 Eich. Eq. 54 344 Bacon v. Bonham, 27 N. J. Eq. 212 548 Bacon v. Harris, 62. Fed. 99. . . 212 Bacon v. P. Brockman Commis- sion Co., 48 Neb. 365.. 436, 445 Bacon v. Raybould, 4 Utah, 357 49 Bacon v. Scannell, 9 Cal. 271. 534 Baden v. Bertenshaw (Kan. Sup. Ct.), 11 Am. B. R. 308. 1164 Badger v. Story, 16 N. H. 168 251, 441, 581, 922, 923, 930 PAGE Badlam' v. Tucker, 18 Mass. 389 35, 521, 540, 541 Badtian v. Dougherty, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 30 961 Baer v. Lisman, 85 Mo. App. 317 574 Baer v. Pfaff, 44 Mo. App. 35 107, 114 Baer v. Kooka, 50 Fed. 898 1004 Baer Sons Grocer Co. v. Will- iams, 43 W. Va. 323.. 582,. 583 Bagg V. Jerome, 7 Mich. 145 . . 986 Bailey v. American Nat. Bank (Colo. App.), 54 Pac. 912.. 760, 761 Bailey v. Bailey, 61 Me. 361.. 202 Bailey T. Burton, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 339 82, 198, 303, 782, 812, 815 Bailey v. Chase, 18 La. Ann. 732 443 Bailey v. Cheatham, 4 Ky. L. Eep. 351 229, 606, 658 Bailey v. Crittenden, 3 Tex. Civ. App. Cas. Sec. 179 . ... 582 Bailey v. lYansioli, 101 App. Div. (N. Y.) 140 407, 614, 905, 909, 971 Bailey v. Gardner, 31 W. Va. 94 106, 108 Bailey y. Glover, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 342 864, 1225, 1235 Baily v. Hornthal, 154 N. Y. 648 .. 1023 Bailey v. Kansas Mfg. Co., 32 Kan. 73 368 Bailey v. Johnson, 9 Colo. 365 552 Bailey V. Levy, 115 Ala. 565.. 904 Bailey v. Ldttell, 24 Nev. 294. . 153, 160 Bailey v. Loeb, Fed. Cas. No. 739 1122 Bailey v. Nallou, 69 N. H. 414 280 Bailey v. Ross, 20 N. H. 302 . . 697, 74.J Bailey v. Ryder, 10 N. Y. 363. 867 Baker v. Bartol, 6 Cal. 483.. 815 Table oe' Cases. xxxvii Baker v. Bliss, 39 N. Y. 70 615, 715 Baker v. Chandler, 51 Ind. 85 98 Baker v. Dobyns, 34 Ky. 220 389, 759 Baker v. Drake (Ala.), 41 So. 845 61 Baker v. Georgi, 10 Aipp. Div. (N. Y.) 249 512, 514 Baker v. Gilman, 52 Barb. (N". Y.) 26 ....180, 195 Baker v. Harvey, 133 Mo. 453. 305 Baker v. Hines, 102 Ky. 329.. . 160 Baker v. Hollis, 84 Iowa, 682 356 Baker v. Humphrey, 101 U. S. 494 13 Baker v. Kinnaird, 94 Ky. 5. . 815 Baker v. Lyman, 53 Ga. 339. . 282 Baker v. Naglee, 82 Va. 876.. 1043 Baker v. Pottle, 48 Minn. 479 521, 560 Baker v. Potts, 73 App. Div. (N. Y.) 29 801, 809, 902 Baker v. Watts, 101 Va. 702. . 898 Baker, etc., Co. v. Schneider, 85 Mo. App. 412 538, 997 Baleom v. New York Life Ins., etc., Co., 11 Paige (N. Y.), 454 . 877 Baldwin v. Bond, 45 La. Ann. 1012 567, 910 BaldVin v. Buckland, 11 Mich. 389 571 Baldwin v. Burt, 43 Neb. 245. 69, 177 Baldwin v. Cawthorne, 19 Ves. Jr. 166 654 Baldwin v. Davis, 118 Iowa, 36 656 Baldwin v. Plash, 58 Miss. 593 472, 480, 928 Baldwin v. Harron, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 634 318 Baldwin v. Heil, 155 Ind. 682. 358 Baldwin v. Johnson, 8 Ark. 260 363 Baldwin v. June, 68 Hun (N. PAGE Y.), 284 696, 697, 1037 Baldwin v. McDonald, 48 La. Ann. 1460 91, 94 Baldwin v. Peet, 22 Tex. 708 . . 414, 417, 428, 435 Baldwin v. Eogers, 28 Minn. 544 95, 162, 166 Baldwin v. Ryan, 3 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 251 140 Baldwin v. Short, 125 N. Y. 553 71, 229, 331, 695, 924, 925, 943 Baldwin v. Thayer, 71 N. H. 257 529, 541 Baldwin v. Tuttle, 23 Iowa, 66 212, 898 Balke v. Lowe, 3 Desauss (S. C), 263 662 Ball V. Ballantyne, 11 Grant Ch. (Can.) 199 294 Ball V. Callahan, 95 111. App. 615 579, 593 Ball V. Campbell, 184 Pa. St. 602 , 839 Ball V. Loomis, 29 N. Y. 412 . . 519 Ball V. O'Neal, 64 Mo. App. 388 230 Ball V. Phenicie, 94 Mich. 355 706 Ballard v. Chewning, 49 W. Va. 508 436, 965 Ballard v. Eckman, 20 Fla. 661 250, 271 Ballard v. Jones, 25 Tenn. 455 655, 661 Ballard v. Winter, 39 Conn. 179 86 Ballentine v. Beall, 4 111. 203 . 782, 815, 1023 Ballou V. Andrews Bank Co., 128 Cal. 562 100, 101, 711, 958, 1001, 1002 Ballou V. Jones, 13 Hun (N. Y.), 629 788 Ballou V. Minard, 2 Brewst. (Pa.) 560 47 Balls V. Balls, 69 Md. 388... 1041 XXXVlll Table of Cases. PAGE Baltimore v. Williams, 6 Md. 235 15 Baltimore City C!om. Bank v. Kearns (Md'.), 59 Atl. 1010. 459 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 Md. 287 87 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hoge, 34 Pa. St. 214. .916, 930, 937, 996 Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Ken- sington Land Co., 175 Pa. St. 95 745 Baltimore High Grade Brick Co. V. Amos, 95 Md. 571 184, 954, 976 Balz V. Nelson, 171 Mo. 682.. 161, 373 Bamberger v. Schoolfield, 160 U. S. 149 430, 438, 439 448, 451, 457, 471, 482, 492 495, 592, 909, 912 Bancord v. Kuhn, 36 Pa. St. 383 138, 402 Bancroft v. Curtis, 108 Mass. 47 141 Bancroft v. Blizzard, 13 Ohio, 30 85, 576, 581 Banfield v. Whipple, 96 Mass. 13 460, 492, 494, 594 Bangert v. Bangert, 13 Mo. App. 144 141 Bangs Milling Co. v. Burns, 152 Mo. 350 416, 460, 464 Bangs V. Edwards, 88 Ala. 382. 105, 106, 399 Bank v. Durant, 22 N. J. Eq. 35 231 Baiik V. Eames, 4 Abb. Dee. (N. Y.) 83 1025 Bank v. Foster, 74 Tex. 515... 586 Bank v. Irons, 28 N. J. Eq. 43. 581 Bank v. Jones, 4 N. Y. 497 1218 Bank v. Levy, 50 S. E. 657 (N. C.) 1127 Bank v. Marchand, T. U. P. Charlt. (Ga.) 247 .183, 268 Bank of Alabama v. McDade, FAOE 4 Port. 252 ■ 307. 551 Bank of Alexandria v. Patton, 1 Rob. ( Va. ) 499 195, 328 Bank of Atchison County v. Shackelford, 67 Mo. App. 475 449 Bk. of British North America V. Rattenbury, 7 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 383 190 Bank of British North America V. Suydam, 6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 379 823, 874 Bank of California v. Cowan, 61 Fed. 871 845 Bank of Commerce v. Elliott, 6 Am. B. R. 409 1113, 1235 Bank of Commerce v. Eureka Brick, etc., Co., 108 Ala. 89. 985, 997, 999 Bank of Commerce v. Fowler, 93 Wis. 241 161, 167, 172, 685, 696 Bank of Commerce v. Scholt- feldt, 40 Neb. 212 594, 602 Bank of Georgia v. Higginbot- ton, 34 U. S. 48 295 Bank of Kentucky v. Allen, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 595 1032 Bank of Kinderhook v. Jenison, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 41.... 48 Banks Milling Co. v. Burns, 152 Mo. 350 596, 973 Bank of Mobile v. I&,rris, 6 La. Ann. 811 413, 695 Bank of Mobile v. Tishomingo Sav. Inst., 62 Miss. 250.251, 443 Bank of Montreal v. Condon, 11 Manitoba, 366 582 Bank of New Hanover v. Adrian, 116 N. C. 537 657 Bank of Savannah v. Planters' Bank, 22 Ga. 466 478 Bank of South Carolina v. Bal- lard, 12 Rich. (S. C.) 259.. 195 Bank of South Carolina v. Mit- chell, Rice Eq. (S. C.) 389.. 326 Table of Cases. PAGE Bank of Tipton v. Adair, 172 Mo. 156 146 Bank of U. S. v. Brown, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 131.... 328, 361, 362 Bank of United States v. Burke, 4 Blaokf. (Ind.) 141 .. .1031, 1035 Bank of U. S. v. Ennis, Wright (Ohio), 604 328 Bank of the United States v. Lee, Fed. Cas. No. 922 226 Bank of Versailles v. Gutthrey, 127 Mo. 189 166 Bank of Willows v. Small, 144 Cal. 709 286, 407 Bankard v. Shaw, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 561 340, 410 Banner v. May, 2 Wash. 221.. 525, 960 Banner v. Bobinson (Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 355 253 Banning v. Armstrong, 7 Minn. 40 843 Banning v. Marleau, 121 Cal. 240 1004 Banning v. Marleau, 133 Cal. 485 192, 977 Banning y. Marleau, 101 Cal. 238 549, 550, 955 Banning v. Purinton, 105 Iowa, 642 285, 287, 853, 970 Bannister v. Phelps, 81 Wis. 256 582 Banks v. Clapp, 12 Ga. 514... 314 Bankes v. Lindemuth, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 459 766 Banks v. McGandless, 119 Ga. 793 182, 205, 731, 953, 958 Banta v. Terry, 2 Ky. L. Rep. 202 329 Banton v. Smith, 113 111. 481. 311, 480 Barber v. Coit, 144 Fed. 381 . . 467, 572, 1205 Barber v. Franklin, 8 Am. B. R. 468 1223 Barker v. Phillips, 11 Rob. 199 695 PAGE Barber v. Phillips, 11 Rob. (La.) 190 588 Barber v. Terrell, 54 Ga. 146 . . 240, 921 Barbour v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 61 Conn. 240 .. . 90, 94 119, 121, 187, 191, 340, 347 348, 350 Barclay v. Plant, 50 Ala. 509. 366 Barclay v. Smith, 107 111. 349. 117 Bardes v. Bank, 178 U. S. 524. 1133 1167, 1170, 1207, 1208, 1210 1211, 1220, 1227, 1228 Bardy v. Ellison, 3 N. C. 533 . . 242 Barger v. Buckland, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 850 1021 Barhydt v. Perry, 37 Iowa, 416. 195, 244, 270 Barker v. Archer, 49 App. Div. (N. Y.) 80 483 Barker v. Battey, 62 Kan. 584 767, 813 Barker v. Bankers' Assoc, Fed. Cas. No. 986 1223 Barker v. Barker, 2 Woods (U. S.), 87 1118, 1139 Barker v. Boyd, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1389 621 Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367. 163, 165 Barker v. Franklin, 37 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 292 47, 292, 244, 596 Barker v. French, 18 Vt. 460 . . 443, 445 Barker v. Lynch, 75 Wis. 624. 989 Barker v. Woods, 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 129 387 Barkley v. Tapp, 87 Ind. 25 . . . 283 Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 500. 228, 238, 317, 985, 1005 Barkworth v. Palmer, 118 Mich. 50 187, 34& Barling v. Bishopp, 29 Beav. (Eng.) 417 190, 201, 240 Barlow v. Fox, 203 Pa. St. 114. 527 xl Table of Oases. PAGE PAGE Barnard T. Brown, 112 Ind. 53. 152 Barr v. Church, 82 Wis. 382.. Barnard v. Davis, 54 Ala. 565. 408, 510, 595 407, 409 Barr v. Hatch, 3 Ohio, 527 Barnard v. Life Ins. Co., 4 207, 240, 432, 447, 461, 466 Mackey (D. C), 63 458 500,501,563, 769 Barnard v. Norwich, etc., Co., Barr v. Reitz, 14 Pittsb. L. J. Fed. Gas. 1,007 1122 (Pa.) 421 542 Barneord v. Kuhn, 36 Pa. St. Barr v. Reitz, 53 Pa. St. 256.. 383 226 527, 534, 990 Barnes v. Black, 193 Pa. St. . Barrack v. McCuUooh, 3 Jur. 447 327 N. S. 180 100, 101 Barnes v. Krause (Tex. Civ. Barrell v. Adams, 26 Pa. Super. App.), 53 S. W. 92.... 937 Ct. 635 184 Barnes v. Morgan, 3 Hun (N. Barrett v. Cole, 49 N. C. 40... 535 Y.), 703 117, 764 Barrett v. His Creditors, 4 Rob. Barnes v. Sammons, 128 Ind. 508 272, 580 596 205 Barrett v. Lowrey, 77 Mich. Barnes v. Vetterlein (D. C), 668 840 16 Fed. 218 280 Barrett v. Nealon, 119 Pa. St. Barnes Mfg. Co. v. Norden, 7 171 576 Am. B. R. 553 1118 Barrett v. Reed, Wright Barnett v. Fergus, 51 111. 352. 437 (Ohio), 700 817, 1032 Barnett v. Kinney, 147 U. S. Barrineau v. McMurray, 3 476 88 Brev. (g. C.) 204. 219 Barnett v. Knight, 7 Colo. 365 . 159 Barrow v. Bailey, 5 Fla. 9 . . . . Barnett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685. 231, 250^ 330, 354, 395, 697 382, 386, 938 773. 1041 Barney v. Cutler^ 1 Boot Barrow v. Barrow, 2 Dick. (Conn.), 489 85, 178 (Eng.) 504 323 Barney v. Griffin, 2 N. Y. 365. Barrow v. Barrow, 108 Ind. 420, 429, 472 345 188, 350, 640 Barnhart v. Grantham, 197 Pa. Barrow v. Paxton, 5 Johns. (N. St. 502 925 Y.) 258 519 Bamtley v. West, 27 Ala. 542. 658 Barron v. Williams, 58 S. C. Barnum v. Farthing, 40 How. 280 154, 161 Pr. 25 347 Bartee v. Tompkins, 36 Tenn. Barnum v. Hackett, 35 Vt. 77. 623 870 1057, 1060 Bartholow v. Bean, 18 Wall. Barnum v. Hempstead, 7 Paige (U. S.) 635 1164 (N. Y.), 568 302, 479, 507 Barth v. Heider, 7 D. O. 71... Barr v. Bartram, etc., Mfg. Co., 243, 800 41 Conn. 502 1068 Bartles v. Dodd, 56 W. Va. 383. 469 Baron v. Brummer, 100 N. Y. Bartles v. Gibson, 17 Fed. 293. 372 124,127, 128 232, 354 Barr v. Boyles, 96 Pa. St. 31 . . Bartlett v. Bartlett, 15 Neb. 986, 990 593 652 Table of Cases. xli Bartlett v. Bartlett, 13 Neb. 456 658 Bartlett v. Behrens, 94 Mo. 530 107 Bartlett v. Cleavenger, 35 W. Va. 718 227, 991 Bartlett v. Cheesbrough, 23 Neb. 767 511, 894, 896 Bartlett v. Decreet, 70 Mass. Ill 663 Bartlet v. Teah (C. C), 1 Fed. 768 1099 Bartlett v. Umfried, 94 Mo. 530 39 Bartlett v. Williams, 18 Mass. 288 521, 552 Barton v. Barton, 80 Ky. 212. 874, 1050 Barton v. Brent, 87 Va. 385 . . 365, 462 Barton v. Brown, 68 Oal. 11.. 157 Barton v. Bryant, 2 Ind. 189.. 815 Barton v. Morris, 15 Ohio, 408. 632, 634 Barton v. Sitlington, 128 Mo. 164 428 Barton v. Vanheythuysen, 11 Hare, 126 92, 133, 135, 136 Barton v. White, 144 Mass. 281 118 Bartow v. Vanheythuysen, 11 Hare (Eng.), 126 200 Bartram v. Bums, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1295 988, 698, 701 Barus v. Bidwellj 23 La. Ann. 163 371 Barwick v. Moyse, 74 Miss. 415 637 Basye v. Daniel, 1 Ind. 378... 392 Bashinski v. Talbott, 9 Am. B. R. 513 1202 Basey v. Daniel, Smith (Ind.), 252 6, 587 Bass V. Citizens' Trust Co., 32 Ind. App. 583 861 Bass T. Welsh, 39 Mo. 192.... 552 Bass V. Woolf, 88 Ga. 427 43 PAGE Bassett v. McKenna, 52 Conn. 437 192, 270 Bassett v. St. Albans Hotel Co., 47 Vt. 313 774, 792 Bastian v. Christesen, 34 La. Ann. 883 580 Bastin v. Dougherty, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 30 965 Bassinger v. Spangler, 9 Colo. 175 525, 530, 531, 559 Batavia v. Wallace, 102 Fed. 240 607, 614, 914, 996 Batchelder & Lincoln Co. v. Whltmore, 10 Am. B. R. 641. 1222 Batchelder v. Carter, 2 Vt. 168. 557 Batemau v. Ramsey, Sau. & Sc. 459 42, 45 Bates County Bank v. Gailey, 177 Mo. 181... 238, 333, 973, 976 Bates V. Carter, 5 Vt. 602 557 Bates V. Cobb, 29 S. C. 395.75, 801 Bates V. Drake, 28 Wash. 447. 13, 200, 204, 851, 854, 898, 959, 966 Bates V. McConnell, 31 Fed. 558 697 Bates V. Morris, 101 Ala. 282. 105, 106 Bates V. Plonsky, 28 Hun (N. Y.), 112 742, 1046 Bates V. Van Diver, 102 Ala. 249 465, 471, 492 Battersby v. Farrington, 1 Swanst. (Eng.) 106 326 Battle V. Mayo, 102 N. C. 413. 583 Battle V. Reid, 68 Ala. 149 789j 879, 1035 Battle V. Street, 85 Tenn. 282. 634 Bauer Grocer Co. v. McKee Shoe Co., 87 111. App. 434.. 484, 585 Bauer Grocery Co. v. Smith, 1 Mo. App. Bepr. 439 79 Bauer Grocery Co. v. Smith, 74 Mo. App. 419 348 Baudue v. His Creditors, 4 La. 247 272, 58a xlii Table of Cases. PAGE Baugh V. Barrett, 69 Iowa, 495. 155 Baugh V. Boles, 35 Ind. 524 .. . 806 Baughman v. Penn, 33 Kan. 504. ... 617 Bauknight v. Sloan, etc., Co., 17 Fla. 284 823, 870 Baum V. Bosworth, 68 Wis. 196 32 Baum V. Sauer, 117 Mo. 460... 965 Baur V. Beall, 14 Colo. 383 .. . 525 Bauskett v. Holsonbaok, 2 Rich. L. (S. C.) 624 70, 753 Bavouset v. York, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 428 193 Baxley v. Simmons, 132 Ala. 117 488 Baxter v. Hebberd, 5 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 854 930 Baxter v. Howell, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 198 1000 Baxter v. Meyers, 47 N. W. (Iowa), 879 588 Baxter v. Moses, 77 Me. 465 . . 762, 774, 794, 796, 798, 842, 844 Baxter v. Pritchard, 113 Iowa, 422 970 Baxter v. Sewell, 3 Md. 334 265, 274, 279, 339, 676, 717 Baxter v. Wheeler, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 21 431 Bay V. Cook, 31 111. 336 232, 267, 351, 354, 526 Bayard v. Hoflfman, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 450 20, 98, 101 Bay State Iron Co. v. Groodall, 39 N. H. 223 1040 Bay V. Sullivan, 30 Mo. 191 . . 402 Bayley v. Bayley, 66 N. J. Eq. 84 777, 857 Bayley v. Greenleaf, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 46 1115 Bayless v. Elcan, 1 Coldw. (Tenn.) 96 70, 177 Bayne v. Miller, 103 111. 442 . . 358, 360 Baylor v. Brown, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 177 75, 314 Baylor v. Smithers, 1 Litt. PAGE (Ky.) 105 526 Baze V. Arper, 6 Minn. 220. . . 940 B. C. Evans & Co. v. Guipel, 35 S. W. (Tex.) 940 636, 676 B. C. Evans Co. v. Reeves, 6 Tex. CSv. App. 254 616 Beach v. Atkinson, 87 Ga. 288 42, 479 Beach v. Baldwin, 14 Mo. 597 . . 107 Beach v. Bestor, 45 111. 341.. 796 Beach v. Bestor, 47 111. 521.. 428 Beach v. Boynton, 26 Vt. 725. . 1058 Beach v. Catlin, 4 Day (Conn.), 284 675, 676 Beach v. Hodgdbn, 66 Col. 187 814 Beach v. Miller, 130 111. 162.. 272 Beach v. White, Walk. (Mich.) 495 279, 341 Beadle v. Beadle, 40 Fed. 315 . . 66, 639 Beadles v. Jones, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 986 796 Beadles v. Miller, 51 Ky. 32... 580 Beakley v. Nelson, 56 N. J. Eq. 674 567 Beal V. Warren, 2 Gray (Mass.), 447 221 . Beale v. Delaney, 6 Mart. N. S. (La.) 641 392 Beale v. Hall, 22 Ga. 431. .639, 652 Beall V. Lehman Durr Co., 110 Ala. 446 807, 853, 856, 860 Beall V. Silver, 2 Rand. (Va.) 401 1019 Beals' V. Guernsey, 8 Johns. (N. Y.) 446 ...519, 583, 589, 593 Beals V. Quinn, 101 Mass. 262. 1152 Beaman v. Stewart, 19 Oolo. App. 226 311 Beamish v. Pomeroy, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 586 435 Bean v. Braekett, 34 N. H. 102 85 Bean v. Hubbard, 4 Cush. (Mass.) 85 152 Bean v. Patterson, 12 Fed. 739 365, 366 Table of Cases. xliii PAGE Bean v. Patterson, 122 U. S. 496 278, 472, 515 Bean v. Smith, 2 Fed. Gas. No. 1,174 695, 721 Bean v. Smith, 2 Mason (U. S.), 252 . . ..759, 760, 794, 1019 Bean, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Spoke, etc., Co., 12 Am. B. R. 610.. 1084, 1085 Bear v. Chase, 3 Am. B. R. 746 1227, 1233 Beard v. Blum, 64 Tex. 59 162 Beard v. Runyan, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 514 459 Beards v. Wheeler, 11 Hun (N. Y.), 539 474, 492 Beardsley Scythe Co. v. Foster, 36 N. y. 561 771, 819, 842 Beasley v. Bray, 98 N. C. 266. 256, 581, 595, 986 Beasley v. Coggins, 12 Am. B. E. 355 1204 Beattie v. Pool, 13 S. C. 379.. 45y 46, 627 Beattie v. Wenger, 24 Ont. App. 72 819 Beatty v. Anderson Coal Min. Co. (C. C. A.), 17 Am. B. R. 738 1102 Beatty v. Dudley, 80 Ky. 381 . . 482 Beatty v. Dudley, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 212 303 Beatty v. Tliompson, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1850 346 Beaty v. Swarthout, 32 Barb. (N. Y.) 293 884 Beaubien v. Perrault, 17 Quebec Super. Ct. 410 598 Beaumont v. Crane, 14 Mass. 400 . 550 Beaumont v. Thorpe, 1 Ves. (Eng.) 27 337 Beavan v. Oxford, 6 DeG. M. & G. 507 217 Beavan v. Wheat, 14 U. C. C. P. 51 43 PAQE Beaver v. Bare, 104 Pa. St. 58 . 109, 110 Beaver v. Danvill Shirt Co., 69 111. App. 320 ,. . 297 Beavers v. McKinley, 50 Kan. 602 386 Beavis v. Maguire, 7 Ont. App. 704 358 Bank v. Brady, 7 La. Ann. 124 391 Beck V. Connell, 8 Am. B. R. 500 1165 Beck V. Parker, 65 Pa. St. 262 1071 Beck V. Schultz (N. J.), 32 Atl. 695 141 Btecker v. Hammes, 2 Kulp. (Pa.) 404 638, 640 Beckman v. Drake, 8 Mees. & W. 845 1198 Beckham v. Secrest, 2 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 54 586 Beckman v. Noble, 115 Mich. 623 460 Beekwith v. Burrough, 14 R. I. 366 20, 100, 101 Beddow v. Sheppard, 118 Ala. 474 495, 513 Bedell v. Chase, 34 N. Y. 386. . 319, 476, 477, 569, 926, 945 Bedford v. Penny, 58 Mich. 424 590, 940, 946, 986 Beebe v. De Baum, 8 Ark. 510 232, 354 Beebe v. Saulter, 87 111. 518.. 815 Beecher v. Clark, 3 Fed. Oas. No. 1223 252, 338, 375, 585, 1118, 1139 Beeckman v. Montgomery, 14 N. J. Eq. 106 188, 351 Beeler's Heirs v. Bullitt's Heirs, 3 A. K. Marsh (Ky.) 260 31 Beels V. Flynn, 28 Neb. 575.. 245, 622 Beeman v. Cooper, 64 Vt. 305. . 1051 Beers v. Aylsworth, 41 Or. 251. 971 xliv Table of Cases. PAGE Beers v. Dawson, 8 Ga. 556 . . 520 Beers v. Hanlin, 3 Am. B. R. 745 1081, 1039 Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 604.. 526 Beeson v. Wiley, 28 Ala. 575 . . 272, 930 Beethoven Piano Organ Co. v. C. C. McEwen Co., 59 N. Y. Super Ct. 7 . .., 856 Behan v. Warfield, 90 Ky. 151 231, 240, 247, 260, 773 Beidler v. Orane, 19 N. E. (111.) 714 309 Beidler y. Crane, 22 111. App. 538 625, 626 Beidler v. Crane, 135 III. 92.. 170, 251, 413, 434, 441, 444, 695 Beidler v. Douglass, 35 111. App. 124 . .., 773, 796 Beith V. Porter, 119 Mich. 365 209, 766 Belcher v. Arnold, 14 E. I. 613 207 Belcher v. Black, 68 Ga. 93.. 400 Belden v. Younger, 76 Iowa, 567 164, 966 Belding Sav. Bank v. Moore, 118 Mieh. 150 460, 493 Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 265 3,327,678, 683 Belgard v. McLaughlin, 44 Hun (N. Y.), 557 1012 Beloit Second Nat. Bank v. Merrill, etc., Iron Works, 81 Wis. 151 ,. . . 320 B«lknap v. Groover, 56 S. W. (Tex.) 249 313 Belknap & Co. v. Lyell (Miss.), 42 So. 799 1158 Belknap v. Wendell, 21 N. H. 17S 904 Bell V. Beazley, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 639 168 Bell v. Blaney, 6 N. C. 171.. 532, 533 Bell v. Devore, 96 111. 217 162, 166, 572 668 337 539 490 917 631 631 566 939 986 987 943 Bell v. Greenwood, 21 Ark. 249 179, Bell v. HoUenbach, Wright (Ohio), 751 109, Bell V. McCloskey, 155 Pa. St. 319 . . Bell V. Merrifield, 109 N. Y. 202 866, 867, 1024 Bell v. Thompson, 3 Mo. 84.. 460, 472, Bell V. Throop, 140 Pa. St. 641 43, 596, Bell V. Wilson, 52 Ark. 171.. Bellany v. Bellany, 6 Fla. 62.. Bellows V. Wells, 36 Vt. 599.. Belt V. Ragust, 27 Tex. 471 586, 676, 920, 924, Bender v. Kingman, 64 Neb. 766 610, 615, 944, Bender v. Kingman, 62 Neb. 469 Bendetson v. Moody, 100 Mich. 553 226, 255, 257, 620, Benedict v. Deshel, 177 N. Y. 1 618, 1166, 1167 Benedict v. Market Nat. Bank, 4 Ohio N. Y. 231 813 Benedict v. Renfro, 75 Ala. 121 236, 418 Bener v. Edgington, 76 Iowa, 105 110, 1052 Benford v. Schell, 55 Pa. St. 393 541, Benham v. Ham, 5 Wash. 128 . . 783, Benjamin v. Chandler, 15 Am. B. R. 439 ..1152, 1164, 1170, 1191 Benjamin v. Madden, 94 Va. 66 538, Benjamin v. McElwaine-Rich- ards Co., 10 Ind. App. 76 . . 940, Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250 45, 76, 77, 227, 245, 361 Bennett v. Bedford Bank, 11 Mass. 421 279 543 797 556 950 Table of Cases. xlv PAGE Bennett v. Boshold, 123 111. 311 396 Bennett v. Bennett, 37 W. Va. 396 368, 514 Bennett v. Hutson, 33 Ark. 762 36, 151, 159 Bennett v. McDonald, 60 Neb. 47 915 Bennett v. McDonald, 59 Neb. 234 461, 488 Bennett v. McGuire, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 625 . .204, 765, 985, 1053 Bennett v. McGuire, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 183 375, 376 Bennett v. Minott, 28 Or. 339 57, 783 Bennett v. Musgrove, 2 Ves. 51 (Eng.) , 181 Bennett v. Stout, 98 111. 47 . . 773, 795 Bennett v. Sweet, 171 Mass. 600 102 Bennett v. Union Bank, 24 T«nii. 612 32, 462 Benson v. Benson, 70 Md. 253. 344, 378 Benson v. Maxwell, 105 Pa. St. 274 514, 584, 595 Benson v. Nash, 75 Minn. 341 947, 976, 980 Bent V. Bent, 50 Hun (N. Y.), 602 384 Bentail v. Burn, 3 B. & C. 423. 545 Bently v. Dillard, 6 Ark. 79. . . 769 Bentley v. Dunkle, 57 Ind. 374 177, 178, 848, 860 Bentley v. Gcoodwin, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 633 783 Bently v. Harris, 2 Gratt. (Va.) 357 323 Bentley v. Wells, 61 111. 59. . . . 618 Benton v. Allen, 2 Fed. 448. . . 820 Benton v. Collins, 125 N. G. 83 814, 1029 Benton v. Jones, 8 Conn. 186 . . 347 Benton v. Minneapolis Tailor- ing, etc., Co., 73 Minn. 498 . . 57 PAGE Benton v. Snyder, 22 Mins. 247 93, 521 Bentz V. Hockey, 69 Pa. St. 71 6, 414, 415, 418, 435, 448, 462, 491 Berens v. Dupre, 6 La. Ann. 494 178 Bergen v. Carman, 79 N. Y. 146, 153 66, 68, 69, 206, 734, 735, 737 Bergen v. Farmers', etc.. Bank, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 613 459 Bergen v. Porpoise Fishing Co., 42 N. J. Eq. 397 575 Bergen v. Producers' Marble Co., 72 Tex. 53 727 Bergin v. Pindar, 3 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 574 45 Berkley v. Tootle, 46 Kan. 335 241 Berla v. Meisel, 52 Atl. (N. J.) 999 366 Berlin v. Van de Vanter, 25 Wash. 465 997 Bernal v. Hovlous, 17 Cal. 541 549, 565 Bernard v. Barney Myroleum Co., 147 Maes. 356 1032 Bernard v. Douglass, 10 Iowa 370 49 Bernard v. Guidry, 109 La. 451 947 Bernhardt v. Brown, 122 N. C. 587 251, 441, 930 Bernheim v. Beer, 56 Miss. 149 38, 136, 172, 364 Bernheim v. Davitt, 9 Ky. L. Hep. 229 170 Bernheim v. Dibrell, 66 Miss. 199 924, 580, 751, 924 Berry v. Berk, 62 Neb. 535 .. . 306 Berry v. Berry, 84 Me. 541. .38, 364 Berry v. Ewen, 27 Ky. L. Eep. 467 152, 966 Berry v. Frantz, 113 Ky. 888 668, 669 Berry v. Gates, 175 Mass. 373. 737 Berry v. Haas, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 189 423 Berry v. Hanks, 28 111. App. xlvi Table of Oases. PAGE 51 151 Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 29 228, 301, 317, 460, 469, 474 Berry v. Sofge, 46 S. W. (Tenn.) 456 958, 961 Berryman v. Sullivan, 21 Miss. 65 781, 879, 957 Berthelon v. Betta, 4 Hill (N. Y.), 577 1071 Bertrand v. Elder, 23 Ark. 494 277, 281, 338 Bertrand v. Parkea, 8 Manitoba, 175 253 Beaser v. Joyce, 9 Or. 310.... 91, 146, 147 Beasman v. Cronan, 65 Ga. 559 760 Bessey v. Windham, 6 Q. B. 166 638 Beat V. Fuller & Fuller Co., 185 111. 43 434, 441, 448 Best V. Smith, 193 Pa. St. 89 188, 349 Beat V. Staple, 61 N. Y. 71... 769 Bethel Steam Mill Co. v. Brown, 59 Me. 9 542 Betts V. Nichola, 84 Ala. 278 . . 769 Betta V. Union Bank, 1 Harr. & G. (Md.) 175 322 Betz V. Conner, 7 Daly (N. Y.), 550 519 Beuerlein v. O'Leary, 149 N. Y. 33... 8, 9, 882, 914, 923, 924, 925 Beurmann v. Van Buren, 44 Mich. 496 583, 909 Bevins v. Dunham, 1 Speers (Ga.), 39 474, 500 Bevins v. Eiaman, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1772 819, 849 Beyer v. Thoeming, 81 Iowa, 517 152 Bibb V. Barker, 56 Ky. 292 250, 396, 642, 646 Bibb V. Freeman, 59 Ala. 612.. 182, 337 Bice V. Rogers, 52 Kan. 207 .. . 927 Biokerstaff v. Doub, 19 Cal. 109 634, 773, 804 PAGE Bickle V. Chrisman, 76 Va. 678 346 Bickler v. Kendall, 66 Iowa, 703 231, 1000 Bickley v. Norris, 2 Brev. (S. C.) 252 52 Bicknell v. Mallett, 160 Mass. 328 945 Bicocchi V. Casey-Swasey Co., 91 Tex. 259 138, 143, 653, 669 Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 Md. 359 588 Bier v. Kibbe, 52 Hun (N. Y.), 612 939, 996 Bier v. Kibbe, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 174 418, 421, 428 Bierbower v. Polk, 17 Neb. 268 75, 76, 78 Bierbower v. Singer, 27 Neb. 414 1052 Biering v. Flett, 7 S. W. (Tex.) 229 646 Bierne v. Bay, 37 W. Va. 571 233, 353, 394, 621 Bigby V. Warnoek, 115 Ga. 385 497, 595, 670, 680, 687 Bigelow V. Andresa, 31 111. 322 783, 1041, 1044 Bigelow V. Ayrault, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 143.... 20, 102, 330, 690 Bigelow Blue Stone Co. v. Magee, 27 N. J. Eq. 392 845 Bigelow V. Doolittle, 36 Wis. 115 245 Bigelow V. Stringer, 40 Mo. 195 414, 418, 422, 428, 987 Bigelow V. Toplifif, 25 Vt. 273 251^ 443, 444 Biggins V. Lambert, 213 111. 625 71, 670, 695 Bilafsky v. Abraham, 183 Mass. 401 1236 Bill V. Cureton, 4 L. J. Ch. 98 (Eng.) 200 'Billgery v. Ferguson, 30 La. Ann. 34 290 Table of Cases. xlvii PAGE Billgery v. Schnell, 26 La. Ann. 467 580, 971 Billings V. Billings, 31 Hun (N. Y.) 65 ....497, 601 Billings V. Billings, 2 Cal? 107 . 987 Billings V. Kussell, 101 N. Y. 226 5, 19, 71, 252, 331, 487 497, 498, 598, 602, 603, 626, 627 Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234 335, 351 Billingsley v. Menear, 44 W. Va. 651 640 Billingsley v. White, 59 Pa. St. 464 538 Billington v. Sweeting, 172 Pa. St. 161 397, 897 Bills V. Bills, 41 Ohio St. 196. . 162 Bills V. Schliep, 11 Am. B. R. 607 1193 Bindley v. Martin, 28 W. Va. 773 523 Bindseil v. Smith (N. J.), 5 Am. B. K. 40 1220 Bingham v. Sheldon, 101 App. Div. (N. Y.) 48 644 Binnie v. Walker, 25 111. App. 82 794, 843 Binson v. Maxwell, 105 Pa. St. 274 974 Bird V. Aitkin, Bice Eq. (S. C.) 73 462, 474 Bird V. Bolduc, 1 Mo. 701 853 Birdsale v. Lakey, 9 La. Ann. 646 395 Birdsall v. Welch, 6 D. C. 316 235, 241, 315, 579, 628, 721, 880 892, 992 Birdsall, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Schwartz, 26 App. Div. (N. Y.) 343 974 Birdwell v. Butler, 13 Tex. 338 819 Birely v. Staley, 5 Gill & J. (Md.) 432 28, 808, 815, 821 864, 903, 1031, 1050 Birge v. Edgerton, 28 Vt. 291 . . 542 Birge v. Nock, 34 Conn. 156.. 728 PAGE Birmingham Dry Goods Co. v. Roden, 110 Ala. 511 430, 448 Birmingham Nat. Bank v. Steele, 98 Ala. 85 878 Birmingham Shoe Co. v. Tor- rey, 121 Ala. 89 171 Birnhisel v. Firman, 22 Wall. . (U. S.) 70 1093, 1158 Bishoflf V. Hartley, 9 W. Va. 100 570, 582 Bishop V. Cook, 13 Barb. (N. Y.) 326 985 Bishop V. Curphey, 60 Miss. 22 123 Bishop V. John H. Hibbon Dry Goods Co. (Ky.), 99 S. W. 644 403 Bishop V. Jones, 28 Kan. 680 459, 476 Bishop V. O'Connell, 56 Mo. 158 528, 534, 552 Bishop V. Redmond, 83 Ind. 157 187, 188, 201, 587 Bishop V. State, 83 Ind. 67 .. 278, 286, 557, 891, 902, 986 Bishop V. Stebbins, 41 Hun (N. Y.), 243 456, 489 Bissell V. Hopkins, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 166 519 Bittinger v. Kasten, 111 111. 260 249, 264, 275, 278, 339 Bixby V. Carskaddon, 70 Iowa, 726 925, 983 Bixby V. Carskaddon, 55 Iowa, 533 594, 951 Balnkenship v. Turner, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. See. 427 589 Black V. Bordelon, 38 La. Ann. 696 819 Black V. Caldwell, 49 N. C. 150 992 Black V. Coldwell, 49 N. C. 150 344 Black V. Fountain, 23 Grant Ch. 174 359 Black V. Fuller, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 303 555 Black V. Nease, 37 Pa. St. 433 190 xlviii Table of Cases. PAGE Black V. Sanders, 46 N. C. 67 280, 281, 284 Black V. Vaughan, 70 Tex. 47 462, 504 Blackburn v. Thompson, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1723 116 Black Hills Mercantile Co. v. Gardiner, 5 S. D. 246 235, 237, 316 Blackley v. Kenny, 16 Ont. App. (Can.) 522 211 Blackman v. Preston, 24 111. App. 237 252 Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 326 14, 94, 521, 976 Blackmore v. Cruteher, 46 S. W. (Tenn.) 310 366 Blackmore v. Parkes, 81 Fed. 899 477, 967 Blackshire v. Pettit, 35 W. Va. 547 410, 523, 539, 723, 861 906, 908, 971 Blackwell v. Hatch, 13 Okla. 169 838 Blaechinska v. Howard Mission, 130 N. Y. 497 363 Blair v. Alston, 26 Ark. 41 751 Blair v. Bass, 4 Blackf. (Ind.) 539 722 Blair v. Brown, 116 N. C. 631 70, 333 Blair v. Finlay, 75 Tex. 210 . . 333, 941, 1000 Blair v. Smith, 114 Ind. 114.. 40, 93, 101, 130, 160, 171, 680 Blaisdell v. Cowell, 14 Me. 370 892 Blair State Bank v. Bunn, 61 Neb. 464 393, 461, 488, 491 509, 511, 594, 968 Blake v. Blake, 53 Miss. 182 . . 209 Blake v. Corbett, 120 N. Y. 327.. 1218 Blake v. Boisjoli, 51 Minn. 296 36, 38, 91, 95, 160, 339 Blake v. Francis-Valentine Co., 1 Am. B. R. 372 1072 Blake v. Graves, 18 Iowa, 312.. 552 PAGB Blake v. Howard, 11 Me. 202.. 925 Blake v. Jones, 1 Bailey Eq. 141 ... 344, 349 Blake v. Sawin, 10 Allen (Mass.), 340 277 Blake v. Sawin, 92 Mass. 340 203, 344, 586 Blake v. White, 13 N. H. 267. . 584, 595, 915, 924, 925, 950 Blake v. Williams, 36 N. H. 39 85, 184, 637, 639,. 657 Blake v. Van Tilborg, 21 Wis. 672 870 Blakely Printing Co. v. Pease, 95 111. App. 341 192, 260, 538 Blakely v. Gould, 24 Ont. App. 153 91, 99 Blakley's Appeal, 7 Pa. St. 449 462 Blakeney v. Kirkley, 2 Nott. & M. 544 338 Blakeslee v. Eossman, 43 Wis. 1161 227, 555, 884 Blakey v. Boonville Nat. Bank, 2 Am. B. E. Rep. 459 1129 Blanc V. Paymaster Min. Co., 95 Cal 524 797, 820, 824 Blanehard v. Cooke, 144 Mass. 207 34 Blanehard v. Glasier, 64 Iowa, 675 973 Blanehard v. McKay, 125 Mass. 124 215 Blanehard v. Moors, 85 Mich. 380 941 Blanehard v. Paschal, 68 Ga. 32 169 Blauchet v. Hellebrant, 4 La. 439 979 Blanik v. Barta, 130 Wis. 121. 296 Blanik v. Barta, 109 N. W. (Wis.) 980 332 Blankenship, etc., Co. v. Willis, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 657 946, 998 Blantin v. Whitaker, 30 Tenn. 313 649 Table of Cases. 2dix FAOE Blanton v. Taylor, Gilm. (Va.) 209 358, 359 Blasa V. Anderson, 57 Ark. 483. 226 Blaut V. Gabler, 77 N. Y. 461 519, 534, 944, 959, 960 Blish V. Collins, 68 Mich. 542 28, 802 Blish V. MeCornick, 15 Utah, 188 534 Bliss V. Ball, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 162 839 Bleiler v. Moore, 88 Wis. 438 392, 408, 409 Bleiler v. Moore, 94 Wis. 385 582, 595 Bleiler v. Moore, 99 Wis. 486 978, 1003 Blenkinsopp v. Blenkinsopp, 1 DeG. M. & G. 495 203, 240 Blennerhassett v. Sherman, 105 U. S. 100 6, 19, 31, 32, 253, 255, 560 Bliss V. Couch, 46 Kan. 400.. . 8, 459, 509, 908, 953 Bliss V. Crosier, 159 Mass. 498 29, 33, 258, 609 Block V. Chase, 15 Mo. 344... 724 Block V. Darling, 140 U. S. 234 652 Blocker v. Burness, 2 Ala. 354 519, 910 Blodgett V. Chaplin, 48 Me. 322 250, 583 Bloedorn v. Jewell, 34 Neb. 649 153 Blom-CoUier Co. v. Martin, 98 Mo. App. 596 997 Bloodgood V. Meissner, 84 Wis. 452 42, 45, 156, 376, 755, 756 Bloom V. Moy, 43 Minn. 397 . . 193, 900, 956 Bloomingdale v. Chittenden, 75 Mich. 305 652, 653 Bloomingdale v. Empire Rub- ber Mfg. Co., 8 Am. B. R. 74. 1197 Bloomingdale v. Stein, 42 Ohio St. 168 38, 45, 778 d PAGE Blossman v. Friske, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 191 958, 960 Blossom V. Negus, 182 Mass. 515 402 Blount V. Costen, 47 Ga. 534.. 642 Blount V. Blount, 3 Atk.(Eng.) 481 233, 353 Blow V. Gage, 44 111. 208 225 Blow V. Maynard, 2 Laigh (Va.) 29 688, 1023 Blubaugh v. Loomis, 48 W. Va. 666 909 Blue V. Penniston, 27 Mo. 272 916, 926, 933, 950 Blue V. Schurtz, 115 Mich. 690. 376 Blum V. Goldman, 66 Tex. 621. 756 Blum V. Jones, 86 Tenn. 492 . . 389 Blum V. Light, 81 Tex. 414 164, 1052 Blum V. McBride, 69 Tex. 60.. 256 Blum V. Ross, 116 Pa. St. 163. . 113 Blum V. Simpson, 66 Tex. 84.. 259, 619 Blum V. Wyly, 111 La. 1092 825, 859, 861 Blumberg v. Bryan, 6 Am. B. E. 20 1216 Blumenthal v. Magnus, 97 Ala. 630 430, 448, 973 Blumenthal v. Michol, 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 636... 365, 537, 604 Blumer v. Bennett, 44 Neb. 873 581, 907 Blystone v. Blystone, 51 Pa. St. 273 638, 640 Blystone v. Burgett, 10 Ind. 28 520 Blythe v. Thomas, 45 Fed. 784 436 Board of Education v. Mitch- ell, 40 W. Va. 431 114 Boardman v. Halliday, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 223 ...J 479, 507 Boardman v. Keeler, 1 Aik. (Vt.) 158 527, 557 Boatman's Sav. Bank v. Over- all, 16 Mo. App. 510 348, 351, 375 Table of Cases. PAGE Bobb V. Bobb, 8 Mo. App. 257 868, 870 Bobb V. WoodVard, 50 Mo. 95 648, 839 Bobo V. Bryson, 21 Ark. 387.. 110 Boehm v. Caliseh (Tex.), 3 S. W. 293 925 Bodine v. Edwards, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 504 885, 886 Bodine T. fciiinmons, 38 Mich. 682 85, 178, 180 Boehme v. Ball, 51 N. J. Eq. 541 88 Bodkin v. Kerr, 97 Minn. 301 966 Boese v. King, 108 U. S. 379. 1071, 1140 Boessneck v. Cohn, 7 N. Y. Supp. 620 236, 315 Boessneck v. Edelson, 45 App. Div. 631 669 Bogan V. Cleveland, 52 Ark. 101 163 Bogard v. Gardley, 12 Miss. 302 521 Bogen & Trummel v. Potter, (C. C. A.), 12 Am. B. R. 288 1097, 1106 Bogert V. Haight, 9 Paige (N. Y.), 297 859 Bogert V. Hess, 50 App. Div. (N. Y.) 253 578, 946 Bogert V. Phelps, 14 Wis. 88 900, 944 Boynton v. McNeal, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 456 162 Boggess V. Richards, 39 W. Va. 567 112, 115, 323, 833 Bogess V. Scott, 48 W. Va. 316. 1025 Boggs V. Douglass, 100 Iowa, 385 702 Boggs V. McCoy, 15 W. Va. 344 821 Boggs V. Thompson, 13 Neb. 403 153 Bohaker v. Morris, 20 Nova Scotia, 212 108 Bohannon v. Combs, 75 Mo. 286 PAGE 265, 267, 341, 344, 686 Bohn V. Headley, 7 Harr. & J. (Md.) 257 . 16, 348 Bohn V. Weeks, 50 lU. App. 236 153, 157, 281, 649 Boice V. Conover, 54 N. J. Eq. 531 15, 16, 217, 220 Boid V. Dean, 48 N. J. Eq. 193 200, 239 Boies V. Henney, 32 111. 130.. 225, 587, 612, 626, 1004 Boies V. Johnson, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 331 836 Boies V. Johnson, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 331 279 Bokel, etc., Co. v. Costello, 22 App. Caa. (D. C.) 81 996 Bokhoof V. Stewart, 2 Neb. (Unoff.) 714 971 Boland v. Ross, 120 Mo. 208 . . 72, 229, 331, 333 Bolander v. Grentry, 36 Cal. 105 208, 749, 784 Boldriok v. Mills, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 852 187 Boldt V. First Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 283 895, 986 Boiling V. Harrison, 2 Patt. & H. (Va.) 532 684 Boiling V. Jones, 67 Ala. 508 . . 142, 148, 371, 904, 941 Bollman v. Lucas, 22 Neb. 796 613 Bollinger v. Gallagher, 170 Pa. St. 84 39, 400, 897 Bolt V. Rogers, Paige (N. Y.), 154 639 Bolton V. Jacks, 29 N. Y. Su- per. Ct. 166 905 Bolton V. Pitney, 46 N. J. Eq. 610 659 Bomar v. Means, 53 S. C. 232 . . 386, 473, 511, 758, 816, 824, 917 Bomberger v. Turner, 13 Ohio St. 263 698, 701, 844, 876 Bond V. Bronson, 80 Pa. St. 360 535, 541 Table of Cases. PAGE Bond y. Endicott, 149 Mass. 282 ....208, 749 Bond V. Seymour, 2 Finn. (Wis.) 105 153, 523, 987 Bonds V. Eagle, etc., Mfg. Go., 44 S. W. (Tex.) 539 366 Bonesteel v. Sullivan, 104 Pa. St. 9 69, 632, 637 Bongard v. Block, 81 111. 186.. 200 Bonnell v. Henry, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 142 48 Bonney v. Taylor, 90 Mo. 63. . 216, 220, 863 Bonneyr v. Tilley, 109 Cal. 346 458 Bonnie v. Perry, 117 Ky. 459. 1132 Bonslough V. Bonslough, 68 Pa. St. 495 202 Bonser v. Miller, 5 Or. 110 322, 324, 581, 584 Bonslough V. Bonslough, 68 Pa. St. 495 351 Booher v. Worrill, 57 Ga. 235 . . 275, 366, 974, 992 Bookout V. Anderson, 2 La. Ann. 246 709 Books V. Caughran, 40 Tenn. 464 696 Books V. Wilson, 53 Hun (N. Y.), 173 74 Boone County Nat. Bank v. Newkirk, 114 Mo. 472 183, 252, 951 Boon V. Shaw, 29 Pa. St. 288 . . 541 Boone v. Hardie, 83 N. C. 470 522, 572 Boonville Bank v. Blakey, 6 Am. B. R. 13 1212 Booth V. Bunce, 24 N. Y. 592. . 4, 27, 56, 59, 1037 Booth V. Carstai-phen, 107 N. C. 395 572 Booth V. Keloe, 71 N. Y. 341 548, 564 Booth V. Moret, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 216 53, 63 Booth V. Wiley, 102 111. 84... 688 Boothby v. Brown, 40 Iowa, 104 FAGE 518, 525, 533, 961 Boots V. Griffith, 89 Ind. 246. 106 Borden v. Doughty, 42 N. J. Eq. 314 373, 701 Borland v. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104 . . 82, 233, 355, 395, 433, 457, 519, 579, 908, 939, 940 Borland v. Walker, 7 Ala. 269 433, 519, 256, 695 Born V. Shaw, 29 Pa. St. 288. 527 Borneman v. Sidlinger, 15 Me. 429 339 Bornheim v. Beer, 56 Miss. 149 119 Borror v. Carrier, 34 Ind. App. 353 585, 851 Borwick v. Moyse, 74 Miss. 415 657 Bossart's Estate, 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 100 355 Bosse V. Thomas, 3 Mo. App. 472 526 Bosteck V. Jordan, 54 Tenn. 370 1188 Boston Mar. Ins. Co. v. Proctor, 168 Mass. 498 305 Boswell V. Green, 25 N. J. L. '390 297 Bostwick V. Benjamin, 63 Mich. 289 303 Bostwick V. Blake, 145 111. 85 , 43.5, 437, 450 Bostwick V. Gasquet, 11 IJa. 534 899 Bostwick V. Menck, 40 N. Y. 383 204, 205, 633 Bostwick V. Seotf, 40 Hun (N. Y.), 212 203, 792 Botcher v. Berry, 6 Mont. 448. 525, 750, 884 Botsford V. Beers, 11 Conn. 369 38, 753, 763, 807 Bott V. Smith, 21 Beav. 511.. 589, 627 Bottorfl V. Covert, 90 Ind. 508 852, 1031 Botts V. Botts, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 300 691 Botts V. Cozine, 1 Hofif. Ch. (N. Y.) 79 179 Hi Table or Cases. Botts V. Hammond, 3 Am. B. R. 775 Boulton V. Hahn, 58 lowa^ 518 36, 142, 148, 376 Bouquet v. Heyman, 50 N. J. Eq. 114 344, 349, 570, 586 Bourquin v. Bourquin, 120 Ga. 115 728 Bourgeat v. Dumoulin, 12 La. Ann. 204 426 Bours V. Webster, 6 Cal. 661. . 565 Boustead v. Shaw, 27 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 280 285 Bouton V. Beers, 78 Oonn. 414 69, 631, 633 Bouton V. Smith, 113 111. 481 687 BoutwfiU V. MeCliure, 30 Vt. 674 . . 177, 63'7 Bowden v. Bowden, 75 111. 143 569, 571, 976 Bowden v. Johnson, 107 U. S. 251 879 Bowden v. Spellman, 59 Ark. 251 84, 810, 940 Bowdish V. Page, 153 N. Y. 108 81, 454 Bowe V. Arnold, 31 Hun (N. Y.), 256 783, 784, 796, 1046 Bowen v. State, 121 Ind. 253 182, 267 Bowers v. Huntingdon Bank, 97 Ky. 294 1018 Bowers v. Keesecher, 9 Iowa, 422 870 Bowie V. Hedrick (Tex. Civ. App.),35.S. W. 317 462 Bowles Live Stock Commission Co. V. Hunter, 91 Mo. App. 418 526 Bowling V. Armourdale Bank, 57 Kan. 174 75, 78, 228 Bowling V. Searles, 57 Kan. 174 238, 316, 989 Bowling V. Winslow, 5 B. Mon. (Ky.) 29 149 Bowls V. Tompkins, 18 Hun PAGE (N. Y.), 219 198 Bowlus V. Shanabarger, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 137. ...137, 181, 189, 279, 351, 382, 427, 435, 449, 818 Bowman v. Alpha Farms, 18 Am. B. K. 700 . ., 1211 Bowman V. Ash, 143 111. 649. .36, 39, 105, 106, 363, 364, 892, 952 Bowman v. Handlette, 18 Me. 245 378 Bowman v. Herring, 4 Harr. (Del.) 458 526 Bowman v. McKleroy, 114 La. Ann. 587 656, 657 Bowman v. Victor Min. Co., 78 Mo. App. 676 229 Bownes v. Weld, 3 Daly (N. Y.), 253 770 Bowyer v. Martin, 27 W. Va. 442 613 Boyce v. Waller, 41 Ky. 91 . . 580 Boyd V. Barnett, 24 111. App. 199 159 Boyd V. Brown, 34 Mass. 453. . 75, 82, 83, 713, 986 Boyd V. De la Montaignie, 73 N. Y. 498 652 Boyd V. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 478 71, 330, 331 Boyd V. Ellis, 11 Iowa, 97... 231, 234, 355 Boyd V. Lemon-Gale Co., 8 Am. B. E,. 81 1094, 1163 Boyd V. Pottle, 65 Mo. App. 374 522, 819, 870, 874 Boyd V. Turpin, 94 N. C. 137 68, 632, 754 Boyd V. Viekrey, 138 Ind. 276 283 Boyer v. Tucker, 70 Mo. 457 . . 959, 961, 971 Boyer v. Weimer, 204 Pa. St. 295 720, 723 Boyle V. Boyle, 6 Mo. App. 594 340 Boyle V. Maroney, 73 Iowa, 70. 1036 Boyle V. Thomas, 1 Chest. Co. Rep. 117 85, 184, 761, 1032 Table of Cases. liii Boylen v. Leoiia. v. Sharvy, 53 Miss. 216 521, 962 239 Corwiu V. Beddington, 4 Ind. 198 711 523 Corwins v. Thompson Nat. Bank, 105 Fed. 196 599 478, 508, 560, 561, 701 48 Cosby V. Ross, .26 Ky. 290 Costello V. Chamberlain, 36 348 1022 Neb. 45 Costello V. Friedman, 71 Pae. 461 842 935 Costello V. Harbaugh, 83 111. 955 842 App. 29 Costello V. Palmer, 20 App. 1072 586 Cas. (D. C.) 210 1061, 1063 520 Costello V. Prospect Brew. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 357 627 107, 639, 692, 698 548 Cothran v. Forsyth, 68 Ga. 560. 273, 341, 587, 626, 902 Table of Cases. Ixxix PAGE Cottingham's Succession, 29 La. Ann. 669 160 Cottingham v. Greely-Barnham Grocery Co., 137 Ala. 149 .. . 227, 680, 686, 744, 745, 1001 Cottle V. Harrold, 72 Ga. 830. . 711 Cottrell V. Smith, 63 Iowa, 181. 138, 295 Coughlin V. Ryan, 43 Mo. 99 . . 107 Ooulson V. Galtsman, 1 Neb. (Unoff.) 502 763, 794 Coulter V. Lumpkin, 100 Ga. 784 914, 943 Countryman v. Countryman, 28 N. Y. Supp. 258 155 Couraey v. Morton, 132 N. Y. 556 573 Couse V. Columbia Powder Mfg. Co., 33 AtL (N. J.) 297... 726, 857 Coutts V. Greenhow, 2 Mimf. (Va.) 363 323 Oovanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495 315, 462, 463, 471 479, 490, 595, 627, 915, 924, 939 Cover V. Manaway, 115 Pa. St. 338 996 Cowan V. Phillips, 119 N. C. 26 430 Cowan V. Phillips, 122 N. C. 70 186 Cowart V. Epstein, 101 Ga. 1.. 395 Cowen y. Alsop, 51 Miss. 158.. 178, 249, 265, 279, 339 Cowing V. Howard, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 579 690 Oowles V. Coe, 21 Conn. 60 938 Cowles V. Eicketts, 1 Iowa, 582. 244, 459, 487, 492 Cowling V. Estes, 15 111. App. 255, 256 396, 590, 612, 979 Cowling V. Hill, 69 Ark. 350 .. . 407 Cox V. OoUis, 109 Iowa, 270.. 217, 330, 356, 583 Cox V. Cox, 91 Mo. 71 . . 146, 149, 395 Cox V. Dunham, 8 N. J. Eq. 594 763, 807 Cox V. Einspahr, 40 Neb. 411.. 950 PAGE Cox V. Fraley, 26 Ark. 20, 250. 458, 473, 847 Cox V. Graver, 40 N. J. Eq. 473 731, 732, 760 Cox V. Horner, 43 W. Va. 786. 95, 827 Cox V. Jackson, 6 Allen (Mass.), 108 218 Cox V. Jackson, 88 Mass. 108.. 215 Cox V. Miller, 54 Tex. 16 401 Cox V. Morrison, 31 S. W. (Tex.) 67 582 Cox v. Scott, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 305 106 Cox V. Scott, 68 Tenn. 305.362, 898 Cox V. Shropshire, 25 Tex. 113. 165 Cox V. SwoflFord Bros. Dry Goods Co., 2 Ind. T. 61 856 Cox V. Trent, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 639 916 Cox V. Wall, 132 N.C. 730.904, 1204 Cox V. Wilder, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,308 92 Cox V. Wilder, 2 Dill. (U. S.) 45 159 Coykendall v. Ladd, 32 Minn. 529 119 Coyne v. Sayre, 64 N. J. Eq. 702 104, 105, 110, 840, 900 Coyne, Stone & Co. v. Jones, 51 111. App. 17 . ., ,. . 742 Cozzens v. Holt, 136 Mass. 237. 901 Crabb v. Morrisey, 31 Neb. 161. 581 Cracknall v. Jansen, 11 Ch. Div. (Eng.) 1. . . .1 215, 217 Craft V. Schlag, 61 N. J. Eq. 567 304 Craft V. Wilcox, 102 Ala. 378. 848, 870 Craig V. California Vineyard Co., 46 Pac. (Or.) 421 958 Craig V. California Vineyard Co., 30 Or. .43 964 Craig V. Conover, 24 Ky. L. Eep. 1682 374 Craig V. Fowler, 59 Iowa, 200. 892, 947, 948 Ixxx Table of Cases. PAGE Craig V. Gamble, 6 Fla. 430 .. . 40 Craig V. Tappin, 2 &undf. Ch. (N. Y.) 78 225 Craig V. Zimmerman, 87 Mo. 475 721, 727 Craigmiles v. Hays, 75 Tenn. 720 1019 Crain v. Gould, 46 111. 203. .. . 298 Cram v. Mitchell, 1 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 251 519 Cramer v. Beford, 17 N. J. Eq. 367 106, 182, 351, 897 Cramer v. Bede, 24 111. App. 219 351, 863 Cramer v. Blood, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 155 35, 185 Cramer v. Blood, 48 N. Y. 684. 83, 143, 681 Crampton v. Schaap, 56 Ark. 253 186, 347 Cramton v. Tarbell, 6 Fed. Gas. No. 3,349 528 Crane v. Barkdale, 59 Md. 534. 513 Crane v. Linnius, 77 Me. 59 . . . ' 155 Crane v. Powell, 139 N. Y. 379. 878 Crane v. Smythe, 11 Am. B. R. 747 1120, 1121 Crane v. Stickles, 15 Vt. 252 . . 299, 744 Crane v. Timberlake, 81 Mo. 431 29, 551 Cranston v. Smith, 47 Mieh. 189 769 Crapster v. Williams, 21 Kan. 109 321, 485 Crary v. Goodman, 22 N. Y. 177 23 Crary v. Hoffman, 115 Iowa, 332 896 Crary v. Kurtz (Iowa), 105 N. W. 590. . . .250, 266, 272, 339, 787 852, 902, 1133 Crary v. Sprague, 12 Wend. (N. Y.) 41 52, 53 Craver v. Niller, 65 Pa. St. 456 989 Crawford v. Austin, 34 Md. 49. 465 Crawford v. Beard, 12 Or. 447. 573 FAOK Crawford v. Crawford, 4 W. Va. 56 320 Crawford v. Davis, 99 Pa. St. 576 543 Crawford v. Kirksey, 50 Ala. .590 240, 241, 252, 304 Crawford v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 282 343, 433, 457, 483, 490 492, 499, 587, 592, 597, 610 618, 867 Crawford v. Lehr, 20 Kan. 509. 209, 631, 765 Crawford v. Logan, 97 111. 396. 192, 267 Crawford v. Meldoum, 3 Grant Err. App. (U. C.) 101.. 232, 354 Crawford v. Neal, 144 U. S. 585 .73, 76, 562, 593 Crawford v. Nolan, 70 Iowa, 97. 996 Crawford v. Osmun, 70 Mich. 651 654 Crawfordsville Bank v. Carter, 89 Ind. 317 452 Creagh v. Savage, 14 Ala. 454. 557 Crecelius v. Bierman, 72 Mo. App. 355 311 Credle v. Carrawan, 64 N. C. 422 327 Creed v. Lancaster Bajik, 1 Ohio St. 1 ,..284, 349, 569 Creig V. Rice, 66 S. C. 171. .. . 976 Creighton v. Roe, 218 HI. 619. 631, 640 Creighton v. Soranton Lace-Cur- tain Mfg. Co., 191 Pa. St. 231 302 Cresson Coal & Coke Co. v. Stauffer (C. C. A.), 17 Am. B. R. 573 1104 Cresswell. v. MeCaig, 11 Neb. 222 139 Criag V. Webber, 36 Me. 504.. 1057, 1058 Cribb V. Bagley, 83 Ga. 105 .. . 430, 1005 Crim V. Price, 46 W. Va. 374 . . 816 Crim V. Walker, 79 Mo. 335 .. . 776, 781 Table of Cases. Ixxxi PAOE Crim V. Woodford (C. 0. A.), 14 Am. B. R. 302 1124 Crippen V. Fletcher, 56 Mich. 386 744,748,781,782, 793 803, 897 Crites v. Hart, 49 Neb. 53.272, 297 Crittenden v. Barton, 5 Am. B. R. 775 1165 Croarkin v. Hutchinson, 108 111. 633 179, 971 Crocker v. Craig, 46 Me. 327 . . 864 ■Crocker v. Huntzicker, 113 Wis. 181 183, 234, 356 Crockett v. Jewett, 2 Ben. (U. S.) 514 1198 Crockett v. Maguire, 10 Mo. 34. 717 ■Crockett v. Phinney, 33 Minn. 157 ,. .. 810 Croft V. Arthur, 3 Desauss. (S. C.) 223 324, 411 Crocker v. Huntzicker, 113 Wis. 181 ,..,.. 698 Crombie v. Young, 26 Ont. 194. 184 Cromelin r. McCauley, 67 Ala. 542 593 Cromie v. Hart, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 739 1022 -Crompton v. Anthony, 95 Mass. 33 815 Cronic v. Smith, 96 Ga. 794 .. . 650 Cronie v. Hart, 18 Gratt. (Va.) 739 983 Crooke v. Kings County, 97 N. Y. 421 145 Crocker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195. 85, 184 Crooks V. Stewart, 7 Fed. 800. 1223 Oooks V. The Peoples Bank, 3 Am. B. R. 238 , 1089, 1160, 1165, 1169, 1170 Crooks V. Brydon, 93 Md. 640. 13, 580, 778, 892, 907, 971 Cropsey v. McKinney, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 47 376, 772 Crosby v. Huston, 1 Tex. 203 . . 237, 316 Crosby v. Spear, 11 Am. B. R. f PAGE 613 1218, 1221 Crosby v. Miller, 16 Am. B. R. 805 1180, 1221 Cross V. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St. 613 124 Cross V. Berry, 132 Ala. 92... 151, 157 Cross V. Bryant, 3 111. 36 458 Cross V. M'oKinley, 81 Tex. 332. 1000 Crossley v. Elworthy, L. R. 12 Eq. (Eng.) 158 200, 903 Crothers v. Busch, 153 Mo. 606. 460, 472, 492 Crouch V. Carrier, 16 Conn. 505 546 Grouse v. Frothingham, 97 N. Y. 105 438 Crow V. Andrews, 24 Mo. App. 159 727 Crow V. Beardsley, 68 Mo. 435. 472, 488, 497, 607 Ctx>w V. Carver, 133 Ind. 260 . . 852, 1009 Crowder v. Garber, 97 Va. 565. 898, 963, 966 Crowell V. Horacek, 12 Neb. 622 774, 1041 Crowinshield v. Kittridge, 48 Mass. 520 497, 626, 661 Crozier v. Young, 3 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 157 35 Crump V. Chapman, Fed. Cas. No. 3,455 1165 Cruger v. Tucker, 69 Ga. 557.. 899, 1021 Cruikahanks v. Cogswell, 26 111. 366 552, 635 CuUough V. Willey, 192 Pa. St. 176 635 Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 3 Ohio St. 544 214 Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 2 Ohio St. 373 281, 340 Orummen v. Bennett, 68 N. O. 494 92, 161, 166 Crump V. Johnson (Tenn. Ch. App.), 40 S. W. 73..' 898 Cubbedge v. Adams, 42 Ga. 124. 1044 Ixxxii Table of Cases. Cubberly v. Yager (N. J. Ch.), 2 Atl. 814 758 Cuendet v. Lahmer, 16 Kan. 527 459 Culbertson v. Luckey, 13 Iowa, 12 288, 957 Gulp V. Mulvane, 66 Kan. 143. 906 Culver V. Graham, 3 Wyo. 211. 183 Cumberland Coal, etc., Oo. v. Hoffman Steam Coal Co., 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 159 812 Cummings v. Feary, 44 Mich. 39 915 Cummings v. Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co., 123 Mo. App. 9 1164, 1168 Cummins v. Griggs, 63 Ky. 87. 565 Cuney v. Dupree, 21 Tex. 211. 640, 641 Cunningham/ v. Ashbrook, 20 Mo. 553. ... ~ 552 Cunningham v. Campbell, 3 Tenn. Ch. 708 ..84, 214 Cunningham, v. Eagan, 102 Wis. 272 316 Cunningham v. Freenorn, 11 Wend. (N. Y.) 240 573, 875, 879, 956, 983 Cunningham v. Norton, 125 U. S. 77 969 Cunningham v. Rogers, 14 Ala. 147 872 Cunningham v. Schley, 41 Ga. 426 192 Cunningham v. Williams, 42 Ark. 170 8S3 Curd V. Miller, 7 Gratt. 185... 182, 206, 523, 567, 911 Cureton v. Doby, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 411... 452, 462, 466, 474 Curlee v. Rembert, 37 S. C. 214 1036 Curran v. Bernard, 6 111. App. 341 526 Curran v. Munger, Fed. Cas. 3,487 1130, 1131 Curran v. Olmstead, 101 Ala. 692 309, 855, 859 FAOB Curran v. Rothchild, 14 Colo. App. 497 987 Currie v. Gillespie, 21 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 267 840 Currie v. Jordan, 4 Biss. (U. S.) 513 758 Currier v. Ford, 26 111. 488.. 177, 956 Currier v. Sutherland, 54 N. H. 475 163, 164 Currier v. Taylor, 19 N. H. 189 581 Curry v. Catlin, 9 Wash. 495 . . 37 Curry v. Curry, 8 Pa. Cas. 247 922 Curry v. Glass, 25 N. J. Eq. 108 .782, 847 Curry v. Lloyd, 22 Fed. 258 . . 394, 409 Curry v. McCauley, 20 Fed. 583 253 Curtin v. Curtin, 58 Hun (N. Y.), 607 709 Curtis V. Fox, 47 N. Y. 300 . . 264, 482, 1015 Curtin v. Isaacsen, 36 W. Va. 391 523, 911 Curtis V. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9 13, 418, 419, 421, 427, 443 Curtin v. Lewis, 74 Conn. 367 252, 560, 711 Curtner v. Lyndon, 128 Cal. 35 540 Curtis V. Price, 12 Ves. Jr. 89. 633 Curtis T. Riddle, 89 Mass. 185 724, 725 Curtis V. Steever, 36 N. J. L. 304 741^ 742 Curtis V. Valiton, 3 Mont. 153. 581 Curtis V. Wilcox, 91 Mich. 229. 389 Curtis V. Wortsman, 25 Fed. 893 896 Cushman v. Addison, 52 N. Y. 628 178, 278 Gushing v. Breed, 96 Mass. 376 541, 544, 546, 550 Gushing v. Quigley, 11 Mont. 677 156 Gushwa V. Cushwa, 5 Md. 44 . . 639 Cutcheon v. Buchanan, 88 Mich. 594 572, 691 Table of Cases. Ixxxiii PAOE Cutcheon v. Corbitt, 99 Mich. 578 687 Cutler V. Dickinson, 25 Mass. 386 303, 434, 443 Cutter V. Pollock, 4 N. D. 265 461, 473 Cutting V. Cutting, 86 N. Y. S22 145 Cutting V. Jackson, 56 N. H. 253 522, 962 Cutting V. Pike, 21 N. H. 347. . 665 Cuyler v. McCartney, 33 Barb. (N. Y.) 165 946 D. Dabney v. Kennedy, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 317 326 Daenport v. Cummings, 15 Iowa, 219 571 Daglish V. McCarthy, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 578 463 Dahlman v. Greenwood, 99 Wis. 163 748 Bahlman v. Jacobs, 15 Fed. 863 773, 786 Daisy Roller Mills v. Ward, 6 N. D. 317. .600, 627, 696, 702, 817 Dale V. Arnold, 2 Bibb. (Ky.) 605 526 Dalglish V. McCarthy, 19 Grant Ch. 578 723 Dallas Brewing Co. v. Holzner, 116 La. 719 .240, 250 Dalley's Estate, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 506 498, 596 Dallam v. Eenshaw, 26 Mo. 533 53, 891, 952 Dalrymple v. Security Imp. Co., 11 N. D. 65 161 Dalrymple v. Security L. & T. Co., 9 N. D. 306 569, 860 Dalton V. Mitchell, 4 J. J. March (Ky.), 372 215 Dalton V. Stiles, 74 Mich. 726 463, 460 Dameron v. Williams, 7 Mo. 138 931 PAGE Damon v. Bache, 55 Pa. St. 67 . 597 Damon v. Bryant, 19 Mass. 411 192, 956 Damon v. Damon, 28 Wis. 515. 202 Dana v. Haskell, 41 Me. 26 ... . 805, 842 Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269. 458, 463, 464, 487 489, 490, 491, 492 Danbury v. Robinson, 14 N. J. Eq. 213 588, 716, 720, 724 Danby v. Sharp, 2 MeArthur (D. C), 435 297 Dance v. Seaman, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 778 523 Danforth v. Beattie, 43 Vt. 138 161, 166, 167 Danforth v. Roberts, 20 Me. 307 51 Danforth v. Robinson, 80 Me. 466 205 Danforth v. Wood, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 9 532 Danjean v. Blacketer, 13 La. Ann. 595 688, 623 Daniel v. Brandenburgh, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 310 378 Daniel v. McHenery, 67 Ky. 277 648 Daniel v. Palmer, 124 Mich. 355 833, 838 Daniel v. Vaccaro, 41 Ark. 316 1054, 1058, 1060 Daniels v. Nelson, 41 Vt. 161. . 527 Dann v. Luke, 74 Conn. 146.. 528, 538, 540 Dannels v. Fitch, 8 Pa. St. 495 643 Danner Land, etc., Co. v. Stone- wall Ins. Co., 77 Ala. 184. . . 85, 441, 538, 561, 929 Danner v. Brewer, 69 Ala. 191. 86 Danzey v. Smith, 4 Tex. 411.. 634, 635, 641 Darby v. Boatman's Sav. Inst. I Dill. (U. S.) 141 1083 Darby v. Gilligan, 37 W. Va. 69 1033 Darcy v. Labennes, 31 La. Ixxxiv Table of Cases. PAOE Ann. 404 899 Darden v. Skinner, 4 N. C. 259 232, 247, 250, 254, 1010 Dardenne v. Hardnrick, 9 Ark. 482 271 Dargan v. Waring, 11 Ala. 988 722, 794 Darland v. Eosencranes, 56 Iowa, 122 618 Darling v. Haanks, 42 S. W. (Ky.) 1130 358, 359, 361 Darling v. Price, 27 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 331 188 Darling v. Eicker, 68 Vt. 471 153, 161, 298, 901 D'Armand v. Sheriff, 21 La. Ann. 198 557 Darnell v. Mack, 46 Neb. 740. . 970 Dart V. Farmers' Bank, 27 Barb. (N. Y.) 337 593 Dart V. Stewart, 17 Ind. 221 . . 192, 977 Darvill v. Terry, 6 H. & N. 807 443 Darwin v. Handley, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.) 502 72, 523, 555, 603, 910 Daskam v. Neflf, 79 Wis. 161 . . 801 D. A. Tompkins Co. v. Catawba, Mills, 82 Fed. 780 846 Daugherty v. Bogy, 104 Fed. 938 151, 157 Daugherty v. Bogy, 3 Ind. T. 197 92, 101, 603, 909 Daugherty v. Daugherty, 104 Cal. 221 244, 247, 250, 254 Daugherty v. Powell, 67 Kan. 857 185, 197, 804 Dauley v. Eector, 10 Ark. 211. 520 Davenport v. Foulke, 68 Ind. 382 437 Davenport v. Cummings, 15 Iowa, 219 237, 976 Davenport v. Wright, 51 Pa. St. 292 238 David Adler, etc., Clothing Co. v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266 PAGE 121, 123, 275> 279, 399, 897, 953 David V. Birchard, 53 Wis. 492 574 Davidson v. Alexander, 84 N. C. 621 49 Davidson v. Burke, 143 III. 139 299, 1019 Davidson v. Carter, 55 Iowa, 117 644 Davidson v. Dishman, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 940 872 Davidson v. Dockery, 179 Mo. 687 185, 216, 350, 770, 774, 776, 783 Davidson v. Dwyier, 62 Iowa, 332 83, 143 Davidson v. Graves, Eiley Eq. (S. C.) 232 91, 146, 322, 328, 668, 692 Davidson v. Kahn, 116 Ala. 427 457 Davidson v. Kahn, 119 Ala. 364 924, 985 Davidson v. Lanier, 51 Ala. 318 347, 375 Davidson v. Watts Min. Car Wheel Co., 121 Ala. 591.. 44, 433 Davis V. Anderson, 1 Ga. 176 . . 311, 436, 458, 473 Davis V. Anderson, 99 Va. 620 280, 290, 346 Davis V. Arkansas F. Ins. Co., 63 Ark. 412 962 Davis V. Armstrong, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,624 258 Davis V. Beason, 77 Tex. 604.. 315 Davis V. Bigler, 62 Pa. St. 242 . 534 Davis v. Bohle, 1 Am. B. B. 412 1082, 1099, 1139 Davis v. Briscoe, 81 Mo. 27.. 207, 722, 900 Davis V. Bonning, 89 Va. 755 . . 1035, 1049 Davis V. Bowman, 25 Or. 189 . . 560 Davis V. Bruns, 23 Hun (N. Y.), 648 780, 781 Davis V. Charles, 8 Pa. St. 82. 318, 462, 474, 483, 490 Table of Cases. Ixxxvi PAOE Davis V. Chase, 159 Ind. 242 818, 851 Davis V. Gulp, 78 S. W. (Tex.) 554 613 Davis V. Davis, 20 Or. 78 . . 196, 699 Davis V. Davis, 25 Gratt. (Va.) 587 359 Davis V. Davis, 98 S. W. (Tex.) 198 634 Davis V. Dean, 26 N. J. Eq. 436 781 Davis V. Fredericks, 104 U. S. 618 145 Davis V. Garrison, 85 Iowa, 447 356, 579 Davis V. Getchell, 32 Neb. 792 263, 999 Davis V. Gibbon, 24 Iowa, 257 171, 459 Davis V. Graves, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 480 139, 140, 143, 185 645, 653, 668, 726 Davis V. Harper, 14 App. Gas. (D. C.) 463 617, 818 Davis V. Harris, 21 Miss. 9 386 Davis V. Herrick, 37 Me. 397 . . 348 Davis V. H. Feltman Co., 112 Ky. 293 160, 1033 Davis V. Howard, 73 Hun (N. Y.), 347 319 Davis V. Jones, 67 Ark. 122 311 Davis V. Justice, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 741 36, 38, 148, 361 Davy V. Kelley, 66 Wis. 452.. 633, 636 Davis V. Kennedy, 105 HI. 300. 376 Davis V. Kline, 96 Mo. 401 .. . 220 Davis V. Land, 88 Mo. 436. . 152, 160 Davis V. Leopold, 87 N. Y. 620 598, 626, 689, 695 Davis V. Mendenhall, 19 Minn. 149 748 Davis V. Meyer, 47 Ark. 210.. 548 Davis V. McCarthy, 52 Kan. 116 583 Davis V. McCarthy, 40 Kan. 18 603 Davis V. MoFarlane, 37 Cal. 634 565 FAOB Davis V. Morgan, 19 Mont. 141 669 Davis V. Payne, 4 Rand. (Va.) 332 349 Davis V. R. E. Co., Fed. Gas. No. 3,648 1138 Davis V. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631 ... . 19, 226, 235, 252, 254, 315 389, 457, 473, 489, 498, 499 Davis V. Soott, 27 Neb. 642 .. . 461, 473 Davis V. Settig, 65 Tex. 497 .. . 656 Davis V. Sharron, 54 Ky. 64. . . 100 Davis V. Shepherd, 87 111. App. 467 566 Davis V. Stern, 15 La. Ann. 177 187 Davis V. Stevens, 4 Am. B. R. 763, 1085, 1087, 1100 Davis V. Swanson, 54 Ala. 277 209, 765 Davis V. Tibbetts, 39 Me. 279 580, 727 Davis V. Turner, 120 Fed. 605 554, 1122, 1123 Davis V. Turner, 4 Gratt. (Va.) 422 13, 14, 523 Davis V. W. F. Vandiver & Co. (Ala.), 38 So. 850 821, 1133 Davis V. White, 49 N. J. Eq. 567 1014 Davis v. Winona Wagon Co., 120 Gal. 244 524 Davis V. Woods, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 308 717 Davis V. Yoder, 173 Pa. St. 138 430, 448 Davis V. Yonge (Ark.), 85 S. W. 90 . . 172, 275, 358, 360, 403, 762 Dawkins v. Gault, 5 Rich. (S. C.) 151 944 Dawley v. Brown, 79 N. Y. 390 23 Dawley v. Brown, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 107 1022 Dawley v. Brown, 11 St. Rep. (N. y.) 260 1025 Ixxxvi Table of Cases. PAOE Dawson Bank v. Harris, 84 N. C. 206 778, 779, 823, 824, 853, 870 Dawson v. CoflFey, 12 Or. 513 . . 774 Dawson v. Flash, 97 Ala. 539 . . 309, 457, 495 Dawson v. Holbert, 4 La. Ann. 36 53 Dawson v. Sims, 14 Or. 561. . . 783 Dawson v. Waltmeyer, 91 Md. 328 902, 913, 980 Day V. Beck, etc., Co., 8 Am. B. R. 463 1099 Day V. Cole, 44 Iowa, 452 329 Day V. Cooley, 118 Mass. 524 19, 187, 189, 588 Day V. Day, 17 Ont. App. 157. 652 Day V. Goodbar, 69 Miss. 687 252, 253 Day V. Kendall, 60 Iowa, 414. . 179 Day V. Lown, 51 Iowa, 364. .86, 995 Day V. Stone, 59 Tex. 612.... 924 Day V. Washburn, 24 How. (N. y.) 352 185 Dayton Spice Mills v. Sloan, 49 Neb. 622 235, 316, 320, 514 Dayton v. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113. 114 Deakers v. Temple, 41 Pa. St. 234 297, 924 Dean v. Grimes, 72 Cal. 442.. 458 Dean v. Plane, 96 111. App. 428 366 Dean v. Skinner, 42 Iowa, 418. 435 Dean v. Walkenhorst, 64 Cal. 78 524 Dearman v. Dearman, 4 Ala. S21 631, 655 Dearman v. Dearman, 5 Ala. 202 90, 96 Dearman v. Eadcliflfe, 5 Ala. 192 636, 641, 645 De Armond v. Ballon, 122 Ind. 398 833 Dearing \. McKinnon Dash, etc., Co., 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 31 32 Dearing v. McKinnon Dash, etc., Co., 165 N. Y. 78 PACK 87, 88, 575, 878, 884 Desbecker v. Mendelson, 117 Mich. 293 958 DeBerry v. Wheeler, 128 Mo. 84 139 De Blanc v. Martin, 2 Bob. (La.) 38 490, 598 Decatur Branch Bank v. Jones, 5 Ala. 487 941 DeChambrun v. Schemerhorn, 59 Fed. 504 659 Decker v. Decker, 108 N. Y. 128 27, 52, 53, 450, 587, 685 758, 776, 832, 836 Decuir v. Veazy, 8 La. Ann. 453 675, 1021 Dedesdernier v. Burton, 12 Grant Ch. (Can.) 569 305 Dedson v. Cooper, 50 Kan. 680. 354 Deere Plow Co. v. McDavid, 14 Am. B. E. 653 1193 Deere Plow Co. v. Sullivan, 158 Mo. 440 1001 Deere v. Needles, 65 Iowa, 101. 537 Deere v. Wolf, 77 Iowa, 115... 998 Deering v. Collins, 38 Mo. App. 80 461, 490, 594, 893 Deering v. Holcomb, 26 Wash. 588 150, 279, 284 Deering v. Lawrence, 79 Iowa, 610 703 DeFarges v. Ryland, 87 Va. 404 328, 941 De Ford v. Nye, 40 Kan. 665. . 513 De Frehn v. Leitenberger, 2 Leg. Chron. (Pa.) 365 898 DeGarea v. Galvan, 55 Tex. 53. 180 Deggender v. Seattle Brew., etc., Co., 41 Wash. 385 525, 561 DeGraw v. Meehan, 48 N. J. Eq. 219 214, 839 De Hierapolis v. Lawrence, 115 Fed. 761.. 102, 132, 422, 858, 868 De Hierapolis v. Eeilly, 44 App. Div. (N. Y.) 22... 322, 325 Delacroix v. Laoaze, 14 La. Ann. 519 708 Table of Cases. Ixxxvii PAGE DeLaey v. Hurst, 83 Ga. 223 . . 777, 779 Be Lancey v. Finnegan, 86 Minn. 255 402 Deland v. Miller & Cheney Bank, 11 Am. B. E. 744 1115, 1166, 1167 Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 692 2, 13, 22, 253, 428, 456 470, 471, 472, 573 Delaware v. Ensign, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 85 231, 353 Delavan v. Wright, 110 Mich. 143 580 Delesdernier v. Mowry, 20 Me. 150 666 Delo V. Johnson, 110 Mo. App. 642 401 De Loach v. Sarratt, 55 S. C. 254 967, 968, 981 De Loach v. Sarratt (S. 0.), 33 S. E. 365 920, 963 Del Valle v. Hyland, 76 Hun (N. Y.), 493 319 Del Valle v. Hyland, 61 Hun (N. Y.), 625 996 Demaree v. Driskill, 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 115 411 Demaree v. Driskillj 3 Blackf. (Ind.) 115 36, 136, 880 Demarest v. House, 91 Hun (N. Y.), 290 578 Demarest v. TerhunCj 18 N. J. Eq. 532 314, 349, 583, 909 Demeritt v. Miles, 22 N. H. 523. 939, 949 De Mestre v. West, A. C. (Eng.) 264 215 De Millon v. MeAUiley, 2 McMull. (S. O.) 499 423 DemoreB.t v. Miller, 42 U. C. Q. B. 56 215, 219 Dempaey v. Bowen, 25 111. App. 192 1002 Dempsey v. Gardner, 127 Mass. 381 544, 548 PAGE Dempster Mill Mfg. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 49 Neb. 321 490 Demuth v. Bochler, 11 Mo. App. 588 233, 353 Den V. Erwin, 18 N. C. 569 53 Den. V. Lippencott, 6 N. J. L. 473 344 Denbell v. Fisher, R. M. Carlt. (Ga.) 36 327 Dening v. Nelson, 1 Ohio Dec. 503 102 Denison v. Tattersall, 18 L. T. Rep. N. S. 303 343 Dennis v. Ball-Warren Commis- sion Co., 77 S. W. (Ark.) 903. 342, 564 Dennis v. Dennis, 119 Mich. 380 220 Densmore Commission Co. v. Shong, 98 Wis. 380 58, 59, 523 Densmore v. Tomer, 11 Neb. 118 522, 910 Dent V. Ferguson, 132 U. S. 50. 240, 433, 639, 649, 656 Dent V. Pickens, 50 W. Va. 382. 1029 Dent V. Pickens, 53 S. E. (W. Va.) 154 582, 875 Dent V. Pickens, 46 W. Va. 378. 294, 324, 613, 617, 909 Dent V. Portwood, 21 Ala. 588. 218, 924 Denton v. Crook, Brayt. (Vt.) 188 1059 Denton v. Griffith, 17 Md. 301. 29 Denton v. Willcox, 2 La. Ann. 60 650 Denver Jobbers' Assoc, v. Rum- sey, 19 Colo. App. 320 311 Depew V. Clark, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 432 972, 1010 Deposit Bank v. Caffee, 135 Ala. 208... 435, 439, 773, 828, 830 De Prato v. Jester, 20 S. W. (Ark.) 807 338, 372, 514, 579, 584, 619 ixxxviii Table of Cases. Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn. 119.. 30, 226, 907, 917 Dereny v. Hicks, 82 Ga. 240 .. . 1044 Dermott v. Carter, 109 Mo. 21 . 138 DeRuiter v. DeRuiter, 28 Ind. App. 9 202, 954 Desbecker v. Mendelson, 117 Iowa, 293 965 Desberger v. Harrington, 28 Mo. App. 632 996 Des Briaay v. Hogan, 53 Me. 554 795 Deshazer v. Deshazer, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 159 1052 Deshou V. Wood, 148 Mass. 132. 327 Des Moines Ins. Co. v. Lent, 75 Iowa, 522 597, 715, 827 Des Moines Nat. Bank v. Coun- cil B. Sav. Bank, 18 Am. B. R. 108 1123 Des Moines Sav. Bank v. Mor- gan Co., 12 Am. B. R. 781 .. . 1166, 1220 Desmond v. Myers, 113 Mich. 437 139 Dessar v. Field, 99 Ind. 548... 428 Detroit Copper, etc.. Mills v. Ledwidge, 162 111. 305 770, 773, 1039 Detwiler v. Louison, 18 Ohio Cir Ct. 434 202, 723, 825 Deunchy v. Smith, 83 111. App. 656 332 Deutseh v. Allen, 57 Tex. 89. . . 290 Deutsch V. Reilly, 57 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 75 208, 749 Devlin v. O'Neill, 6 Daly (N. Y.), 305 34 Devoe v. Brandt, 53 N. Y. 462. 979 Devonshire v. Gauthreaux, 32 La. Ann. 1132 520, 884 De Vore v. Jones, 82 Iowa, 66. 139, 141 Devries v. Phillips, 63 N. C. 53. 627 De Walt v. Doran, 21 D. 0. 163. 390 De War* v. Bailey (Tex. Civ. PAGE App.), 40 S. W. 323 90* Dewart v. Clement, 48 Pa. St. 413 928 Deweese v. Deweese, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 726 160' Deweese v. Deweese (Ky.), 90 S. W. 256 877 Dewey v. Eckert, 62 111. 218 .. . 788 Dewey v. Long, 25 Vt. 564 37, 192, 387, 682, 753 Dewey v. M'oyer, 9 Hun (N. Y.), 473 956 Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70 . . . 71, 331, 678, 684 Dewey v. Thrall, 13 Vt. 281 .. . 537, 538 Dewitt V. Vansickle, 29 N. J. Eq. 209 218, 221, 242, 383, 715, 716, 718 De Wolf V. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co., 49 Conn, 282 31, 869 De Wolf V. McNabb, 1 Pa. Sac. 156 958 DeWolf V. Pratt, 42 111. 198. . . 631 Dews V. Cornish, 20 Ark. 332 . . 47a De Young v. De Young, 6 La. Ann. 786. 900 Diamond Coal Co. v. Carter Dry Goods Co., 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1444 231, 306, 354, 692, 698, 907 Diamond v. Palmer, 78 Iowa, 578 155 Dibble v. Morris, 26 Conn. 416. 520 Dice V. Irwin, 110 Ind. 561 320, 459, 492, 499, 513, 515 Dick V. Grissom, 1 Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 428 109, 110, 380 Dick V. Hamilton, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3890 ,. .278, 361 Dick V. Hamilton, 1 Deady (U. S.), 322 131, 148 Dick V. Lindsay, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 431 527, 557 Dickenson v. Cook, 17 Johns. (N. Y.) 332 558- Table of Cases. Ixxxix FAGf! Dickerman v. Farrell, 59 Iowa, 759 625 Dickey v. Converse, 117 Mich. 449 160 Dickinson v. Johnson, 110 Ky. 236 363 Dickinson v. National Bank of Republic, 98 Ala. 546 171 Dickinson v. Way, 3 Rich. Eq. 412 696 Dickson v. McEarney, 97 Ala. 383 191, 862 Dickson v. McMahon, 14 tl. C. C. P. 521 43 Diggs V. McCoUough, 69 Md. 59^. .183, 187, 190, 195, 368, 942 Didier v. Patterson, 93 Va. 534. 443 Dieflfenderfer v. Fisher, 3 Grant. (Pa.) 39 154, 650 Diefendorf v. BaTry, 5 Kan. App. 879 580 Diefendorf v. Oliver, 8 Kan. 365 13 Dierker v. Hess, 54 Mo. 246... 110 Dietrich v. Koch, 35 Wis. 618. 634 Dietz V. Atwood, 19 111. App. 96 130 Dimmock v. Bixby, 37 Mass. 368 869 Dilion V. Harkness, 80 Miss. 8. 636 Dillard, etc., Co. v. Smith, 105 Tenn. 372 297 Dillard v. Dillard, 22 Tenn. 41 . 188, 194, 349 Dillen v. Johnson, 132 Ind. 75. 369 Dillin V. Kincaid, 70 Mo. App. 670 552 Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, 56 111. App. 517 339, 373, 796, 798 Dillman v. NedelhoflFer, 162 111. 625 281, 397, 515 Dilworth v. Curtis, 137 111. 508. 679, 681 Dimock v. Ridgeway, 169 Mass. 526 82, 702 Dingley v. Robinson, 5 Me. 127. 210 PAQB Dinius v. Lahr (Ind. App.), 74 N. E. 1033 275, 1009 Dishman v. Davidson, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 139 192 Ditchburu v. Jermyn, 13 Pa. Co. Ct. 1 245 Ditchburn v. Jermyn, etc., Co.- Operative Assoc, 3 Pa. Dist. 635 45, 973 Ditman v. Raule, 124 Pa. St. 225 569, 635 Dittman v. Weiss, 31 S. W. (Tex.) 67 582, 918, 927 Divver v. McDaughlin, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 596 301, 519 Dix V. Cobb, 4 Mass. 508 1039^ Dii V. Jackman, 37 S. W. (Tex.) 344 , 306 Dixon V. Higgins, 82 Ala. 284. 506 Dixon V. Hill, 5 Mich. 404.705, 718 Dixon V. Sanderson, 72 Tex. 359 279 Doak V. Brubaker, 1 Nev. 218. 544, 546, 525 Doane v. Eddy, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 523 524, Dobbins v. Cruger, 108 111. 188. 212, 637, 639 Dobson v. Erwin, 18 N. C. 569. 37, 753 Dobson V. More, 171 111. 49 953 Dobson V. Snyder, 70 Fed. 10. 252, 255 iDockray v. Mason, 48 Me. 178. 36, 588, 753, 763, 821, 842 Dodd V. Adams, 125 Mass. 398. 131, 674 Dodd V. Gaines, 82 Tex. 429. . . 581, 615, 909 IDodd V. Levy, 10 Mo. App. 121. 774, 788, 797, 805 ©odd V. McOraw, 8 Ark. 83 283, 344, 350, 520, 585 ODodge v. Griswold, 8 N. H. 425. 758, 782. xc Table of Cases. PAOBi Dodge V. Jones, 7 Mont. 121 . . . 536, 551 Dodge V. McKeehnie, 156 N. Y. 514 456 Dodge V. McKeehnie, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1106 303 Dodge V. Norlin, 13 Am. B.. R. 177 1114, 1135, 1136 Dodson V. Ciooper, 50 Kan. 680. 231, 234, 273, 610, 992 Doe V. Bevan, 3 Maule & S. 353 1189 Doe V. Blanchfield, 1 U. C. Q. B. (Can.) 350 294 Doe V. Childress, 21 Wall. (U. S.) 642 1112 Doe V. Clark, 42 Iowa, 123... 732, 765 Doe V. Horn, 1 Ind. 363 579 Doe V. Horn, Smith (Ind.), 242 703 Doe V. Hurd, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 510 645 Doe V. Manning, 9 East (Eng.), 59 336 Doe V. Martyr, 1 B. & P. N. R. (Eng.) 332 336 Doe v. Smith, 5 Taunt. 795 1189 Doerfler v. Schmidt, 64 Cal. 265 850 Doe V. McKinney, 5 Ala. 719.. 36, 285, 337, 752 Doe V. Roe, 5 B. & Ad. 1 Arn. (Eng.) 279 215 Doe V. Rolfe, 8 A. & E. (Eng.) 650 ,.. 215 Doe V. Rolfe, 35 E. C. L. (Eng.) 775 291 Doe V. Rusham, 17 Q. B. 723.. 218 Doe V. Routledge, 2 Cowp. (Eng.) 705 218 Doe V. Van Koughnet, 5 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 246 53 Doherty v. HoUiday, 37 Ind. 282 678, 680, 817, 1012, 1017 Dokken v. Page, 17 Am. B. R. 228 1128, 1129, 1131 Dolan V. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513. 437 Dolan V. Van Demark, 35 Kan. PAOB 304 713 Dole V. Farwell, 72 N. H. 183. 104, 595 Dole V. Wilson (Minn.), 40 N. W. 161 834 Dolphin V. Aylward, L. R. 4 H. L. (Eng.) 486 217, 218 Dommett v. Bedford, 3 Ves. 148 , 1189 Donahue v. Campbell, 81 Minn. 107 977 Donald v. McDonald, 57 Hun (N. Y.), 594 967 Donaldson v. Jacobitz, 67 Kan. 244 836, 837, 838 Doneet v. Richardson, 67 N. H. 186 434, 522 Donegal! v. Davis, 66 Ala. 362. 109, 110, 381, 385 Doney v. Clark, 55 Ohio St. 294 766 Doney v. Dunnick, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. 163 765 Donk Bros. Coal, etc., Co. v. Stevens, 74 Mo. App. 39 493 Donk Coal, etc., Oo. v. Kinealy, 81 Mo. App. 646 .. . 745 Donley v. McKiernan, 62 Ala. 34 179, 848 Donly V. Ray, 6 So. 324 226, 510 Donnebaum v. Tinsley, 54 Tex. 362 ...342, 414 Donnelly v. Public Ledger, 2 Phila. (Pa.) 51 ,. . 149 Donnelly v. Rees, 141 Cal. 56. 639, 644 Donner v. Brackett, 21 Vt. 599. 1112 Donoghue v. Shull, 85 Miss. 404 195, 499, 509 Donohue v. Joyce, 64 Hun (N. Y.), 634 1051 Donovan v. Gathe, 3 Colo. App. 151 , 528 Donovan v. Dunning, 69 Mo. 436 23,344,378,420,436, 824 Donovan v. Sheridan, 5 J. & Table of Cases. xci PAGE Sp. (N. Y.) 256 136 Donovan v. Sheridan, 37 N. Y. Super Ct. 256 682, 684, 866 Dood V. MoOraw, 8 Ark. 83 . . . 338 Dooley v. Pease, 88 Fed. 446 . . 528 Doremus v. Daniels (N. J. Sh.), 20 Atl. 147 500, 510 Doremus v. Lewis, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 124 420 Dorman v. Soto (Oal.), 36 Pae. 588 549 Dormueil, v. Ward, 108 111. 216 773 Dorn V. Bayer, 16 Md. 144... 344, 585 Dornbrook v. M. Rumely Co., 120 Wis. 36 , 583 Dorr V. Beek, 76 Hun (N. Y.), 540. .., 578 Dorrance v. McAlester, 1 Ind. T. 473 612 Dorrance v. McAlister, 91 Fed. 614 603 Dorrington v. Minnick, 15 Neb. 397 625 Dorroh v. Holberg (Miss.), 25 So. 661 165 Dorsey v. Phillips, 84 Ky. 420. 833 Dorteh V; Benton, 98 N. C. 190. 160, 166 Dortie v. Dugas, 52 Ga. 231... 1041 Dorwin v. Patton, 112 N. W. (Minn.) 266 983 Dosch V. Nette (Tex.), 16 S. W. 1013 279 Dosche V. Nette, 81 Tex. 265.. 998, 1000 Doss V. Tyack, 14 How. 297 .. . 1006 Doster v. Mjajiiatee Nat. Bank, 67 Ark. 535 645, 739, 740 753, 760, 770, 773, 792 Doster v. National Bank, 67 Ark. 325 68 Doswell V. Adler, 28 Ark. 82.. 251, 442, 458, 475 Doty V. Clint, 11 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 87 311, 512 PAGE Doty V. Louisville Banking Co., 10 Ky. L. Rep. 898 182 Doueette v. Baldwin (Mass.), 80 N. E. 444 1180 Dougherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 528 574, 609, 703, 705, 706 Dougherty v. Haggerty, 96 Pa. St. 515 550 Dougherty v. Halloran, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 308 346 Dougherty v. Mortland, 8 Pa. Cas. 384 295 Dougherty v. Schlotman, 1 Cine. Super. Ct. (Ohio) 292... 749, 951 Douthitt V. Applegate, 33 Kan. 396 231 Doughten v. Gray, 10 N. J. Eq. 323 627 Doughty V. Harsel, 91 Mo. 500. 383 Doughty V. King, 10 N. J. Eq. 396 327 Doughty V. Miller, 50 N. J. Eq. 529 632 Douglass Merchandise Co. v. Laird, 37 W. Va. 687 570 Douglass V. Douglass, 41 W. Va. 13 234, 355, 408 Douglass V. Dunlap, 10 Ohio, 162 69, 632, 646, 710 Douglass V. Hannah, 81 Iowa, 469 588 Douglass V. Hill, 29 Kan. 527. 915 Douglass V. Morford, 16 Tenn. 373 560 Douglass V. Ward, 11 Grant Ch. 39 964, 967 Dow V. Dempsey, 21 Wash. 86. 915, 1005 Dow V. Sutphin, 47 Minn. 479. 613 Dow V. Taylor, 71 Vt. 337 103, 104, 332, 747 Dowell V. Applegate, 7 Fed. 881 724 Dowell V. Applegate, 15 Fed. 419.... 109, 380, 381, 382 Downer v. Porter, 116 Ky. 422. 833 Table of Cases. FAGB Downing v. Gault, 8 Pa. Super. Ct. 52 299 Downing v. Kelly, 49 Barb. (N. Y.) 547 28 Downs V. Kissam, 10 How. (U. S.) 102 315 Downs V. Kissam, 51 U. S. 102. 235 Downs V. Miller, 95 Md. 602 .. . 913, 966 Doxsee v. Waddick (Iowa), 98 N. W. 110 976 Doxsee v. Waddiek, 122 Iowa, 599... 621, 892, 903, 948, 951, 980 Doyle V. First Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.), 50 S. W. 480... 167 Doyle V. Heath, 4 Am. B. K. 705 1142, 1145 Dqyle v. Sleeper, 31 Ky. 531.. 12, 14 Doyle V. Sleeper, 1 Dana (Ky.), 531 35, 136 Doyle V. Smith, 41 Tenn. 15... 414 Doyle V. Stevens, 4 Mich. 87 . . . 528 Dozier v. Watson, 94 Mo. 328. 345, 378 Drake v. Rice, 130 Mass. 410 . . 11, 20, 98, 101, 731 Drake v. Steadman, 46 S. C. 474 ...47, 915 Drane v. Underwood, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 317 294, 663 Draper v. Andrews^ 49 Iowa, 637 979 Draper v. Buggee, 133 Mass. 258 107, 362 Dresher v. Ciorson, 23 Kan. 313. 966 Dressel v. North State Lumber Co., 9 Am. B. R. 541 1158 Dresser v. Zabriskie (N. J.), 39 Atl. 1066 141, 146, 247, 366, 538, 563, 974 Drew V. Corliss, 65 Vt. 650 ... . 366 Drew V. Rust, 36 N. H. 335 .. . 248, 340 Drewry v. Phillips, 44 N. C. 81 87 Dreyfus v. Childs, 48 La. Ann. PAGE 872 808 Driggs V. Moore, Fed. Cas. No. 4,083 1091 Driggs & Co.'b Bank v. Nor- wood, 50 Ark. 42 265 Driukwater v. Drinkwater, 4 Mass. 354 634 Droop V. Ridenour, 11 App. Cas. (D. C.) 224... 399, 579, 885, 953 Drum V. Painter, 27 Pa. St. 148 271, 577, 632, 665, 738 Drummond v. Couse, 39 Iowa, 442 569, 571, 580 Drury v. Briscoe, 42 Md. 154. 149, 361 Drury v. Cross, 74 U. S. 299. . . 489 Drury v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 7 Wall. 299 599 Drury v. Wilson, 4 App. Div. (N. Y.) 232... 456, 471, 537, 551 Dubbs V. Finley, 2 Pa. St. 379. 308 Du Bois v. Barker, 4 Hun (N. Y.), 80 248, 392 Dubois V. Spinka, 114 Cal. 289 524, 533, 542, 543, 544, 552 Dubose V. Dubose, 7 Ala. 235 . . 479 Dubose V. Young, 14 Ala. 139. 618 Dudley v. Danforth, 61 N. Y. 226 494, 578, 593 Dudley v. Easton, 104 U. S. 99 . 1223 Dudley v. Third Order of St. Francis, 138 N. Y. 451 866 Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Young, 155 111. 226 458 Duerrigan v. Bewe, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 1072 905 Duffield V. Delancey, 36 111. 258 393 Duffy V. Mechanics', etc., Ins. Co., 8 Watts & 8. (Pa.) 413 356 Duffy V. State, 115 Ind. 351... 809 Dufrene v. Anderson, 67 Neb. 136 853 Dugan V. Vattier, 3 Blaekf. (Ind.) 245..703, 704, 721, 724, 816 Duhme v. Young, 66 Ky. 343 . . 34S, 375 Table of Cases. xcm . PAGE Duke V. Pigman, 110 Ky. 756. . 692 Culany V. Greene, 4 Harr. (Del.) 285 273 Dulcher v. Bank, Fed. Cas. 4,203 1223 Dulion V. Harkness, 80 Mich. 8 92, 162 Dull V. Merrill, 69 Mich. 49 . . 152, 513, 514, 974 Dumangue v. Daniels, 154 Mass. 483 920, 921 Dumas v. Lefevre, 10 Rob. (La.) 399 819, 956 Dumas v. Neal, 51 Ga. 563..108, 362 Dumbould v. Kowley, 113 Ind. 253 152 Dummer v. Smedley, 119 Mich. 466 301 Dunaway v. Robertson, 95 111. 419 239, 650 Dunbar v. Kelly, 189 Mass. 390 737 Dunbar v. McFall, 28 Tenn. 505 634 Duncan v. Cravens, 55 Ind. 525 833 Duncan v. Custard, 24 W. Va. 730 570, 1020 Duncan v. Landis, 5 Am. B. K. 649 1073, 1095 Duncan v. Roselle, 15 Iowa, 501 105 Dunckel v. Failing, 1 Silv. Sup. (N. Y.) 543 456, 475 Dundas v. Dutens, 2 Cox Ch. 235 100, 142 Dunham-Buckley v. Halberg 69 Mo. App. 609 112, 572, 574 Dunham v. Bentley, 103 Iowa, 136 367, 370, 569 Dunham v. Byrnes, 36 Minn. 106 204, 846 Dunham v. Cox, 10 N. J. Eq. 437 793, 842, 844 Dunham v. Ramsey, 37 N. J. Eq. 388 817 Dunham v. Waterman, 17 N. Y. 9 48 Dunham v. Wliitehead, 21 N. Y. PAGE 131 427, llOO Dunlap V. Hawkins, 59 N. Y. 342 37, 263, 278, 280, 338, 346, 889 Dunlap V. Haynes, 51 Tenn. 476 626 Dunlap V. Mitchell, 80 Mo. App. 393 344, 377, 744 Dunlevy v., Tallmadge, 32 N". Y. 457 771, 796, 842 Dunlop V. Thomas, 28 Wash. 521 1132 Dunn V. Bozarth, 59 Neb. 244. . 597 Dunn V. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42. .283, 346 Dunn V. Murt, 4 Mackey (D. C), 289 789 Dunn V. Whalen, 21 N. Y. Supp. 869 139 Dunn V. Wolf, 81 Iowa, 688 .. . 620, 820 Dunnica v. Coy, 28 Mo. 525 . . . 70, 207, 753 Dunning v. Baily, 120 Iowa, 729 225, 714 Dunphy v. Gorman, 29 111. App. 132 182, 205, 807 Dunphy v. Kleinsmith, 78 U. S. 610 1024 Dunsback v. Collar, 95 Mich. 611 853 Dunscomb v. Wallace, 105 Tenn. 385 , 1017 Duplan Silk Co. v. Spencer, 8 Am. B. R. 367 1118, 1186 Dupuy V. Dupont, 11 La. Ann. 226 641 Durand v. Hankerson, 39 N. Y. 287 171, 669 Durand v. Higgins, 67 Kan. 110 639 Durand v. Weightman, 108 III. 489 187, 194, 348 DuRant v. DuRant, 36 S. C. 49. 274 Durant v. Hospital, etc., Co., Fed. Cas. No. 4,188 1188 Durfee v. Bump, 51 Hun (N. Y.), 637 927, 945 Durham Fertilizer Co. v. Hemp- hill, 45 S. C. 621 91 XCIV Table of Cases. PAGE Durham v. Wick, 14 Am. B. R. 385 1205 Durham Fertilizer Co. v. Lit- tle, 118 N. C. 308 1061 Durkee v. Chambers, 57 Mo. 575 617 Durkee v. MAhoney, 1 Aik. (Vt.) 116. .178, 275, 279, 342, 527 Durr V. Bowyer, 2 MeCord (S. C), 368 149 Duiyea v. Guthrie (Wis.), 11 Am. B. R. 234 1071 Durrell v. Eichardsonj 119 Mich. 592 913, 979 Dusser v. Zabriskie (N. J. Ch.), 39 Aitl. 1066 153 Duttera v. Babylon, 83 Md. 536 397 Dutton V. Cameron, 97 Mich. 93 1040 Button V. Jackson, 2 Del. Ch. 86 434 Dutton V. Wetmore, 10 Pa. Super Ct. 530 ....,...., 566 Duval v. Ardrey, 1 La. Ann. 243 426 Duvall V. Rollins, 71 N. C. 218. 153 Duvall V. Waters, 1 Bland (Md.), 569 28, 29, 259 Duveneek v. Kutzer, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 577 305 Duxbury v. Boice, 70 Minn. 113. 836, 837 Dwelly V. Van Houghton, 4 N. Y. Leg. Obs. (N. Y.) 101... 634 Dwight V. Bemias, 16 La. 145 . . 272 Dyer v. Balsley, 40 Mo. App. 559 529 Dyer v. Bradley, 89 Cal. 557.. 458 Dyer v. Dyer, 14 La. Ann. 701 . 520 Dyer v. Homer, 39 Mass. 253 . . 663 Dyer v. Rowe, 82 Minn: 223 .. . 996 Dyer v. Taylor, 50 Ark. 314... 515, 612, 914, 924 Dygert v. Remersehnider, 32 N. Y. 629.... 179, 189, 264, 269 326, 338, 346 Dyson v. St. Paul Nat. Bank, 74 Minn. 439 469 PAOB Backer v. Thompson, 4 Ind. App. 393 1053 Eagan v. Downing, 55 Ind. 65. 140, 146, 278 Eagle v. Eiohelberger, 6 Watts (Pa.), 29 550 Eagle V. Smylie, 126 Mich. 612. 161 Eames v. Dorsett, 147 HI. 540. 278 Earl V. Champion, 65 Pa. St. 101 898 Earl V. Earl, 186 HI. 370 297, 513, 561 Earle v. Couch, 3 Mete. (Ky.) 450. . '. 220 Earle v. Burch, 21 Neb. 702 197, 220, 715 Earle v. McCartney, 112 Fed. 372 '. 431 Earle v. Thomas, 14 Tex. 583 . . 523 Early v. Owensi 68 Ala. 171 .. . 343, 371, 585 Early Times Distilling Co. v. Zieger, 9 N. M. 31 786, 845 Earnshow v. Stewart, 64 Md. 513 120, 250, 443 Easley v. Dye, 14 Ala. 158 950 Eason v. Garrison, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 574 226, 1127, 1133 Eastman v. Foster, 49 Mass. 19. 439 Eastman v. McAlpin, 1 Ga. 157. 413, 418, 458 Eastman v. Ramsey, 3 Ind. 419. 867 Eastman v. Schettler, 13 Wis. 324 207, 738, 740, 748 East Side Bank v. Columbus Tanning Co., 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 357 319 Easum v. Pirtle, 81 Ky. 563 . . 231, 354, 384, 840 Eaton V. Cooper^ 29 Vt. 444... 980 Eaton V. Metz (Cal.), 40 Pac. 947 884 Eaton V. White, 2 Wis. 292... 177 Eaves v. Williams, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 423 153, 167, 670 Table of Cases. xcv PAGE Ebbitt V. Diinham, 25 Misc. Rep. 232 (N. Y.) 188, 347 Echols V. Orr, 106 Ala. 237... 190, 351 Echols V. Peurrung, 107 Ala. 660 196, 856 Eck V. Hatcher, 58 Mo. 235... 615 Ecker v. McAlister, 54 Md. 362. 945 Eeker v. McAllister, 45 Md. 290 245, 258, 571, 994 Eckfeldt V. Frick, 4 Phila. (Pa.) 116. 527 Ecklor V. Wolcott, 115 Wis. 19. 766 Ector V. Welsh, 29 Ga. 443... 532, 533 Eddins v. Wilson, 1 Ala. 237 . . 216, 218 Eddy V. Baldwin, 23 Mo. 588.. 70, 753, 956 Eddy V. Wearin, 105 Iowa, 387. 436 Edelmuth v. Wybrant, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 929 116 Edey v. Path, 4 111. App. 275 . . 892 Edgar v. devenger, 3 N. J. Eq. 258 ...872, 873 Edgar v. Simmons, 2 La. 19 . . . 303 Edgell V. Hart, 9 N. Y. 213 573, 987, 988 Edgell V. Lowell, 4 Vt. 405 589, 591 Edgell V. Smith, 50 W. Va. 349. 574, 640 Edgerly v. First Nat. Bank, 30 111. App. 425 .. . 187, 348, 439, 863 Edgington v. Williams, Wright (Ohio), 439 37, 53 Edgwood Distilling Co. v. How- land, 19 Ky. L. Bep. 1740... 711 Edison Electric Illuminating Co. V. Riker, 90 Hun (N. Y.), 608 386 Edison Gten. Electric Co. v. Westminster, etc., Tramway Co., 66 L. J. P. C. 36.... 43, 45 Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige (N. PAGE Y.), 637.... 20, 98, 101, 814, 815 823, 827 Edmonson v. Meacham, 50 Miss. 34 35, 37, 162, 164, 168, 172 249, 264, 274 Edmunds v. Edmunds, 73 L. J. P. 97 100 Edmunds v. Mister, 58 Miss. 765 178, 279, 281, 282, 336 Edmundson v. Silliman, 50 Tex. 106 979 Edrington v. Rogers, 15 Tex. 188 310, 315, 499, 600 Edward P. Allis Co. v. Stand- ard Nat. Bank, 110 Fed. 47. 962 Edwards v. Anderson, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 131 893 Edwards v. Ballard, 63 Ky. 289. 215, 218 Edwards v. Dickson, 66 Tex. 613 462, 491, 523, 595, 1001 Edwards v. Edwards, 54 Mich. 347 550, 987 Edwards v. Entwisle, 2 Maekey (D. C), 43 129,, 192, 338 858, 899 Edwards v. Harbin, 2 T. R. 587 517 Edwards v. Haverstick, 53 Ind. 348 631, 634, 665, 668 Edwards v. Kilpatrick, 70 Ga. 328 650 Edwards v. McGee, 31 Miss. 143 196 Edwards v. Mister, 58 Miss. 765 199 Edwards v. Mitchell, 1 Gray (Mass.)., 241 67, 69 Edwards v. Reid, 39 Neb. 645. 164, 165, 581, 613 Edjwards t. Sonoma. Valley Bank, 59 Cal. 148.. 524, 525, 553 Edwards v. Stinson, 59 Ga. 443. 6, 413, 434 Edwards v. Story, 105 111. App. 433 , 579 Egberts v. Pemberton, 7 Johns. XCVl Table of Contents. PAGE Ch. (N. Y.) 208 102 Egery v. Johnson, 70 Me. 258 . . 300, 449 Egan State Bank v. Rice, 9 Am. B. R. 437 113S Eherke v. Heeht, 96 Iowa, 96 . . 951 EM V. Dillon, 10 Md. 500 1041 Ehlers v. Blumer (Iowa), 105 N. W. 406 156 Eiclienberg v. Marcy, 18 R. I. 169 573 Eicholtz V. Holmes, 8 Wash. 71. 1003, 1052 Eiekstaedt v. Moses, 105 111. App. 634 458, 571, 579, 952 Eigenbrun v. Smith, 98 N. C. 207 589, 617 Eigleberger v. Kibler, 1 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 113... 195, 839 Eighmy v. Broek, 126 Iowa, 535 339 Eiler v. Crull, 112 Ind. 318... 278, 282, 283, 286 Eilers v. Conradt, 39 Minn. 242. Ill, 114 Einstein v. Lee, 89 Ga. 130 1044 Einstein v. Munnerlyn, 32 Fla. 381 924 Eisfeld V. Dill, 71 Iowa, 442.. 975 Eklund V. Hopkins, 36 Wash. 179 175 Elda-idge v. Phillipson, 58 Miss. 270 460, 469 Eldridge v. Preble, 34 Me. 148. 897 Eldridge v. Sherman, 79 Mich. 484 644 Elerck v. Branden, 38 Kan. 83 . 960 Elfelt V. Hinch, 5 Or. 255 . . 340, 375 Elias V. Farley, 3 Keyes (N. Y.), 398 136, 412 Eliot V. Merchants' Exch., 14 Mo. App. 234 117 EUer V. Lacy, 137 Ind. 436.... 808, 842, 847 Ellett V. Newman, 92 N. C. 519. 1044, 1047 PAGE Ellinger v. Crowl, 17 Md. 361. 279, 339, 902 Ellington v. Currie, 40 N. C. 21. 640 Elliott V. Benedict, 13 R. I. 463. 462, 488 Elliott V. Bryan, 64 Md. 368.. 120, 124, 154 Elliot V. Hall, 3 Ida. 421 156 Elliott V. Horn, 10 Ala. 348 .. . 37, 215, 220 Elliott V. Pontius, 136 Ind. 641 815 Elliott V. Stoddard, 98 Mass. 145 892 Elliott's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 75. 99, 120, 123 Ellis V. Fisher, 10 La. Ann. 482. 47 Ellis V. Herrin, 24 Atl. (N. J.) 129 308 Ellis V. McBride, 27 Miss. 155. 632, 634, 641 Ellis V. Myers, 4 Silv. Sup. (N. Y.) 323 142, 968 Ellis V. Myers, 8 N. Y. Supp. 139 319, 320, 974 Ellis V. Musselman, 61 Neb. 262 227, 475, 599 Ellis V. Petty, 51 111. App. 636. 641 Ellis V. Southwestern Land Co., 108 Wis. 313 206 Ellis V. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532 462, 464, 476, 477, 490, 491, 495 496, 574, 577, 893, 987 Ellison V. Ganiard, 167 Ind. 471 1184 Ellison V. Moses, 95 Ala. 221 . . 457, 471, 495 EUwood V. Walter, 103 111. App. 219 656 Elmer v. Welch, 47 Conn. 56.. 549 Elmore v. Elmore, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 856 646 Elser V. Graber, 69 Tex. 222 . . 256, 504 Elwell V. Hinkley, 138 Mass. 225 648 Elwell V. Johnson, 3 Hun (N. Table of Cases. xcvii F&OB Y.), 558 863 Elwell V. Walker, 52 Iowa, 256 902 Elwood V. May, 24 Neb. 373. . . 461 Ely, etc.. Dry Goods Co. v. Walker, 78 Mo. App. 578. .. . 440 Elyton Land Ck). v. Iron City Steam Bottling Works, 109 Ala. 602 186, 347 Elyton Land Co. v. Vance, 119 Ala. 315 897, 959, 966 Embury v. Klemm, 30 N. J. Eq. 517 564 Emerson v. Bacon, 58 Mich. 526 152 Emerson v. Bemis, 69 111. 537 96, 275, 280, 343 Emerson v. Hewins, 64 Me. 297 404 Emerson v. 0pp. 139 Ind. 27 . . 178, 278, 346 Emerald, etc.. Brewing Co. v. Sutton, 68 N. J. L. 246. .226, 962 Emery v. Lawrence, 8 Cush. (Mass.) 151 104 Emery v. Scarlett, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 123 566 Emery v. Vinall, 26 Me. 295.. 343, 585 Emery v. Yount, 7 Colo. 107.. 188, 799, 845, 848, 852, 863 Emes V. Barber, 15 Grant Ch. 679 651 Emmerich v. Hefferan, 58 N. Y. Super. Ct. 217 968 Emmerich v. Heflferan, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 98 346 Emmons v. Barton, 109 Cal. 662 209, 767, 1038 Emmons v. Bradley, 56 Me. 333 251, 443 Emmons v. Westfield, 97 Mass. 230 893 Empire Paving, etc., Co. v. Robinson, 11 N. Y. Supp. 540. 1043 Emrie v. Gilbert, Wright (Ohio), 764 650 Emswiller v. Burham, 6 La. Ann. 710. . . .28, 67, 244, 257, 962 g PAGE Enders v. Swayne, 38 Ky. (8 Dana) 103 227 Enders v. Williams, 58 Ky. 346 220, 221, 279, 343, 346 348, 520, 532, 533, 912 Engel V. Salomon, 41 111. App. 411 666 Enger v. Lofland, 100 Iowa, 303 1026 England v. Adams, 157 Mass. 449 199 England v. Kussell, 71 Fed. 818 773, 846 Englebrecht v. Mayer, 17 Atl. (N. J.) 1081 696 Engleby v. Harvey, 93 Va. 440. 191 Engles V. Marshall, 19 Cal. 320 528, 534 English V. Friedman, 70 Miss. 457 940 English V. King, 57 Tenn. 666. 957 English V. Porter, 109 111. 285, 395 English V. Rosa, 15 Am. B. R. 370 1155, 1183 Engraham v. Pate, 51 Ga. 537 7, 8, 924 Enos V. Tuttle, 3 Conn. 27 100, 101, 741, 742, 745 Enslow V. Slinger, 51 W. Wa. 405 349, 963, 967 Ephraim v. Kelleher, 4 Wash. 243 987 Epperson v. Young, 8 Tex. 135. 634 Eppinger v. Canepa, 20 Fla. 262 154 Eppinger v. Scott, 112 Cal. 369 921 Epstein v. Ferst, 35 Fla. 498 . . 779 Epstein & Co. v. Wilson (Tex.), 17 Am. B. R. 583 1117 Equitable Loan & Security Co. V. Moss & Co., 11 Am. B. R. Ill 1199 Erb V. Cole, 31 Ark. 554 569, 579, 617 Erdall v. Atwood, 79 Wis. 1 . . 463, 618, 1017 Erdhouse v. Hickenlooper, 2 xcviii Table of Contents. Bond (U. S.), 392 978, 981 Effort V. Conaalus, 47 Mo. 208 886, 915 Erhardt v. Estel, 6 Mo. App. 6. 1002 Erickson v. Paterson, 47 Minn. 525 131, 167 Erickson v. Quinn, 47 N. Y. 410 263, 338, 346, 864 Erickson v. Quinn, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 168 68 Ernest v. Merritt, 107 Ga. 61 . . 275, 335, 339, 1001 Erskine v. Decker, 39 Me. 467. 722 Erwin v. Holderman, 92 Mo. 333 138 Eskridge v. Carter, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 760 1017 Eslow V. Mitchell, 26 Mich. 500 185 Esaelbruegge Mercantile Co. v. Troll, 79 Mo. App. 558 581, 588, 594 Essex County v. Lindsley, 41 N. J. Eq. 189 461, 465, 482, 506 Estes V. Jackson, 68 Me. 292. . 736, 763 Estes V. Wilcox, 67 N. Y. 2C4. . 185, 786, 790, 842 Eatey v. Cooke, 12 Nev. 276 .. . 544 Estwick V. Caillaud, 5 T. K. 420 8 Esty V. Aldrich, 46 N. H. 127. . 34 Esty V. Long, 41 N. H. 103.. 198, 831 Etchepare v. Aguirre, 91 Cal. 288 536 Etheridge v. Sperry, 139 U. S. 266 527, 1137 Ethridge v. Dunshee, 31 Pitts. Leg. J. (Pa.) 39 322, 584 Etter V. Anderson, 84 Ind. 333 69, 177 Ettien v. Drum, 32 Mont. 311. . 525 Ettlinger v. Kahn, 134 Mo. 492 964, 966 Euclid Ave. Nat. Bank v. Jud- PAGB kins, 66 Ark. 486 762, 807, 808, 809 Eufaula Grocery Co. v. Petty, 116 Ala. 260 271 Eufaula Nat. Bank v. Pruett, 128 Ala. 470 449 Eureka Iron, etc.. Works v. Bresnahan, 66 Mich. 489 460, 594, 615, 936 Evans v. Coleman, 101 Ga. 152. 1005 Evans v. Covington, 70 Ala. 440 105, 106, 373 Evans v. David, 98 Mo. 405 . . 216, 863 Evans v. Ely, 55 Wis. 194 750 Evana v. Evans, 59 Atl. (N. J.) 564 957 Evans v. Hamilton, 56 Ind. 34. 921 Evans v. Herring, 27 N. J. L. 243 69, 177, 637, 640 Evans v. Hill, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 464 795 Evans v. Kilgore, 147 Pa. St. 19 898 Evana v. Lamar, 21 Ala. 333 . . 472 Evans v. Laughton, 69 Wis. 138 701, 783 Evans v. Lewis, 30 Ohio St. 11 188, 192, 285, 351, 919 Evana v. Mansur, etc., Imple- ment Co., 87 Fed. 275... 578, 625 Evans v. Nealis, 69 Ind. 148.. 727 Evans v. Pence, 78 Ind. 439 271 Evans v. Keay, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 193 853 Evans v. Eounsaville, 8 Am. B. E. 236 1120 Evans v. Rugee, 63 Wis. 31 987 Evans v. Rugee, 57 Wis. 623 . . 899, 908, 968, 1003 Evans v. Scott, 89 Pa. St. 136 532, 541 Evans v. Sims, 82 Hun (N. Y.), 396 256, 965 Evans v. Thornburg, 77 Ind. 106 199 Evans v. Virgin, 69 Wis. 148.. 799 Evans v. Welch, 63 Ala. 250.. 1035 Tabi.e of Cases. xcis FAOB Evans v. Williams, 82 Wis. 666 859 Eve V. Louis, 91 Ind. 457 753, 834, 835 Eveleth v. Harmon, 33 Me. 27f. 1010 Everett v. Everett, 48 N. Y. 218 752 Everett v. Raby, 104 N. C. 479 70, 753 Everett v. Read, 3 N. H. 55 . 60, 102 Everett v. Taylor, 14 Utah, 242 534, 536, 538, 549 Everett v. Winn, 1 Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.) 67 85, 178, 637 Everett Produce Co. v. Smith Bros., 40 Wash. 566 174 Everist v. Pierce, 107 Iowa, 44 187 Eversman v. Clements, 6 Colo. App. 224 8, 571 Eversole v. Bullock, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 1098 105, 146 Every v. Edgerton, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 259 562 Ewing V. Cantrell, 19 Tenn. 364 763 Ewing V. Cargill, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 79 555,557, 580 Ewing V. Gray, 12 Ind. 64 36, 401, 572, 579, 1001 Ewing V. Merkley, 3 Utah, 406 529, 538 Ewing V. Patterson, 35 Ind. 326 278 Ewing V. Runkle, 20 111. 448 . . 12, 13, 29, 489, 506 Ex parte Bell, 1 Glyn. & J. 282 633 Ex parte Berry, 19 Ves. Jr. (Eng.) 218 337 Ex parte Blain, 12 Ch. D. 522. 1081 Ex parte Boyd, 105 U. S. 647. 773, 1040 Ex parte Christy, 3 How. (U. S.) 292 1112, 1225 Ex parte Doran, 2 Pars. Eq. Cas. (Pa.) 467 1061 Ex parte Gaines, 12 Ch. D. 314 302, 488 Ex parte Hull, Fed. Cas. No. 6,856 1073 PAGE Ex parte Jordan, 50 Mass. 292 469 Ex parte Russell, 19 Ch. D. (Eng.) 588 190 Eyre v. Eyre, 19 N. J. Eq. 42 640, 650, 651 Eyrick v. Hetrick, 13 Pa. St. 488 636 Eyster v. Gaff, 91 U. S. 521 .. . 1207, 1213, 1223 Ezekiel v. Dixon, 3 Ga. 146 .. . 472 Ezzell V. Brown, 121 Ala. 150 904, 931, 941 F Faber v. Matz, 86 Wis. 370 . . 299, 762, 765, 956 Faber v. Wagner, 10 N. D. 287 586 Fabian v. Traeger, 117 HI. App. 176, 215 111. 220 71, 458, 914 Fair v. Young, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 544 514 Fairbairn v. Mik, Fed. Oas. No. 5,226 1120 Gardner v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 95 111. 298 413 Gardner v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 13 E. I. 155 638, 642 Gardner v. Gardner, 17 R. I. 751 209, 789 Gardner v. Haines (S. D.), 104 N. W. 244... 59, 85, 291, 570, 574 Gardner v. Howland, 19 Mass. 599 540 Gardner v. Klienke, 40 N. J. Eq. 90 337,959,967,977, 978 Gardner v. Lansing, 28 Hun (N. Y.), 413 789 Gardner v. Maxwell, 27 La. Ann. 561 302 Gardner v. McEwen, 19 N. Y. 123 519 ., 14 Am. B. R. 758 1074 In re Pfaflfinger, 18 Am. B. E. 807 In re Phelpa, 3 Am. B. R. 396 1126, 1163, 1172, 1205, 1223 In re Pierce, Fed. Cas. No. 11,141 . : 1108 In re Piper, 2 N. B. N. Rep. 7. 1151 In re Pittelkow, 1 Am. B. R. 472 1222, 1227, 1228 In re Plant, 17 Am. B. K. 272. . 1161 In re Platts, 6 Am. B. R. 568 . . 1126, 1136 In re Plattsville F. & M. Co., 17 Am. B. R. 291 1180, 1219 In re Poore, 15 Am. B. R. 407. 1192 In re Poore, 15 Am. B. R. 174. 1192, 1197 In re Porter, 6 Am. B. R. 259 1228,1233 In re Porterfield, 15 Am. B. R. 11 1139, 1145 In re Pratesi, 11 Am. B. R. 319 1124 In re Press Post Printing Co., 13 Am. B. R. 797 1117 In re Press-Post Publishing Co., 13 Am. B. R. 103 1192 PAGE In re Price, 1 Am. B. R. 606.. 1226 In re Prime, 19 N. Y. Supp. 16 1035 In re Proctor, 6 Am. B. R. 660. 1162 In re Quackenbush, 4 Am. B. R. 274 1087 In re Queensland Mercantile, etc., Co., 1 Ch. 536 88 In re Rabenau (Mo.), 9 Am. B. R. 180 1117 In re Read, 7 Am. B. R. 111.. 1162 In re Reichman, 1 Am. B. R. 17 1095 In re Eeis, 2 K. B. 769 323, 582, 908 In re Remington Auto & Motor Co., 9 Am. B. R. 533 1225 In re Rennie, 2 Am. B. R. 182. . 1179 In re Reynolds, 18 Am. B. R. 666 1155 In re Rhoads, 3 Am. B. R. 380. 1141 In re Richard', 4 Am. B. R. 700 1187 In re Richards, 2 Am. B. R. 518 1141, 1157, 1165 In re Ridler, 22 Ch. D. 74. .268, 342 In re Riddle's Sons, 10 Am. B. R. 204 1162 In re Riker, 5 Am. B. R. 720. . 1228 In re Roalswiek, 6 Am. B. R. 752 1194 In re Robinson & Smith (C. C. A.), 18 Am. B. R. 563 1122 In re Roekford, etc., Co., Fed. Cas. No. 11,978 1223 In re Rochford, 10 Am. B. R. 608 1214, 1218, 1219 In re Rockland, 1 Am. B. R. 272 1213 In re Rodgers, 125 Fed. 169 . . 528 In re Rodgers, 11 Am. B. R. 79 1183, 1204, 121S In re Rogers Milling Co. 4 Am. B. R. 540 .' 1074 In re Rogers, 1 Am. B. R. 541. . 1225 In re Rogers, 13 Am. B. R. 75. 1123 In re Rollins Gold & Silver Min. Co., 4 Am. B. R. 327 1105 In re Romanow, 1 Am. B. R. 461 1140 In re Rome Planing Mills, 3 Am. B. R. 766.... 1074, 1089, 1106 In re Rome Planing Mill, 3 Am. B. R. 123.. 1089, 1094, 1095, 1097 In re Ronk, 7 Am. B. R. 31.. 1134, 1154 In re Rooney, 6 Am. B. R. 478. 1186 In re Rose, 14 Am. B. R. 345. 1196 In re Rosenberg, 8 Am. B. R. 624 1213 Table of Cases. PAGE In re Rosenberg, 7 Am. B. R. 316 . . 1077, 1154 In re Rosenberg, Fed. Cas. No. 12,054 1178, 1225, 1230 In re Rosenfeld, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 12,057 1083 In re Rosenthal, 5 Am. B. R. 799 1233 In re Rothschild, 6 Am. B. R. 43 , 1202 In re Rothehlld, 5 Am. B. R. 587 1169 In re Royea, 16 Am. B. R. 141. 1187 In re Rudwick, 4 Am. B. R. 531 1185 In re Ruppel, 3 Am. B. R. 233. 1121 In re Russell, 3 Am. B. R. 658 1170 1194, 1197, 1221, 1222, 1224, 1226 In re Ryan, Fed. Caa. Na 12,182 1223 In re Ryan, 5 Am. B. R. 396. . 1173 In re Sabin, Fed. Cas. No. 12,195 1210 In re Sabine 1 Am. B. R. 315. 1227, 1228 In re Salmon, 16 Am. B. R. 122 1082, 1101 In re Sanderlin 6 Am. B. R. 384 1158 In re Sanderson, 18 Am. B. R. 101 1191 In re Sanford, 21 Fed'. Cas. No. 12,310 1083 In re San Gabriel Sanitarium Co., 7 Am. B. R. 206 1217, 1224, 1228 In re Sani Gabriel Sanitarium Co., 4 Am. B. R. 197 1228 In re Sauthoflf, 8 Biss. (U. S.) 35 168, 169 In re Sawver, 12 Am. B. R. 269 1134 In re SchaefiFer, 5 Am. B. R. 248 1188 In re Scheerman, 2 N. B. B. Rep. 118 1199 In re Seheld, 5 Am. B. R. 102. 1201 In re Seheinbaum, 5 Am. B. R. 187 1216, 1217, 1218 In re Schermerhorn, 16 Am. B. R. 507 1215 In re Sohenek, 8 Am. B. R. 727. 1130 In re Sehenekein, 7 Am. B. R. 162 1163 In re Seherber, 12 Am. B. R. 616 1214 In re Schlesinger, 3 Am. B. R. 342 . . 1133 In re Sehmitt, 6 Am. B. R. 150. 1119 In re Schofield, 17 Am. B. R. PAGE 916 1192 In re Sclioltz, 5 Am. B. R. 782 1071 In re Scott, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,518 1068 In re Seehler, 5 Am. B. R. 579 1173 In re Seebold, 5 Am. B. R. 358 . 1218, 1226, 1227 In re Sentenne & Greene Co., 9 Am. B. R. 648 . ,1118,1122 In re Sewell, 7 Am. B. R. 133. . 1118, 1137 In re Shapiro & Novick, 5 Am. B. R. 839 1082, 1085 In re Shaw, 17 Am. B. R. 196 . . 1115, 1130, 1181 In re Shenberger, 4 Am. B. R. 487 1186 In re Sheukein, 7 Am. B. R. 162 1145 In re Shepherd, 6 Am. B. R. 725 1131 In re Sheridan, 3 Am. B. R. 554 1153, 1162 In re Shirley, 112 Fed. 301 562, 1119 In re Shirley, 7 Am. B. R. 299 1136 In re Shoemaker, 7 Am. B. R. 437 1227 In re Shoesmith, 13 Am. B. R. 645 1075 In re Shuts Printing, etc., Co., 14 Am. B. R. 668 1192 In re Sievers, 1 Am. B. R. 117 1071, 1099, 1222 In re Silberhorn, 5 Am. B. R. 568 1216 In re Silverman, Fed. Cas. No. 12,855 1091 In re Simpson Mfg. Co., 12 Am. B. R. 212 1196 In re Sims, Fed. Cas. No. 12,888 1174 In re Skinner, 3 Am. B. R. 163 1138, 1233 In re Slingluff, 5 Am. B. R. 76 1191 In re Sloan, 4 Am. B. R. 356. . 1157 In re Smith, 9 Am. B. R. 603 . . 1228 In re Smith, 9 Am. B. R. 590. . 1226 In re Smith, 3 Am. B. R. 95.. 1138 In re Smith, 2 Am. B. R. 9. . . 1071 In re Smith, 4 Ben. (U. S.) 1. 1084 In re Smith, 9 Fed. 592 283 In re Smith & Nixon Piano Co., 17 Am. B. R. 636 1181 In re Snell, 11 Am. B. R. 35.. ll45 In re Soldosky, 7 Am. B. R. 123 1173 In re Soudans Mfg. Co., 8 Am. B. R. 45... 1120, 1129, 1135, 1136 In re Soudan Mfg. Co., 113 Table op Cases. cli PAGE Fed. 804 .~ 437 In re Southern, etc., Co., 6 Am. B. E. 633 1173 In re Southern Loan & Trust Co., 3 Am. B. R. 9 1225 In re Spalding, 14 Am. B. R. 129 1103 In re Spalding, 139 Fed. 244 . . 1073, 1103 In re Spaulding, 134 Fed. 507. 1073 In re Spitzer, 12 Am. B. R. 346. 1222 In re St. Albans Foundry Co., 4 Am. B. R. 594 1225, 1230 In re St. John, 5 Am. B. R. 190. 1186 In re Standard Laundry Co., 8 Am. B. R. 538 1120, 1134 In re Standard Laundry Co., 7 Am. B. R. 254 1180 In re Standard Steel Casting Co., 10 Am. B. R. 594 1098 In re Steam Vehicle Co., 10 Am. B. R. 385 1158 In re Steege, 8 Am. B. R. 515. . 1077 In re Steers Lumber Co., 6 Am. B. R. 315 1077, 1173 In re Stein, 1 Am. B. R. 662 . . 1223 In re Steininger Mercantile Co., 6 Am. B. R. 68 1127, 1131 In re Steuer, 5 Am. B. R. 45. . . 1217 In re Stevenson, 2 Am. B. R. 66 1153 In re Stoner, 5 Am. B. R. 402. 11.79 In re Storck Lumber Co., 8 Am. B. R. 86 1071, 1101 In re Storm, 4 Am. B. R. 601. . 1101, 1143 In re Stout, 6 Am. B. E. 505. . 1143 In re Strenz, 8 Fed. 311 574 In re Strike, 1 Bland (Md.), 57 699, 700, 1028 In re Stuyvesant Bank, 49 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 133 1112 In re Sullivan, 16 Am. B. R. 87. 1200 In re Sullivan, 2 Am. B. R. 30. 1230 In re Sutherland, 6 Biss. (U. S.) 526 117 In re Sweet, 20 E. I. 557 712 In re Swift, 7 Am. B. E. 374. . 1162, 1185, 1186 In re Swift, 5 Am. B. R. 232. . 1186 In re Taft, 13 Am. B. E. 417. . 1187 In re Talbott, 8 Am. B. R. 427 . 1202 In re Tanner, 6 Am. B. R. 196. 1173 In re Tatem, 6 Am. B. R. 426 . . 1118, 1137 In re Taylor, 4 Am. B. R. 515. . 1106 In re Taylor, 95 Fed. 956 1130 In re Teachout, 15 Mich. 346 . . 1063 PAGE In re Teague, 2 Am. B. R. 168. 1127 In re Terrill, 4 Am. B. E. 145 . . 1072, 1153 In re Teschmacher & Mrazay, 11 Am. B. R. 547 1212, 1214 In re Tetley, 66 L. J. Q. B. Ill 328 In re Thomas, 4 Am. B. E. 571 1095, 1097 In re Thompson's Sons, 6 Am. B. R. 663 1173 In re Tice, 15 Am. B. E. 97 . . ■ 1192, 1197 In re Tice, 139 Fed. 52 417 In re Tiffany, 17 Am. B. E. 296 1108 In re Tiffany, 13 Am. B. R. 310 1146 In re Tilden, 1 Am. B. R. 300. 1203 In re Tollett, 5 Am. B. E. 505 1182, 1202 In re Tollett, 2 N. B. N. Eep. 1096 1174 In re Tomlinson Co., 18 Am. B. E. 691 1099 In re Tonawanda Street Planing Mill, 6 Am. B. R. 38 1155 In re Topliflf, 8 Am. B. R. 241 . . 1173 In re Tune, 8 Am. B. R. 285 . . 1141, 1213, 1217, 1227 In re Twaddell, 6 Am. B. R. 539 1186 In re Tweed, 12 Am. B. R. 648 1185, 1193, 1194 In re Tweed, 131 Fed. 355 525 In re Tyler, 5 Am. B. R. 152.. 1186 In re Union, etc., Co., 7 Am. B. R. 472 1162 In re Van Alstyne, 4 Am. B. R. 42 1233 In re Vastbinder, 13 Am. B. R. 148 1226 In re Vastbinder, 11 Am. B. R. 118 1093 In re Vetterman, 14 Am. B. R. 245 1098 In re Virginia Hardwood Mfg. Co., 15 Am. B. E. 135 1165 In re Waite, Fed. Cas. No. 17,044 1093, 1157 In re Ward, 5 Am. B. R. 215. . 1225 In re Warner, 16 Am. B. R. 519 1153 In re Warner, Fed. Cas. No. 17,177 1157 In re Waterbury Furniture Co., 8 Am. B. R. 79 1163 In re Waterloo Organ Co., 9 Am. B. R. 427, 1216 In re Watkinson, 17 Am. B. R. clii Table of Cases. PAGE 56 1159 In re Watterson, 95 Pa. St. 312 1188 In re Waukesha Water Co., 8 Am. B. E. 715 1216 In re Waxelbaum, 4 Am. B. R. 120 1202 In re Weil, 7 Am. B. R. 90.... 1194, 1196, 1197 In re Weldon's Estate, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 47 408, 462 In re Welling, 7 Am. B. R. 340 1191, 1201 In re Wells, 15 Am. B. E. 419. 1197 In re Wells, 8 Am. B. R. 75. . . 1227 In re Wells, Fed. Cas. No. 17,388 1073 In re Wertheimer, 6 Am. B. R. 187 1163 In re West, 11 Am. B. R. 782. . 1180 In re West, 1 Am. B. R. 261. . 1086, 1101 In re West Norfolk Lumber Co., 7 Am. B. R. 648 1120, 1162 In re Wetmore, 4 Am. B. R. 335 1187 In re White, 14 Am. B. R. 2^1 . 1085 In re White, 6 Am. B. R. 451 . . 1202 In re Wilkes, 7 Am. B. R. 574. 1118 In re Williams, Fed. Cas. No. 17,703 1075, 1130 In re Williams, I Lowell (U. S.), 406 1088 In re Williams, 9 Am. B. R. 741 1115, 1122, 1219 In re Williams, 9 Am. B. R. 731 1115 In re Wilmington Hosiery Co., 9 Am. B. R. 581 . . 1084, 1085, 1088 In re Wilmington Hosiery Co., 9 Am. B. R. 579 1105 In re Wilson, 123 Fed. 20 151, 159, 168, 169 In re Winans, S Dem. (N. Y.) 138 155 In re Winn, Fed. Cas. No. 17,876 1143 In re Wittenberg, etc., Co., 6 Am. B. R. 271 1152 In re Wolcott, 15 Am. B. R. 386 1202 In re Wolf, 3 Am. B. R. 558. . . 1122 In re Wolf, 3 Am. B. R. 555 .. . 1083, 1092, 1134, 1158 In re Wolf, 2 Am. B. R. 322.. 1153 In re Wolfskill, Fed. Cas. No. 17,930 1108 In re Wollock, 9 Am. B. R. 685. 1225 In re Wood, 15 Am. B. R. 411 . . 1197 PAGK In re Woodard, 2 Am. B. R. 339 1186 In re Woodbury, 3 Am. B. R. 457 1222 In re Wood & Malone, 9 Am. B. R. 615 1186 In re Woods, 13 Am. B. R. 240. 1179 In re Wright, 2 Am. B. R. 364 1118, 1155 In re Wright, 3 Biss. (U. S.) 359 168, 169 In re Wright Lumber Co., 8 Am. B. R. 345 1089 In re Wyly, 8 Am. B. R. 604. . 1165 In re Wynne, Fed. Cas. No. 18,117 .' 117S In re Young, 7 Am. B. R. 14 . . 1216, 1218 In re Youngstrom, 18 Am. B. R. 572 1179, 1181 In re Yost, 9 Am. B. R. 153 .. . 1202 In re Yukon Woolen Co., 2 Am. B. E. 805.. 1118, 1137, 1182, 1192. Ionia County Sav. Bank v. Mo- Lean, 84 Mich. 625 98, 120, 121, 122, 381 Iowa City Bank v. Weber, 72 Iowa, 137 974 Irby V. Henry, 16 S. C. 617... 361 Irion V. Mills, 41 Tex. 310 312 Irish V. Bradford, 64 Iowa, 303. 381 Irish V. Clayes, 10 Vt. 81 705 Irish V. Daniels, 100 Minn. 189. 180 Iron, etc., Co. v. Portuer, 131 Fed. 57 1073 Irvine v. Greever, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 411 265- Irvine v. Greever, 27 W. Va. 206 364 Irwin V. Freemen, 13 Grant Ch. (Can.) 465 338 Irwin V. Hess, 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 163 738, 789, 822 Irwin V. Longworth, 20 Ohio, 581 659 Irwin V. MeKnight, 76 Ga. 669. 1051 Irwin Phillips & Co. v. Rule (Mo. App.), 102 S. W. 32... 259 Isbell V. Jones (Ark.), 88 S. W. 593 159 Iselin V. Goldstein, 35 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 489 958 Iseminger v. Criswcll, 98 Iowa, 382 367, 406, 972 Isgrigg V. Pauley, 148 Ind. 436. 150, 160, 878,, 884 Isham V. Schafer, 60 Barb. (N. Y.) 317 41, 130 Table of Cases. cliii PAGE Ishmael V. Parker, 13 111. 324. 771 Ismond v. Soougale, 120 Mich. 353 937 Israel v. Day, 17 Colo. App. 200 525 Ivanoovich v. Stern, 14 Nev. 341 260 Ives V. Hulee, 14 111. App. 389. 179 Izard V. Middleton, 1 Bailey Eq. 228 (S. C.) 284, 840 J Jack V. El Paso Fuel Co. (Tex. Civ. App.), 38 S. W. 1139.. 920, 954 Jack V. Greig, 27 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 6 Ill, 379 Jack V. Kintz, 177 Pa. St. 571. 897 Jaekman v. Eau Claire Nat. Bank, 125 Wis. 465 623, 995 Jaekman v. Robinson, 64 Mo. 289 820, 821, 823, 824 Jacks V. Nichols, 5 N. Y. 178. . 878, 879 Jacks V. Tunno, 3 Desaus. Eq. (S. C.) 1 284 Jackson v. Andrews, 7 Wend. (N. Y.) 152 1026 Jackson v. Badger, 109 N. Y. 632 964 Jackson v. Beach, 9 Atl. (N. J.) 380 373 Jackson v. Bowley, C. & M. 97. 280 Jackson v. Brush, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 5 428, 429, 445 Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cow. (N. Y.) 622 69, 197, 631 Jackson v. Cleveland, 15 Mich. 94 635 Jackson v. Oomell, 1 Sand. Ch. (N. Y.) 438 465, 519 Jackson .v. Dean, 1 Dougl. (Mich.) 519 521, 910 Jackson v. Dutton, 3 Harr. (Del.) 98. . J 634, 649 Jackson v. Forrest, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 576 ....682, 821 Jackson v. Gamsey, 16 Johns. (N. Y.) 189 635 Jack9 Keagy v. Trout, 85 Va. 390..' 228, 329, 358, 941, 957 Keam y. Conkwright, 78 Mich. 58 975 Keane v. Goldsmith, 14 La. Ann. 349 69, 177 Kearby v. Hopkins, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 166 204 Kearney County Bank v. Dul- lenty, 4 Neb. 753 963 Kearney County Bank v. Dul- lentj', 96 N. W. 169 966 Keating Implement, etc., Co. v. Terre Haute Carriage, etc., Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 216. . . 304 Keeder v. Murphy, 43 Iowa, 413 330, 442, 443 Keegan v. King, 3 Am. B. E. 79 1178, 1221, 1226 Keehn v. Keehn, 115 Iowa, 467 187 Keel v. Larkin, 83 Ala. 142 . . 144, 182, 358, 578 Keen v. Kleckner, 42 Pa. St. 529 320, 462, 474, 992 Keen v. Preston, 24 Ind. 395 . . 74 Keeney v. Good, 21 Pa. St. 349 113, 400, 898 Keep V. Keep, 7 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 240 324, 426 Keet-Rountree Shoe Co., v. Lis- man, 149 Mo. 85 602, 610 Keeton v. Bandy, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 233 649 Kehler v. G. W. Jack Mfg. Co., 55 Ga. 639 1048 Kehr v. Sichler, 48 Mo. 96... 439 Kehr v. Smith, 87 U. S. 31 . . 266, 1138 Kehr v. Smith, 20 Wall. 31 343 Keichline v. Keichline, 54 Pa. St. 75 613 Keith V. Albrecht, 89 Minn. 247 05 Keith V. Gettysburg Nat. Bank, 10 Am. B. R. 762 1167 Keith V. Heffelfinger, 12 Neb. 497 306 Keith V. Kreidel, 4 Wash. 544 Table of Cases. clix PAGE 960, 961, 965, 967 Keith V. Proctor, 67-Tenn. 189 714 Keith v. Woombell, 25 Mass. 211 325 Keel V. Isaacs, 58 Hun (N. Y.), 610 970 Kellar v. Taylor, 90 Ala. 289 . . 907 Keller v. Blanchard, 19 La. Ann. 53 233, 353, 520 Keller v. Paine, 107 N. Y. 83.. 86, 87 Keller v. Payne, 48 Hun (N. Y.), 620 1046 Kelley v. Connell, 110 Ala. 543 168, 399, 897 Kelley v. Flory, 84 Iowa, 671 . . 612 Kellifier v. Sutton, 115 Iowa, 632 594, 924, 926 Kellogg V. Aherin, 48 Iowa, 299 :.580, 612 Kellogg V. Clyne, 54 Fed. 696 . . 229, 237, 317, 924 Kellogg V. Douglass County Bank, 58 Kan. 43. .57, 58, 59, 183 Kellogg V. Hamilton, 43 Mich. 269 874 Kellogg Newspaper Co. v. Pater- son, 162 111. 158 541, 542 Kellogg V. Richardson, 19 Fed. 70 413, 428, 457 Kellogg V. Wilkie, 23 How. * Pr. (N. Y.) 233 519,551, 552 Kells V. McClure, 69 Minn. 60 936, 965, 1007 Kelly-Goodfellow Shoe Co. v. Vail, 84 Mo. App. 94 581 Kelly V. Atkins, 14 Colo. App. 208 959, 966 Kelly V. Fleming, 113 N. C. 133 408 Kelly V. Herb, 157 Pa. St. 41 . . 804, 1045 Kelly V. Karsner, 72 Ala. 106 . . 658 Kelly V. Lenihan, 56 Ind. 448 . . 750 Kelly V. Mesier, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 329 537 Kelly V. Simmons, 73 Ga. 716. . 397 711 913 Kelly V. Smith, 102 Ala. 336..' 624 Kelly V. Smith, Fed. Cas. No. 7,675 1210 Kelly V. Sparks, 54 Fed. 70 . . . 169 Kelly's Appeal, 77 Pa. St. 232. 343 Kelly V. Strange, Fed. Oas. No. 7,676 1188 Kelsey v. Kelley, 03 Vt. 41..300, 384 Kelso V. Blackburn, 3 Leigh PAGE (Va.), 299 1041 Kemmer v. Tool, 78 Pa. 147. . . 615 Kemp V. Folsom, 14 Wash. 16. . 141, 146 Kemp V. National Bank of Re- public, 109 Fed. 48 457 Kemp V. Small, 32 Neb. 318. . . 443 Kemp V. Walker, 16 Ohio, 118. 473 Kemper, etc.. Dry Goods Co. v. Reushaw, 58 Neb. 513 856 Kempner v. Churchill, 75 U. S. 362 28, 959 Kempner v. Churchill, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 362. .. .7, 9, 233, 353, 953 Kendall v. Baltis, 26 Mo. App. 411 583 Kendall Boot, etc., Co. v. Bain, 46 Mo. App. 581 552 Kendall v. Fitts, 22 N. H. 1.. 522, 544, 627 Kendall v. Hughes, 46 Ky. 368 520, 894, 950 Kendall v. O'Neal, 16 Mont. 303 1010 Kendall v. Samson, 12 Vt. 515 529, 530, 553 Keneweg Co. v. Schilansky, 47 W. Va. 287... 428, 613, 867, 886 Kennaird v. Adams, 50 Ky. 102 459, 473, 490, 499 Kennard v. Gray, 58 N. H. 51. 227 Kenningham v. McLaughlin, 42 Ky. 30 533 Kennedy v. Barandon, 67 Barb. (N. Y.) 209 1017 Kennedy v. Conroy (Cal.), 44 Pac. 795 531 Kennedy v. Dedge, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 425 343 Kennedy v. First Nat. Bank, 107 Ala. 170 162 Kennedy v. Kennedy, 2 Ala. 571 858 Kennedy v. Lowe, 9 Iowa, 580. 4 9 Kennedy v. Merriam, 70 111. 228 1012 Kennedy v. Powell, 34 Kan. 22 319, 320, 396, 397, 513, 515 Kennedy v. Ross, 2 Mill Const. (S. C.) 125 518 Kennedy v. Thorpe, 51 N. Y. 174 204 Kenney v. Burkhart, 5 Pa. St. 478 297 Kenney v. Dow, 10 Mart. (La.) 577 85, 580, 892 Kennewig Co. v. Moore, 49 W. Va. 323 186, 775 Kenosha Stove Co. v. Shedd, 82 Iowa, 540 74& 'clx Table of Cases. PAGE Kent V. Curtis, 4 Mo. App. 121 . 774 Kent V. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., 26 Ind. 294 175 Kenton v. Rateliff, 105 Ky. 376 541, 543 Kerber v. Ruff, 4 Ohio S. & C. P. Dec. 406 267 Kerner v. Boardman, 133 N. Y. 539 545 Kern's Estate, 4 Pa. Dist. 73 . . 344 Kerr v. Bain, 11 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 423 763 Kerr v. Hutchins, 36 Tex. 452 . . 848 Kerr v. Hutchins, 46 Tex. 384. 85, 523, 900, 993, 996, 1014, 1025 Kerr v. Kennedy, 119 Iowa, 239 593, 693, 977 Kervick v. Mitchell, 68 Iowa, 273 644 Kerwin v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 35 L. Ann. 33 639, 641 Kessler v. Levy, 11 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 275 58 Ketchum v. Allen, 46 Conn. 414 151, 157 Ketcham v. Hallock, 55 111. App. 632 281, 340 Ketchum v. McNamara, 6 Am. B. R. 160 1071 Ketner v. Donten, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 604 180, 378 Kettleschlager v. Ferrick, 12 S. D. 455 163, 164 Keuren v. McLaughlin, 19 N. J. Eq. 187 697 Kevan v. Crawford, 46 L. J. Ch. 729 228 Keyes v. Riues, 37 Vt. 260 164 Keys V. Grannis, 3 Nev. 548. . . 750 Keyser v. Angle, 40 N. J. Eq. 481 619 Keyser v. Wessel, 12 Am. B. R. 126 1122 Kickbush v. Corwith, 108 Wis. 634 75, 253, 463, 474, 561, 570, 680, 699, 692, 758 Kiehline v. Labacb, 125 Pa. St. 295 948 Kid V. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M. (S. C.) 334 . ..68,70, 85, 177, 189, 211, 220, 351, 563, 633, 665 Kidd V. Rawlinson, 2 B. & P. 59 19, 518 Kidder v. Beavers, 33 Wash. 635 856 Kidney v. Coussmaker, 12 Ves. Jr. 136 188 KidNiyell v. Kirkpatrick, 70 Mo. PAGE 214 107 Kiehn v. Bestor, 30 111. App. 458 597 Kiel v. Harris, 4 Pa. Gas. 201 . . 544 Kiely v. Hickeox, 70 Mo. App. 617 124. 152 Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. V. McPheely, 37 Neb. 800..461, 473 KiHken v. Kihlken, 59 Ohio St. 106 650 Kilbourne v. I'ay, 29 Ohio St. 264 203, 548 Kilbride v. Cameron, 17 U. C. C. C. P. 373 132 Kibly V. Haggin, 26 Ky. 208 .. . 557 Kilgorev. Stoner (Ala.), 12 So. 60 465, 513 Killam v. Pierce, 153 Mass. 502 29, 30, 257, 258 Killian v. Clark, 3 MacArthur (D. C), 379 192 Killian v. Oox, 132 Ala. 664.. 876 Killough v. Steele, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 262 13, 15, 33, 251, 290, 441 Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. V. Bremers, 44 Neb. 863. .235, 316 Kilpatrick-Koch Ddy Goods Co. V. McPheeley, 37 Neb. 800 .. . 235, 317, 995 Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. V. Straus, 45 Neb. 793 235, 236, 316 Kimbal v. Fenner, 12 N. H. 248 904 Kimball v. Grieg, 47 Ala. 230 . . 826 Kimball v. Rosenham Co., 7 Am. B. R. 718 1172 Kimball v. Thompson, 4 Gush. (Mass.) 441 263, 575 Kimble v. Kimble, 1 Mart. N. S. 633 67, 737 Kimmel v. McRight, 2 Pa. St. 38 37, 67 Kimble v. Smith, 95 Pa. St. 69. 193, 350 Kimble v. Wotring, 48 W. Va. 412 ..692, 693, 969 Kimbro v. Clark, 17 Neb. 403. 966 Kimmel v. McRight, 2 Pa. St. 38 732 Kinmouth v. Braeutigan (N. J. Esq.), 10 Am. B. R. 83.1112, 1144 Kimmouth v. White, 47 Atl. (N. J.) 1 2.55 Kinball v. Fenner, 12 N. H. 248 971 Kinberling v. Hartlev, 1 Fed. 571 796, 1035 Kinder v. Macy, 7 Cal. 206 855 Table of Oases. clxi PAGE JCinealy v. Macklin. 2 Mo. App. 241 67, 351, 737, 769 King V. Arnold, 52 Iowa, 712. . 965 King V. Atkins, 33 La. Ann. 1057 894, 954 King V. Babcock, 40 Iowa, 690 964 King V. Baer, 31 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 308 780 King V. Bailey, 6 MJo. 375 526 King V. Bailey, 6 Mo. 575 35 King V. Besson, 5 Pa. Cas. 59. 992 King V. Oantrel, 26 N. C. 251. 77, 82, 441 King V. Cram, 185 Mass. 103.. 128, 569 King V. Clarke, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 611 85, 178, 188, 349, 781 King V. Clay, 34 Ark. 291.. 69, 177 King V. Duncan, 29 Grant Oh. (U. C.) 113 51 King V. Dupine, 2 Atk. 603 . . 99, 102 King V. Grannis, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 367 915 King V. Harter, 70 Tex. 579 .. . 153, 161 King V. Holland Trust Co., 8 App. Div. (N. y.) 112 614 King V. Hubbell, 42 Mich. 595. 333 King V. Hubbell, 42 Mich. 497. 227 King V. Hubbell, 42 Mich. 597. 236, 317 King V. Keating, 12 Grant Oh. 29 670 King V. King, 61 Ala. 470.. 631, 658 King V. Le-py (Va.), 22 S. E. 492 523 King V. Moody, 79 Ky. 63 476 King V. Moore, 42 Mo. 551 563 King V. Munzer, 28 N. Y. Supp. 587 599 King V. Poole, 61 Ga. 373 920 King V. Richardson, 94 Mo. App. 670 907 King V. Russell, 40 Tex. 124. . . 906 King V. Skellie, 79 Ga. 147. .. . Ill King V. Simmons, 55 N. Y. Supp. 1096 310, 329, 962 King V. Tharp, 26 Iowa, 283. . . 636 Kinar v. Thompson, 34 U. S. 204 ...! 376 King V. Trice, 38 K. 0. 568. .. . 721 King V. Ward, 74 Me. 349 1003 Kins V. Wells, 106 Iowa, 649 . . 107, 114, 348 King V. Wilcox, 11 Paige (N. Y), 589 191, 350, 701 Kinghorn v. Wright, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 615 74, 78 k Kingman v. Cornell-Tebbetts Mach., etc., Co., 150 Mo. 282. Kingman & Co. v. Mowry, 182 III. 256 , Kingsbury v. Haawell, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 591 Kingslcy v. First Nat. Bank, 31 Hun (N. Y.), 329 Kingsley v. White, 57 Vt. 565. 542, 543 Kinkle v. Gale, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 126 Kinmouth v. Walling (N. J. Oh.), 36 Atl. 891 Kinmouth v. White, 47 Atl. (N. J.) 1 581, 588, 620, Kinnemon v. Miller, 2 Md. Ch. 407 Kinner v. Woodson, 94 Va. 711. 963, 967 -Kinney v. Craig, 103 Va. 158.. 833 871 Kinsey v. Feller, 50 Atl.' (n! J.) 680 Kinsey v. Feller, 64 N. J. Eq. 367 187, 337, 348, Kinter v. Bickard, 67 Mich. 125. 172, Kipp V. Hanna, 2 Bland (Md.), 26.... 129, 179, 280, 339, 343, Kipp V. Lamoreaux, 81 Mich. 299 521, Kipper v. Glameey, 2 Blaokf. (Ind.) 356 36, 136, 787, Kirby v. Bruns, 45 Mo. 234... Kirby v. Ingersoll, HSirr. (Mich.) 172 Kirby v. Raynes, 138 Ala. 194.. Kirehman v. Kratky, 51 Neb. 191 Kirdadi v. Basha, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 715 Kirk V. Clark, Prec. Ch. (Eng.) 275 ; 324 Kirkby v. Raynes, 138 Ala. 194 639 Kirker v. Johnson, 13 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 385 426 Kirkley v. Blakeney, 2 Not. & M. (S. C.) 544 275 Kirkley v. Larcy, 7 Houst. (Del.) 213 114 Kirkpatrick v. Clark, 132 111. 342 639, 642, Kirkpatrick v. Finney, 30 La. Ann. 223 Kirksey v. Snedeeor, 60 Ala. 192 190, 347, 1031 Kirksville Sav. Bank v. Spang- 460 5S 655 42 1050 839 691 634 872 969 910 173 688 904 789 130 72 631 897 812 658 399 clxii Table of Cases. PAGE ler, 59 Mo. Aipp. 172 166 Kirmey v. Consolidated Va. Min. Co., 14 Fed. Cas. No. 7,827 698 Kirtland v. Snow, 20 Conn. 23. 458 Kiser v. Dozier, 102 Ga. 429 . . . 985, 997 Kiser v. Gamble, 75 Ala. 386 . . 579, 593 Kissam v. Edmonston, 36 N. C. 180 327 Kisteraon v. Tate, 94 Iowa, 665 1035 Kitchell V. Bratton, 2 111. 300. 520 Kitchell V. Jackson, 71 Ala. 556 688 Kitchen v. Lowery, 127 N. Y. 59 ' 778 Kitchen v. MeCloskey, 150 Ba. St. 376 393, 461, 509, 510 Kitchen v. St. LouiSj etc., R. Co., 69 Mo. 224 594 Kittel V. Augusta, etc., R. Co., 65 Fed. 859 856 Kittel V. Jones, 11 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 541 1038 Kittredg6 v. Slack, 67 111. Aipp. 128 429 Kittredge v. Sumner, 23 Mass. 50 550, 580 Kittredge v. Warren, 14 N. H. 509 782 Kitts V. Willson, 140 Ind. 604. 84, 172 Kitts V. Wilson, 130 Ind. 492. 641, 644, 650, 654, 677 Kizsee v. Winston, Fed. Cas. 7,835 1185 Klauber v. Schloss, 198 Mo. 502. 331, 335 Klauber v. Sohloss (Mo.), 95 S. W. 930 273 Klay V. McKellaTj 122 Iowa, 163 185, 775, 895 Klemm v. Bishop, 56 111. App.. 613 79, 233, 353 Klein v. Horine, 47 111. 430... 855, 892 Klein v. Richardson, 64 Miss. 41 ; 252 Kleine v. Katzenberger, 20 Ohio St. 110 1 554 Klein v. Hoffheimerj 132 U. S. 367 685, 687, 908 Kleinsehmidt v. McAndrews, 117 U. S. 282 551 Kline v. First Nat. Bank (Pa.), 15 Atl. 433 948 Kline v. Kline, 103 Va. 263... 898, 968 Kline v. McDonnell, 62 Hun (N. Y.), 177 36, 38, 682, 683 Kline v. MoGuckin, 24 N. J. Eq. 411 670 Klous V. Hennessey, 13 R. I. 332 756 Klosterman v. Mason County Cent. R. Co., 8 Wash. 281... 762, 764, 775 Klosterman v. Harrington, 11 Wash. 138 275, 376 Klosterman v. Vader, 6 Wash. 99 95, 293 Kluender v. Lynch, 2 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 588 900 Kluender v. Lynch, 2 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 538 113, 963, 967 Knapp V. Bailey, 79 Me. 195. . . 616 Knapp V. Crane, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 120 1025 Knapp V. Day, 4 Colo. App. 21. 572 Knapp V. Fisher, 58 Neb. 651.. 574, 893 Knapp V. Forrest, 6 U. C. Q. B. 0. S. 577 45 Knapp V. Knapp, 96 S. W. (Mo.) 295 635 Knapp V. McGowan, 96 N. Y. 75 420, 429 Kniatvold v. Wilkinson, 83 Minn. 265 341, 586 Kneeland v. Cowles, 3 Finn. (Wis.) 316 428 Knevau v. Speclcer, 74 Ky. 1 . . . 92 Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Car- hart, 64 Atl. (N. J.) 756... 366 Knight V. Capito, 23 W. Va. 639 247, 314, 386, 905 Knight V. Dalton, 83 Pac. (Kan.) 83 654 Knight V. Darby, 55 Neb. 16 . . . 234, 355 King V. Duncan, 29 Grant Oh. (U. C.) 113 43 Knight V. Forward, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 311 535, 537 Knight V. Glascock, 51 Ark. 390 637, 855 Knight V. Jordan, 25 Tenn. 101 676 Knight V. Kidder (Me.), 1 Atl. 142 892 Knight V. Nease, 53 W. Va. 50. 904, 952, 954, 967 Knittel v. McGowan, 14 Am. B. R. 209 1074 Knoch V. Bemheim, 14 App. Div. (N. Y.) 410 937, 938 Table oy Cases. clxiii PAGE Knoop V. Kelsey, 121 Mo. 642.. 232 Knoop V. Nelson Distilling Co., 26 Mo. App.- 333 990 Knoop V. Nelson Distilling Co., 26 Mo. App. 303 526, 529 Knorr v. Lohr, 108 Iowa, 181.. 669 Klnott V. Putnam^ 6 Am. B. K. 80 1232 Knower v. Cadden Clothing Co., 57 Conn. 202.. 579, 615, 907, 994 Knower v. Central Nat. Bank, 124 N. y. 552.., ......98, 593 Knower v. Haines, 31 Fed. 513. 311 Knowles v. Street, 87 Ala. 357. 309 Knowlton v. Mish, 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 627 8 Knowlton v. Mosely, 105 Mass. 136 938 Knox V. Bank, 12 Wall. 379... 1233 Knox V. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 356 514 Knox V. Hunt, 18 Mo. 174 721 Knox V. Moses, 104 Cal. 502 . . 346, 993 Knox V. Travers, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 41 43 Koch V. Bruce, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 634 582 Koch V. Peters, 97 Wis. 492 .. . 595 Kock V. Bostwick, 113 Mich. 302 73, 75 Kohl V. Sullivan, 140 Pa. St. 35 42, 172, 671, 696 Kohn V. Clement, 58 Iowa, 589. 583 Kohn V. Fishbaok, 36 Wash. 69. 174 Kohn V. Johnston, 97 Iowa, 99. 995 Kohn V. Meyer, 19 S. C. 190. . . 523 Kohout V. Chaloupka, 11 Am. B. R. 265 1133 Kohner v. Ashenaur, 17 Cal. 578 215 Kolb V. Raisor, 17 Ind. App. 551 152 Kolander v. Dunn (Minn.), 104 N. W, 371 175 Kolander v. Dunn, 95 Minn. 422 259 Kosminsky v. Walter (Tex. Civ. App.), 44 S. W. 540 893 Koster v. Hiller, 4 111. App. 21 185, 274, 278 Koster v. Merritt, 32 Conn. 246. 86, 470, 560 Koster v. Miller, 4 111. App. 21. 339 Kramer v. MeCaughy, 11 Mo. App. 426 294 Kramer v. Wilson, 22 Mo. App. 173 923, 924 Kratz V. Buck, 111 111. 40 818 PAGE 608 154 299 Kraus v. Haas, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 665 74, 584, 595, Kreider's Estate, 135 Pa. St. 584 Krider v. Koons, 5 Ohio Cir. Ct. 221 Krippeudorf-Dittman Co. v. Trenworth, 84 Pac. 805 971 Krippendorf-Ditman Co. v. Trenoweth, 16 Colo. App. 178. 311, 510 Krippendorf v. Hyde, 28 Fed. 788 480, 502 Kroesen v. Seevers, 5 Leigh (Va.), 434 544 Kroger v. Roger Wheel Co., 1 Ky. L. Rep. 419 796 Krolik V. Bulkley, 58 Mich. 407 814 Krolik V. Graham, 64 Mich. 226. 924, 947 Krolik V. Root, 03 Mich. 562 . . 77, 804 Kronskop v. Kronskop, 95 Wis. 296 640, 644 Krueger v. Vorhauer, 164 Mo. 156 78, 187, 348 Kruger v. Walker, 111 Ga. 383. 761, 779, 817, 871 Krusehell v. Anders, 26 S. W. (Tex.) 249 987 Kruse v. Prindle, 8 Or. 158... 461 Kubie V. Zemke, 105 Iowa, 269. 896 Kuder v. Chadwick, 207 Pa. St. 182 Kuevan v. Specker, 11 Bush. (Ky.) 1 162, Kuevan v. Speclier, 74 Ky. 1 . . Kulm V. Gustafson, 73 Iowa, 633 Kuhn V. Mack, 4 W. Va. 186 . . Kuhn V. Stansfield, 28 Md. 210. 368, 370 Kuhl V. Martin, 26 N. J. Eq. 60 Kuhlenbeck v. Hotz, 53 111. App. 675 593, 999 Kulage v. Schueler, 7 Mo. App. 250 Kundson v. Parlcer, 3 Neb. (Unoff.) 481 394 Kunzler v. Kohaus, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 317 106S Kurtz V. Lewis Voight & Sons Co., 175 Mo. 506. 591, 594 Kurtz V. Troll, 86 Mo. App. 649 588, 589, 998 Kuykendall v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 416 234, 241, 309, 460, 471 188 163 707 618 415 337 153 elxiv Table of Cases. PAGE 500, 501, 502, 599 Kvello V. Taylor, 5 N. D. 76. . . 61, 153 Kyger v. F. Hull Skirt Gto., 34 Ind. 249 369, 513, 579 Kyle V. O'Neil, 88 Ky. 127.... 773, 796 Kyser v. Angle, 40 N. J. Eq. 481. 610 Labauve v. Boudreau, 9 Eob. (La.) 28 1026 La Belle Wagon Works v. Tid- ball, 69 Tex. 161 309 Lablsh V. Hard, 23 Pao. (Cal.) 123 177 Lackland v. Smith, 5 Mo. App. 153 804 Lachman v. Martin, 139 111. 450. 113, 114 Lachman v. Wood, 25 Cal. 147. 110 Laekner v. Sawyer, 5 Neb. (Unoff.) 257 857 La Clef V. Campbell, 3 Kan. App. 756 583, 922 LaCrosse, etc.. R. Co. v. Seeger, 4 Wis. 268 633, 634, 665 LaCroase Nat. Bank v. Wilson, 74 Wis. 391 100, 101, 391, 748 Ladd V. Johnson, 32 Or. 195. . . 461 Laid V. Newell, 34 Minn. 107. 114, 950, 961, 966 Ladd V. Smith, 107 Ala. 506 .. . 758 Ladd V. Wiggins, 35 N. H. 421. 441,. 705 Ladnier v. Ladnier, 64 Miss. 368 580, 993 Lafayette Bank v. Brady, 96 Ind. 498 143, 653 LaFitte v. Rups, 13 Colo. 207. 961, 965 La Fleur v. Hardy, 11 Rob. (La.) 533 569 Lafleur v. Hardy, 11 Rob. (La.) 493 85, 178, 276, 900 Laflin v. Central Pub. House, 52 111. 432 50, 742 Lahr's Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 507. 514 Laib V. Brandenburg, 34 Minn. 367 950 Laidlaw v. Gilmore, 47 How. Pr. 67 (N. Y.) . .231, 315, 456, 578 Laidley v. Reynolds (W. Va.), 52 S. E. 405 861 Lain v. Morton, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 438 613 Laird v. Davidson, 124 Ind. 412 FAQB 38, 40, 363, 514, 950, 951 Laird v. Scott, 5 Heisk. (Tenn.) 314 215, 220, 221 Lake Shore Banking Co. v. Fuller, 110 Pa. St. 156 462, 474, 491 Lake v. Morris, 30 Conn. 201 . . 526, 533, 550, 990 Lally T. Holland, 1 Swan (Xenn.), 399 87 Lailman v. Hovey, 92 Hun (N. Y.), 419 827 Lamb v. Lamb, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 250 326 Lamb v. Mclntire, 183 Mass. 367 695, 698, 1016 Lamb v. Smith, 132 Mass. 574. 42 Lamb v. Stone, 28 Mass. 527 . . 756, 757 Lambert v. Sialoy, 37 La, Ann. 3 1036 Lambeth v. McOlinton, 65 Tex. 108 72 Lambrecht v. Patten, 15 Mont. 260 397, 514 Lamkin v. blary, 103 Ga. 631 . . 1003 Lammert v. Stockings, 27 Ind. App. 619 852 Lammons v. Allen, 88 Ala. 417. 399 Lamont v. Regan, 96 111. App. 359 79, 348, 909 Lampert v. Haydel, 96 Mo. 439 422, 423, 557 Lampkin v. Peoples Nat. Bank, 98 Mo. App. 239 696 Lamplugh v, Lamplugh, 1 P. Wms. Ill 36 Lamprey v. Donacour, 58 N. H. 370 951 Lampson v. Arnold, 19 Iowa, 479 459 Lanahan v. Caffrey, 47 App. Div. (N. Y.) 124 776, 889 Lanahan v. Latrobe, 7 Md. 268 708 Laudauer v. Mack, 43 Neb. 430 599 Laudauer v. Mack, 39 Neb. 8 . . 893 Laudauer v. Victor, 69 Wis. 434 463 Landeeker v. Houghtaling, 7 Cal. 391 922 Lander v. Beers, 48 Cal. 546.. 411 Lander v. Pollard, 61 Kan. 588 762 Lander v. Zieher, 150 Mo. 403 339, 406 Landis v. McDonald, 88 Mo. App. 335 1127 Landman v. Glover (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 994 523 Landreth Co. v. Schevenel, 102 Table of Oases. clxv PAGE Tenn. 486 197 Landry v. First Nat. Bank, 11 Am. B. R. 223 1166 Landry v. Andrews, 6 Am. B. R. 281 1163, 1166 Landwirth v. Shaphran, 47 La. Ann. 336 663 Lane v. Johnson, 43 Vt. 48 765 Lane v. Kingsbury, 11 Mo. 402 340, 920, 935, 948, 986 Lane v. Lutz, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 653 638 Lane v. Starkey, 15 Neb. 258.. 716, 718 Lane v. Starr, 1 S. D. 107 393 Lane v. Sleeper, 18 N. H. 209. . 304 Lane v. Union Nat. Bank, 75 111. App. 299 645 Laney v. Laney, 2 Ind. 196 634 Lanfear v. Sumner, 17 Mass. 110 518, 540, 548 Lang V. Lee, 3 Rand. (Va.) 410 259, 415, 423 Lang V. Stockwell, 55 N, H. 561 522, 530 Lang V. Williams, 166 Mo. 1 . . 161, 280 Langert v. David, 14 Wash. 389 463, 479, 493, 504 Langford v. Fry, 26 Tenn. 585 19, 202 Langford v. Freeman, 60 Ind. 46 128 Langford v. Thurlby, 60 Iowa, 105 108, 376 Langley v. Perry, 14 Fed. Gas. No. 8,067 1084 Langsdale v. Woollen, 99 Ind. 575 82 Lanier v. Driver, 24 Ala. 149 . . 414 Lanmon v. Clark, 4 McLean (U. S.), 18 1039 Lannan v. Smith, 7 Gray (Mass.), 150 104 Lanning v. Carpenter, 20 N. Y. 447 48 Lanning v. Streeter, 57 Barb. (N. Y.) 33 736, 739, 743 Lansing Boiler Works v. Ryer- son & Son, 11 Am. B. R. 558. 1074, 1084 Lant V. Mauley, 75 Fed. 627 .. . 840 La Page v. Slade, 79 Tex. 473 . . 1001 Lapham v. Marshall, 51 Hun (N. Y.), 36 937 Lapman v. Marshall, 51 Hun (N. Y.), 36 1010 La Point v. Blanchard, 101 Cal. PAGE 549 164 La Porte v. Costiek, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 434 108, 113 Large v. Bristo Steam Tow- Boat, etc., Co., 2 Ashm. (Pa.) 394 858, 874 Larimer v. Kelly, 10 Kan. 298. 107 Larimore v. Tyler, 88 Mo. 661. 177 Larkin v. Mead, 77 Ala. 485 . . 196 Larkin v. McAnnally, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 17 154, 157 Larkin v. McMullin, 49 Pa. St. 29 188 Larkin v. Wilsford (Tex. Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 540 84 LaRoche v. Brower, 8 Ohio Cir. Ct. 508 239 Lary v. Pettit, 55 App. Div. 631 578 Laslier v. Medical Press Co., 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 571 59 Lashmett v. Prall, 2 Neb. (Unoff.) 284 828 Lassiter v. Bussy, 14 La. Ann. 699 558 Lassiter v. Davis, 64 N. C. 498 344, 581, 586 Lassiter v. Hoes, 11 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 1 365 Lassiter v. Wood, 18 Tenn. 486 634, 636 Lata v. Morrison, 23 N. C. 149. 215 Lathrop-Hatten Lumber Co. v. Bessemer Sav. Bank, 96 Ala. 350 457 Lathrop v. Clayton, 45 Minn. 124 521, 530, 534, 541, 542, 543, 977 Lathrop v. Drake, 91 U. S. 516 1207, 1211 Lathrop v. Gilbert, 10 N. J. Eq. 344 701 Lathrop v. McBurhey, 71 Ga. 815 731, 758, 759 Lathrop v. Pollard, 6 Colo. 424 641, 649, 650 Latimer v. Bataon, 4 B. & C. 652 518, 530 Latimer v. Glenn, 65 Ky. 535 . . 369 Latimer v. Latimer, 53 S. C. 483 640 Laughton v. Harden, 68 Me. 212 19 Laughton v. Harden, 68 Me. 208 350, 385, 819 Laurence v. Lippencott, 6 N. J. L. 473 377, 676 Lavelle v. Clark, 18 Ky. L. clxvi Table of Cases. PAGE Rep. 759 895 Lavender v. Boweiij 101 N. W. 760 (Iowa) 1126 Lavender v. Thomas, 18 Ga. 668 458, 465, 473, 478 Law V. Law, 76 Va. 527 633 Lawrence Bros. v. Heylman, 98 N. Y. Supp. 121 226, 263 Lawrence Bros. v. Heylman, 111 App. Div. (N. Y.) 848 889, 905, 908, 939 Lawrence v. Bank of Republic, 35 N. Y. 320 171, 819 Lawrence v. Barker, 82 Mo. App. 125 •. . . 82 Lawrence v. Bowman, 6 Rob. (La.) 21 819, 855 Lawrence v. Burnham, 4 Nev. 361 525 Lawrence v. Lippencott, 5 N. J. Eq. 473 207 Lawrence v. Lowrie, 13 Am. B. R. 297 1133, 1170, 1211, 1216 Lawrence v. Young, 1 La. Ann. 297 53, 54 Lawrenceville Cement Co. v. Parker, 60 Hun (N. Y.), 586 377 Lawson v. Alabama WareKouse Co., 80 Ala. 341 301 Lawson v. Alabama Warehouse Co., 73 Ala. 289 830, 831, 832, 900, 956 Lawson v. Dunn, 66 N. J. Eq. 90 678, 688, 689 Lawson v. Funk, 108 111. 502.. 384, 572 Lawson v. Warren, 89 Ala. 584. 1039 Lawton v. Levy, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 197 796 Lawyer v. Barker, 45 W. Va. 468 302 Lawyer v. Turpln, 91 U. S. 114. 1153 Lay V. Seago, 47 Ga. 82 428 Layman v. Denton (Tenn. Ch. App. ) , 42 S. W. 153 153, 156 Layson v. Rowan, 7 Kob. (La.) 1 408 Layton v. Bank of Calhoun, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 872 345, 382 Lazarus Jewelry Co. v. Stein- hardt, 112 Fed. 614 794 Lazarus v. Rosenberg, 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 105 694,1016 Lea V. West Co., 1 Am. B. R. 261 1106, 1139, 1225, 1228 Leach v. Ansbacher, 55 Pa. St. 85 717 PAGE Leach v. Devereux, 32 S. W. (Tex.) 837 640 Leach v. Fowler, 22 Ark. ' 143 . 893, 905 Leach v. Francis, 41 Vt. 670 . . 582 Leach v. Flack, 31 Hun (N. Y.), 605 510 Leach v. Selby, 58 Miss. 681 .. . 820 Leach v. Shelly, 58 Miss. 681.. 942 Leach v. Tilton, 40 N. H. 473. 663, 664 Leadman v. Harris, 14 N. C. 144 294, 986 Leaf v. Marriott, 4 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 402 814 Leake v. Anderson, 43 S. C. 448. 226, 320 Leasure v. Cobum, 57 lud. 274. 994 Leasure v. Forquer, 27 Or. 334. 856, 857 Leathwhite v. Bennet, 11 Atl. (N. J.) 29 373 Leavell v. Leavell, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 489 346 Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 N. Y. 521 456 Leavitt v. Jones, 54 Vt. 423 153 Leavitt v. La Force, 71 Mo. 353 389 Leavitt v. Leavitt, 47 N. H. 329 ...279, 284 LeBlanc v. Dubroea, 6 La. Ann. 360 178 Le Due V. Brandt, 110 N. C. 289 818, 823, 826 Liedyard v. Butler, 9 Paige (N. Y.), 132 723, 724 Lee V. Abbe. 2 Root (Conn.), 359. . . . ; 721 Lee V. Brown, 7 Ga. 275... 200, 215 Lee V. Cole, 44 N. J. Eq. 323 . . 27 Lee V. Cole, 44 N. J. Eq. 318. . Lee V. Figg, 37 Cal. 328 .' 585 Lee V. Flanagan, 29 N. 0. 471. 312 Lee V. Holliater, 5 Fed. 752 148, 360, 366, 761, 1038 Lee V. Huntoon, 1 Hoff. C!h. (N. Y.) 447 543 Lee V. Lamprey, 43 N. H. 13 . . 947 Lee V. Lee, 77 Ind. 251 801, 806, 807 Lee V. Orr, 70 Cal. 398 843 Lee V. Savanaai Guano Co., 99 Ga. 572 362 Lee V. Wathen, 42 Ky. 297... 237, 319 Lee V. Whitehead, 8 La. Ann. 81 .' 53 Table of Oases. clxvii PAGE Lee V. Wilkins, 79 Mo. App. 159 724 Lee V. Willis', ioi Va. iss . ! . ! ." 898 Leech v. Shantz, 2 Phila. (Ea.) 310 990 Leen Kee v. Smith, 35 La. Ann. 518 580 Leeper v. Bates, 85 Mo. 224. . . 247, 983 LeFevre v. Phillips, 81 Hun (N. Y.), 232 803 Leffel V. Schemerhorn, 13 Neb. 342 250, 276 Lefmann v. Brill, 124 Fed. 44. 634, 637, 773 Legg V. Olney, 1 Den. (N. Y.) 202 940 Legg V. Willard, 34 Mass. 140. 547 Leggat V. Leggat, 79 App. Div. (N. Y.) 141 800, 801 Leggett V. Humphreys, 62 U. S. 66 482 LeGierse v. Kellum, 66 Tex. 242 679, 756 LeGierse v. Whitehurst, 66 Tex. 244 621 Legro V. Lord, 10 Me. 161 152, 160, 418 Le Herisse v. Hess, 57 Atl. (N. J.) 808 335, 410 Lehman v. Bently, 60 N. Y. Super. Ct. 473 297 Lehman v. Bryan, 67 Ala. 558. 159 Lehman v. Coulon, 105 La. 431. 968 Lehman v. Crosby, 99 Fed. 542. 865 Lehman v. Greenhut, 88 Ala. 478 394, 483, 904 Lehman v. Gunn, 124 Ala. 217. 123, 126, 129 Lehman v. Kelly, 68 Ala. 192. . 313, 570, 574, 576, 612, 626 Lehman v. Levy, 30 La. Ann. 745 263, 371 Lehman v. Meyer, 67 Ala. 396. 869 Lehman v. Van Winkle, 92 Ala. 443 846 Lehmberg v. Biberstein, 51 Tex. 457 195, 814 Lehmer v. Herr, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 360 955 Lehr v. Brodbeck, 192 Pa. St. 535 527 Leibes v. Steffy, 4 Ariz. 11 519 Leicester v. Rose, 4 East, 371.. 656 Leich V. Dee, 86 Iowa, 709 625 Xeidigh CSarriage Co. v. Stengel, 2 Am. B. R. 383 1069 PAGE Leighton v. Morrill, 159 Mass. 271 258 Leinhach v. Templin, 105 Pa. St. 522 108 Leinlcauff v. Frenkle, 80 Ala. 136 503, 599 Leitoh V. Hollister, 4 N. Y. 211. 420, 421, 428 Lemay v. Blbeau, 2 Minn. 291 . 69, 84, 213, 632 Lemert v. McKibben, 91 Iowa, 345 560, 561 Lemp Brewing Co. v. LaRose, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 575.'. 756 Lempriere v. Pasley, 2 T. R. 485 540 Lenard v. Barnett, 70 Ind. 367. 370 Lenhardt v. Ponder, 64 S. C. 354 588 Lennon v. Parker, 21 R. I. 43. 103, 416, 435, 437 Lenox v. Notrebe, 15 Fed. Clas. No. 8,246 66, 69, 634 Lent V. Shear, 160 N. Y. 462. . . 922 Leonard v. Baker. 1 M. & S. 251 ■ 255, 518 Leonard v. Barnett, 70 Ind. 367 140 Leonard v. Bolton, 153 Mass. 428 201 Leonard v. Bryant, 56 Mass. 32 645, 672 Leonard v. Clinton, 26 Hun (N. Y.), 288 119, 685 Leonard v. Davis, 1 Black (U. S.) 476 542, 547 Leonard v. Green, 30 Minn. 496 682, 683 Leonard v. Green, 34 Minn. 137. 820 Leonard v. New England Mortg. Security Co., 102 Ga. 536 .. . 856 Leonard v. Winslow, 2 Grant. Cas. (Pa.) 139 313 Leonhard v. Miood, 68 Ark. 162. 905 Leoschigk v. Hatfield, 5 Rob. (N. Y.) 26 , 309 LePage v. Slade, 79 Tex. 473 . . 297, 581 Lepin v. Coon, 54 Neb. 664 554 Leppig V. Bretzel, 48 Mich. 321. 509, 513 Leque v. Stroppel, 64 Minn. 152. 382, 692, 696, 698 Leqve v. Smith, 63 Minn. 24... 907 Leroux v. Hudson, 109 U. S. 468 1208 Lerow v. Wilmarth, 9 Allen (Mass.), 382 119 Lerow v. Wilmarth, 91 Mass. clxviii Table of Cases. PAGE 382 339, 377, 632 Leroy v. Dickinson, 11 N. C. 223 45 Le Roy v. Rogers, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 234 1039 Le Saulnier v. Krueger, 85 Wis. 214 358, 368, 898 Lesem v. Herriford, 44 Mo. 323. 529, 711 Leslie v. Joyner, 39 Tenn. 514. 91, 104, 110, 112, 116, 153 Lesseh v. Brown, 75 Oonn. 491. 942 Lesseps v. Wicks, 12 La. Ann. 739 907 Leeser v. Boekhoflf, 33 Mo. App. 223 990; 991 Lesser v. Bradford Realty Co., 15 Am. B. R. 123 1205 Lesser v. Brown, 75 Conn. 491. 937, 944, 955 Lesser v. Driesen, 2 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 343 960, 964 L'Estrange v. Robinson, 1 Hog. ,(Eng.) 202 327 l«tt V. Commercial Bank, 24 U. C. Q. B. 552 113 Letz V. Smith, 94 Iowa, 301 .. . 974 Leukener v. Freeman, 2 Freem. (Eng.) 236 201 Leupod V. Krause, 95 111. 440.. 162 Level Land Co. No. 3 v. Sivyer, 112 Wis. 442 763, 794, 799, 844, 857 Levering v. Bimel, 146 Ind. 545. 458, 490 Levering v. Norvell, 68 Tenn. 178 269 Levering v. Norvell, 9 Baxt. (Tenn.) 176 340, 1031 Levi V. Hamilton, 68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 277 494 Levi v. Morgan, 33 La. Ann. 532 Levi V. Picard, 17 Am. B. R. 430 1195, 1196 85, 184, 371 Levi V. Rothschild, 69 Md. 348. 897, 972 Levi V. Welsh, 45 N. J. Eq. 867. 879 Levine v. Claflin, 31 U. C. C. P. 600 113 Levine v. Rouss (Tex. Civ. App.), 49 S. W. 1051 450 Levis Zukoski, Mercantile Co. V. Bowers, 105 Tenn. 138... 178 Levor v. Seiter, 8 Am. B. R. 459. 1142, 1143, 1164, 1185 Levy V. Crittenden, 120 Ind. 37 1021 PAGU Levy V. Hamilton, 68 App. Div. (N. Y.) 277 331, 603, 697 Levy V. Kentucky Distilling Co., 9 Ky. L. Rep. 103 87 Levy V. Levy, 57 Atl. (N. J.) 1011 958 Levy v. Marx (Miss.), 18 So. 575 873, 1036 Levy V. Scott, 115 Cal. 39 536 Levy V. Welsh, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 438 519 Levy V. Williiams, 79 Ala. 171. 457, 495, 599, 603, 604 Levy V. Woodcock, 63 N. H. 413 62 Levyson v. Ward, 24 La. Ann. 158 882 Lewin v. Hopping, 67 Cal. 541. 416 Lewis V. Alexander, 31 S. W. (Tex.) 414. 583- Lewis V. Baker, 38 Tenn. 385. . 1022 Lewis V. Bishop, 47 App. Div. (N. M.) 554 1204 Lewis V. Boardman, 78 App. Div. (N. Y.) 394 902, 970 Lewis v. Bush, 30 Minn. 244 .. . 87 Lewis V. Cline (Miss.), 5 So. 112 799 Lewis V. Carpenter, 8 Gratt. (Va.) 148 .329, 333, 358, 418 422, 561, 1034 Lewis V. Castleman, 27 Tex. 407 218, 221, 633, 955 Lewis V. Connolly, 29 Neb. 222. 1000 Lewis V. Dudley, 70 N. H. 594. 722, 724, 100!) Lewis V. Gibson, 1 Tenn. Cas. 163 239 Lewis V. Herrera (Ariz.), 85 Pae. 245 274 Lewis V. Holdrege, 56 Neb. 379. 178, 632 Lewis V. Holdrege, 55 Neb. 173. 959 Lewis V. Hughes, 49 Kan. 23 . . 459 Lewis V. Kash, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 1241 963 Lewis V. Lamphere, 79 111. 187. 560, 763, 801 Lewis V. Lindlev, 19 Mont. 422. 897, 905 Lewis V. Rees, 3 Jur. N. S. 12. 215, 218 Lewis V. Rice, 61 Mich. 97 64, 256, 917 Lewis V. Simon, 72 Tex. 470 . . . 190, 350 Lewis V. St. Albans Iron, etc., Works, 50 Vt. 477 ' 869 Lewis V. Swift, 54 111. 436 526 Table op Cases. clxix PAGE Lewis V. Wliitten, 112 Mo. 318. 815 Lewis V. Wilcox, 6 Nev. 215 536 Lewy V. FiscM, 65 Tex. 311... 462, 490, 491, 493, 593, 595 Ley V. Madill, 1 U. C. Q. B. 546 756 Ley V. Reitz, 25 111. App. 615. . 599 Libby v. Crossley, 31 Fed. 647. 973 Lichtenberg v. Herdtfelder, 103 N. Y. 302 766, 803 Liddle v. Allen, 90 Iowa, 738.. 588 Lide V. Parker, 60 Ala. 165 ... . 778 Liebenthal v. Price, 8 Wash. 206 1052 Lieber v. Lieber^ 17 Mont. Co. Rep. (Pa.) 34 349 Lienkauf v. Morris, 66 Ala. 406. 256, 271 Light V. Kennard, 11 Neb. 129. 340 Ligon V. Tillman (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 1069... 296, 611 Lillard v. Johnson, 148 Mo. 23. 510, 917 Lillard v. McGee, 7 Ky. 165. . . 14, 187, 201, 225, 240, 761, 771 Lillianthal v. Leaser, 102 App. Div. (N. Y.) 500 692 Lillibridge v. Walsh, 97 Mich. 459 158 Lillienthal v. Druoklieb, 92 Fed. 753 191, 766 Lillie V. McMillan, 52 Iowa, 463 S92, 948, 1005 Liming v. Kyle, 31 Neb. 649. . . 1000 Lincoln v. Claflin, 74 U. S. 132. 924 Lincoln v. McLaughlin, 74 111. 11 187, 194, 348 Lincoln v. Wilbur, 125 Mass. 249 946 Lindeh Real Estate Co. v. Lin- dell, 133 Mo. 386. . . .206, 814, 1026 Lindle v. Neville, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 227 473 Lindley v. Cross, 31 Ind. 106.. 36, 779 Lindsey v. Lambert Bldg., etc., Assoc, 4 Fed. 48 624 Lindsley v. Van Cortlandt, 142 N. Y. 682 508, 509, 511 Line v. State, 131 Ind. 468 ... . 1006 Liner v. Thielke, 115 Wis. 389. 238 Lininger v. Herron, 18 Neb. 450 392, 678 Link v. Harrington, 41 Mo. App. 635 526 Linkman v. Wilcox, Fed. Cas. No. 8,374 1093 Linneman v. Bieber, 85 Hun PAGE (N. Y.), 477 764 Linsey v. McGannon, 9 W. Va. 154 633 Linton v. Butz, 7 Pa. St. 89 . . . 544 Linz V. Atchison, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 647 333, 973, 1052 Lionberger v. Baker, 88 Mo. 447 233, 284, 293, 322, 340, 353, 769 Lionberger v. Baker, 14 Mo. App. 353 388, 410 Lipperd v. Edwards, 39 Ind. 165 857 Lippert v. Gilmartin, 37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 411 311 Lippincott v. Shaw Carriage Co., 25 Fed. 577 1033 Lippitt V. Gilmartin, 37 App. Div. (N. Y.) 411 , 480 Lippman v. Boals, 16 Lea. (Tenn.) 283 180 Lipscomb v. Lyon, 19 Neb. 511. 369, 392, 398, 968 Lipscomb v. McClellan, 72 Ala. 151 895 Litchfield v. Pelton, 6 Barb. (N. Y.) 187 244, 257, 879 Little V. Holly Brooks Hard- ware Co., 13 Am. N. R. 422. 1130, 1155 Little V. Lichkoff, 98 Ala. 321. 947 Little V. Ragan, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 391 183, 348 Little V. Sterne, 125 Ala. 609. . 849, 850, 855, 859, 861, 862 Livermore v. Boutelle, 77 Mass. 217 192, 700, 752- Livesay v. Beard, 22 W. Va. 585 72, 74, 76, 77, 232, 355, 523, 530 589, 591, 692, 696, 954, 978 Livesley v. Heise (Or.), 85 Pac. 509 291, 581, 909 Livey v. Wlnton, 30 W. Va. 554 398, 894, 898, 899 Livingston v. Bruce, Fed. Cas. 8,410 1093 Livingston v. Littell, 15 Wis. 218 523, 547 Livingston v. Wright, 88 Ga. 33 gi2 Livre v. Th'ieike,' 115 Wis. 389. 230 311 Lloyd V. Foley, 11 Fed. 410. . . .' 638 Lloyd V. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479. . 6, 9, 17, 266, 280, 338 Lloyd V. Williams, 21 Pa. St. 327 , 510, 511 Lobsenz v. Burton, 68 N. J. L. 566 732 clxx Table of Cases. PAGE Lobstein v. Lehn, 120 111. 549. . 691, 693, 695 Looheim v. Eversole, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1031 797, 798 Locke V. Duncan, 47 111. App. 110 458 Locke V. Hedrick, 24 Kan. 763. 520 Lookard v. Nash, 64 Ala. 385 . . 186, 337, 347, 676, 678, 864 Lockhard v. Beekley, 10 W. Va. ' 87 9, 24, 136, 193, 225, 268 344, 349, 414, 571. 574, 582 586, 627, 703, 706, 976 Lockren v. Rustan, 9 N. D. 43. 295, 461, 466, 590, 592, 595 598, 646, 658. 668, 669 Lockwood V. Doane, 107 111. 235 923 Lockwood V. Harding, 79 Ind. 129 437, 860 Lockwood V. Nelson, 16 Ala. 294 326, 1005 Loekyer v. DeHart, 6 N. J. L. 450 377 Lodor V. Creighton, 9 U. C. C. P. 295 91, 99 Loeb V . Leon^ 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 445 462 Loeb V. Manasses, 78 Ala. 555. 737, 751 Loehr v. Murphy, 45 Mo. App. 519 343, 863 Loeschigk v. Addison, 19 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 169... 183, 191, 246 270, 343, 347, 599, 903, 909 Loeschigk v. Baldwin, 1 Rob. (N. Y.) 377 310 Loeschigk v. Bridge, 42 N. Y. 421 256, 271, 273, 618 Loeschigk v. Hatfield, 51 N. Y. 660 278 Loeschigk v. Hatfield, 28 N. Y. Super. Ot. 26 265 Loeser v. Savings Deposit Bank & Trust Co. (C. C. A.), 17 Am. B. R. 628 1156 Logan V. Brick, 2 Del. Ch. 206. 572 Logan V. Logan, 22 Fla. 561 .. . 572, 759, 771, 798 Lohmann v. Stoeke, 94 Mo. 672. 959, 965 Lokerson v. Stillwell, 13 N. J. Eq. 357 634 Lombaert v. Morris, 2 Del. Co. R. (Pa.) 457 334 Lombard v. Dows, 66 Iowa, 243. 226, 237, 317, 321, 485, 909 PAGE London v. Martin, 149 N. Y. 586 456, 474, 486 Long V. Deposit Bank, 28 Kv. L. Rep. 913 810, 399 Long V. Efurd, 86 Ala. 267 371 Long V. Evening News Assoc, 113 Mich. 261 917, 940 Long V. Farmers' State Bank, 17 Am. B. R. 103.1154, 1165, 1191 Long V. Hancock, 12 Can. Sup. Gt. 532 468 Long V. Klein, 35 La. Ann. 384. 665 Long V. Wright, 48 N. C. 290. . 220 Long V. Yanceyville Bank, 81 N. C. 42 864 Long Branch Banking Co. v. Dennis, 56 N. J. Eq. 549 182, 300, 337, 348 Longeway v. Mitchell, 17 Grant Ch. (tr. C.) 190 777, 789 Longfellow v. Barbard, 58 Neb. 612 714 Longley v. Daly, 1 S. D. 257 .. . 525 Loomis V. Stewart, 75 Iowa, 389. . . . ■ 459 Loomis V. People, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 601 1064, 1065 Loomis V. Tifft, 16 Barb. (N. Y.) 541 789, 874, 1044 Looney v. Bartlett, 106 Mo. App. 619 615, 638, 661 Loos V. Wilkinson, 113 N. Y. 485 693, 698, 699, 1053 Loos V. Wilkinson, 110 N. Y. 195 18, 129, 133, 688 690, 941, 949 Lopez V. Bergel, 12 La. 197 179, 831, 956 Lopez V. Merchants', etc., Nat. Bank, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 427 784, 814 Lord V. Bishop, 101 Ind. 334.. 140 Lord V. Devendorf, 54 Wis. 491. 242 Lord V. Harte, 118 Mass. 271. 118 Lord V. Locke, 62 N. H. 566... 381 Lord V. Poor, 23 Me. 569 ,. . 110 Lord V. Seymour, 85 App. Div. (N. Y.) 617 1183 Lore V. Dierkes, 51 N. Y. Super. Ct. 144 692, 694, 699, 1031 Lore V. Getsinger, 7 N. J. Eq. 191 812, 816, 872 Loring v. Dunningj 16 Fla. 119. 231, 330, 331 Lormore v. Campbell, 60 Barb. 62 347 Loth V. Faoonesowich, 22 Mo. App. 68 45 Table of Cases. clxxi Lott V. Gray, 6 Rob. (La.) 152. 85, 179 Lott V. Kaiser, 61 Tex. 673 202 Louoheim v. First Nat. Bank, 98 Ala. 521 334, 428, 855 louclieim v. Seyfarth,, 49 III. App. 561 538 Loudon V. Blandford, 56 Ga. 150 1233 Louden v. Vinton, 108 Mich. 313 228, 238, 317 Loudheim v. White, 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 467 117 Ixiughridge v. Bowland, 52 Miss. 546 182, 206, 560 Louis. V. Belgard, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 630 815, 863 Louisiana Sugar Refining Co. V. Hiarrison, 9 Tex. Civ. App. 141 600, 613 Louisville City Nat. Bank v. Woolridge, 116 Ky. 641... 96, 149 Louisville Trust Co. v. Oomin- gor, 184 U. S. 18 1214, 1215, 1229 Love V. Hudson, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 377 896 Ijove V. Export Storage Co. (C. C. A.), 16 Am. B. R. 171. .. . 1124 Love V. Mikals, 11 Ind. 227 789 Love V. Tinsley, 32 W. Va. 25. 633 Love V. Tomlinson, 1 Colo. App. 516 927 Lover v. Mann, 2 Am. L. J. N. S. (Pa.) 95 557 Lovejoy v. Irelan, 17 Md. 525. 819, 823 Lovell V. Newton^ 4 O. P. D. 7. 113, 114 Lovell V. Payne, 30 La. Ann. 511 ., 905 Loviing V. Meyler, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1654 875 Loving V. Pairo, 10 Iowa, 282. 771, 796 Loving V. Sweeney, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1654 387 Low V. Carter, 21 N. H. 433. . . 414, 423, 434, 439 Low V. Ivy, 10 Pa. Super. Ot. 32 414 Low V. Marco, 53 Me. 45 753 Low V. Wertman, 44 N. J. Bq. 193 382, 461 Lowe V. Watson, 140 111. 108.. 554, 556, 557 Lowenstein v. Abramsohn, 76 Miss. 890. . 970 Lowenstein v. Fudickiar, 43 La. Ann. 886 Lowenstein v. McShane Mfg. Co., 12 Am. B. R. 602 1073, 1081, Lowentrout v. Campbell, 130 111. 503 Lowery v. Coulter, 9 Pa. St. 349 Lowery v. Howard. 35 Ind. 170. 233, 241, 242, 290, 353, Lowry v. Fisher, 65 Ky. 70 183, 260, 274, 280, 341, Lowry v. Pinson, 2 Bailey (S. C), 324 67, Lowry v. Tew, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 407 Lowther v. Rader, 102 N. Y. Supp. 929 266, Lowther Oil Co. v. Miller-Sib- ley Oil Co., 53 W. Va. 501... Loy V. Roriek, 100 Mo. App. 105 . . Lucas V. Birdsey, 41 Conn. 357. 74, 77, Lucas V. Clafflin, 76 Va. 269 . . . 463, 485, 489, 490, 500, 501, Lucas V. Lucas, 103 111. 121... 348, Luce V. Barnum, 19 Mo. App. 359 Ludes V. Hood, 29 Kan. 49 Ludlow V. Button, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 226 Ludlow V. Hurd, 19 Johns. (N. y.) 218 311, Ludwig V. Fuller, 17 Me. 162. 521, 539, 541, Luera v. Bumjes, 34 N. J. Eq. 19 Lufkin V. Collins, 2 Ida. 150 . . . Luhrs V. Hancock (Ariz.), 57 Pae. 605 ,... Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 79 23, 430, 435, Lumsden v. Scott, 4 Ont. 323 . . Lund V. Equitable Life Assur. Soc, N. J. Eq. 355 Lush V. Wilkinson, 5 Ves. Jr. 384 96, 328, Lusk v. Riggs (Neb.), 97 N. W. 1033 Lutkenhoff v. Lutkenhoff, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 584... Lutton V. Hesson, 18 Pa. St. 109 Lux V. Davidson 56 Hun (N. Y.), 345 PAGE 580 1101 404 47 574 346 201 877 456 656 348 173 491 570 375 157 764 751 500 559 368 544 159 437 204 624 341 895 1051 993 784 clxxii Table of Cases. PAGE Lycoming Rubber Co. v. King, 90 Iowa, 343 236, 318, 506, 507, 605 Lydeeker v. Smith, 44 Hun (N. Y.), 454 791 Lydia Pinkham Medicine Co. v. Gibbs, 108 Ga,. 138 861, 871 Lyman v. Oeaaford, 15 Iowa, 229 191, 193, 285, 906, 910 Lyman v. Place, 26 N. J. Eq. 30. 1014 Lyman v. Tarbell, 30 Vt. 463. . 894 Lynch v. Burt, 132 Fed. 417 .. . 695, 697, 713, 737, 738 Lynch v. Englehardt-Winning- Davidson Mercantile Co., 1 Neb. (UnofiF.) 528 399 Lynch v. Johnson, 48 N. Y. 27 . 764 Lynch v. Raleigh, 3 Ind. 273 . . 192 Lynch v. Sanders, 39 Ky. 59.. 645 Lynch V. Welsh, 3 Pa. St. 294. 688 Lynde v. McGregor, 95 Mass. 172, 182.. 71, 75, 79, 82, 130, 203 227, 924 Lvne V. Commonwealth Bank, 28 Ky. 545 148, 361, 626 Lyne v. Wann, 72 Ala. 43 366 Lvnn V. Le Giers«, 48 Tex. 138. •^ 67, 734, 769 Lynn v. Lyerle, 113 111. 128... ^ ' ' 656, 662 Lyion V. Ballentine, 63 Mich. 97 , 238 Lyon V. Boiling, 14 Ala. 753.. . 110 Lyon V. Boiling, 9 Ala. 403. ... 206 Lyon V. Clark, 129 Mich. 381.. " 1160, 1183 Lyon V. Clark, 2 K. B. N. R. 792. 1220 Lyon V. Haddock, 59 Iowa, 682 330 Lyon V. Hampton, 20 Pa. St. 46 887 Lyon V. Miarahall, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 241 481 Lyon V. Robbins, 46 111. 276... 1036 Lyon V. Rood, 12 Vt. 233 ' 462, 471, 504 Lyons v. Hamilton, 72 Iowa, 759 585 Lrons V. Hamilton, 69 Iowa, 47. " 591, 612 Lyons v. Lancaster, 14 S. W. 405 695 Lyons v. Leahy, 15 Or. 8 588, 615, 716, 718 Lyons v. Murray, 95 Mo. 23 290, 789, 802 Lyons v. Urgalones, 189 Mass. 424 734, 737, 741 PAGE Lytle V. Black, 107 Ga. 386 339 Lytle V. Scott, 2 111. App. 646. 160, 274, 278, 340 M Maas V. Miller, 58 Ohio St. 483. 833 Maasch v. Grauer, 58 App. Div. 560 239, 353 Maasch v. Parkin, 58 App. Div. (N. Y.) 560 243 Maass v. Falk, 146 N. Y. 34 . . . 74, 456 Maasa v. Falk, 146 N. Y. 34 . . . 77, 600 Mabbett T. White, 12 N. Y. 442. 464 Mace V. Roberts, 97 Wis. 199.. 247, 744 Macdona v. Swiney, 8 Ir. C. L. 73 ; 518 MacDonald v. MacDonald, 57 Hun (N. Y.), 594 960 MacDonald v. Moore, Fed. Cas. No. 8,763 1098 Mack V. Block, S. S. W. (Tex.) 495 226, 306 Mackason's Appeal, 42 Pa. St. 330 133, 137 Mackay v. Douglass, L. R. 13 Eq. (Eng.) 106 190 MacKaye v. Soule, 25 N. Y. Supp. 798 1044 Mackel v. Rochester, 14 Am. B. R. 429 1225 Mackenzie v Thomas, 118 Ga. 728 1041 Mackellar v. Pillsbury, 48 Minn. 396 460, 521 Mackey v. Douglass, L. R. 14 Eq. 106 903 Mackey v. Petti John, 6 Kan. App. 57 86 Mftckie V. Cairns, 5 Cow. (N. Y.) 547 71, 415 Macomber v. Peck, 39 Iowa, 351. 435 Macomber v. Parker, 31 Mass. 497 521 Macomber v. Parker, 30 Maas. 175 541, 547, 550 Macon Grocery Co. v. Beach, 19 Am. B. R. 558 1091 Madden v. Day, 1 Bailey (S. C), 587 559 Maddox v. Epler, 48 111. App. 265 405 Maddox x. Reynolds, 69 Ark. 541 604, 912 Maddox v. Summerlin, 92 Tex. 483 903 Table of Cases. clxxiii Maders v. Whallon, 65 Hun (N. Y.), 622 1017 Madisonville Bank v. McCoy (Tenn. Ch. App.), 42 f.' W. 814. r 973 Maffi V. Stephens, 93 S. W. (Tex.) 158 998 Magee v. Raiguel, 64 Pa. St. 110 583 Magniae v. Thompson, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,956 338, 578 Magniae v. Thompson, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 348 457, 512 Magniae v. Thomson, 32 U. S. 348 322, 326, 584, 590 Magovern v. Richard, 27 S. E. 272 462 Magruder v. Clayton, 29 S. C. 407 52, 959 Magnum v. Finucane, 38 Miss. 354 513 Miaiianey v. Lezier, 16 Md. 69 . . 846, 851 Mahaska County v. Whitsel, 110 N. W. (Iowa) 614 369 Maher v. Swift, 14 Neb. 324... 668 Mahle v. Kurtz, 9 Pa. Co. Ct. 280 196, 670 Mahler v. Sehloss, 7 Daly (N. Y.), 291 431, 447, 994 Mahoney v. Hunter, 30 Ind. 246 299 Mahoney v. James, 94 Va. 176. 125, 161 Mahoney v. MeWftlters, 3 App. Div. 248 713, 714, 785 Main v. Glen, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,973 258, 1210 Main v. Lynch, 54 Md. 658 . . . 577, 915, 926 Mairs v. Remsen, 3 Code Rep. 138 813 Maish V. Crangle, 80 Iowa, 650. 691, 965 Majorowicz v. PaysoUj 153 111. 484 209 Malady v. McEnary, 30 Ind. 273 39 Malcolm' v. " Hall, ' i ' Md.' Ch. i 72 460 Malcom Brewing Co. v. Wagner (N. J. Ch.), 45 Atl. 260 905 Malcom Brewing Co. v. Wagner, 45 Atl. (N. J.) 260 971 Maley v. Barrett, 34 Tenn. 501. 750 Mallard v. First Nat. Bank (Neb.), 59 N. W. 767 165 Malloeh v. Plunkett, 9 Grant Oh. (U. C.) 556 769 PAGK Malloney v. Horan, 49 N. Y. Ill 1034 Mallory v. Gallagher, 75 Conn. 665 585, 858 Mallory v. Kirkpatrick, 54 N. J. Eq. 50 100 Mallow V. Walker, 115 Iowa, 238 185, 660, 789, 1038 Malone v. Hamilton, Minor (Ala.), 286 428 Malone v. Brown (Tenn. Ch. App.), 46 S. W. 1004 560 ■Maloney v. Bewley, 10 Heisk. (Tenn.) 642 61 Maloy V. Berkin, 11 Mont. 138. 233 353 Mamlock v. White, 20 Cal. 598^ 476, 751 Manby v. Scott, 1 Mod. 132 24 Manchester v. McKee, 9 111. 511 856 Manchescer v. Tibbitts, 121 N. Y. 219 319, 320 Manchester v. Tibbetts, 4 N. Y. Supp. 23 472,512, 515 Manchester v. Tibbetts, 49 Hun (N. Y.), 612 1051 Mancil v. Mancil, 2 Del. Co. R. 351 369 Mandeville v. Avery, 124 N. Y. 376 171, 172, 454, 672, 696 Mandeville v. Campbell, 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 512 771 Mandlove v. Burton, 1 Ind. 39. 154 Mandigo v. Healey, 69 N. H. 94 454 Mandy v. Mason, 4 Bush (Ky.), 339 138 Maney v. Killough, 16 Tenn. 44Q 9JJ g23 Mfg. Co.v! Norde'n,' 67 isf." J. L. 493 1183 Mangum v. Finucane, 38 Miss. 354 599 Mianhard Hardware Co. v. Rothschild, 121 Mich. 657... 1050 Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 457 293, 877 Manhattan Co. v. Evertson, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 457 726 Manhattan Co. v. Osgood, 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 162 273, 936 Manheim v. Claflin, 81 Ga. 129. 760, 770, 813 Manley v. Larkin, 59 Kan. 660. 440 Manley v. Raasiga, 13 flun (N. Y.), 288 204 Mann v. Appel, 31 Fed. 378... 761 Mann v. Brooks, 7 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 449 49 clxxiv Table of Cases. PAGE Mann v. Euby, 102 111. 348. .. . 815 Mannen v. Stebbins, 1 Kaji. App. 261 622 Manney v. Hamilton, 132 N. C. 295 970 Manning v. Beck, 129 N. Y. 1. 486, 493, 600 Manning v. Carruthers, 83 Md. • 1 911 Manning v. Drake, 1 Mich. 34. 849 Manning v. Kiley, 52 N. J. Bq. 39 326, 327 Manor v. Sheehan, 30 Minn. 419 228 Manaeau v. Mueller, 45 Wis. 430 382 Mansir v. Crosby, 72 Mass. 334. 924 Manson v. Phoenix Ins. Oo., 64 Wis. 26 775 Mansfield v. Dyer, 131 Mass. 200 708, 723 Mansfield v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Wash. 665 319 Mansur, etc.. Implement Co. v. Jones, 143 Mo. 253 331 Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. V. Ritchie, 143 Mo. 587 1005 Mansur-Tebbetts Implement Co. V. Ritchie, 159 Mo. 213.. 580, 594 Manton v. Moore, 7 T. R. 67 . . . 541 Manufacturers' Bank v. Rugee, 59 Wis. 221 529, 534 Manwaring v. O'Brien, 75 Minn. 542. . . . 613, 924, 979 Mapes V. Bums, 72 Mo. App. 411 594 Mapes V. Snyder, 59 N. Y. 450. '^ 90, 145 Maple V. Burnside, 22 Ind. 139. 520 Maples V. Maples, Rice Eq. (S. C.) 300 462, 491 Maple Valley Twp. v. Foley, 113 Mich. 622. ■• ■■ 406 Marborough v. Liewis Cook Mfg. Co., 32 Kan. 636 333 Marbury v. Brooks, 7 Wheat. (U. S.) 556. . . ...457, 465 March v. Heaton, Fed. Cas. 9,061 • 1178 Marcoffsky v. Franks, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1377 1051 Maarcotte v. Hartman (Minn.), 48 N. W. 767 840 Marciun v. Powers, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 380—265, 346, 813, 848, 857 Marcus V. Leiake, 4 Neb. 354 . . . 599 Marcus v. Leake, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 354 393 PAGE Marden v. Babcock, 43 Mass. 99. 521, 986 Marden v. Babcock, 2 Mete. (Mass.) 99 291 Marden v. Phillips, 4 Am. B. R. 566 1181, 1182 Mareton v. Dresen, 76 Wis. 418 851 Marion Deposit Ci). v. McWil- liams, 2 Ohio Dec. 142 1041 Marion Distilling Co. v. Ellis, 63 Mo. App. 17 65 Markey v. Umstattd, 53 Mo. App. 20 553 Markham v. Whitehurst, 109 N. C. 307 364 Marks v. Bradley, 69 Miss. 1 . . 572 Marks v. Crow, 14 Or. 382 335, 342, 396, 563 Marks v. Hill, 15 Gratt. (Va.) 400 1019 Marks v. Miller, 21 Or. 317. . . . 522 Marks v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 403. . . .71, 72, 73, 78, 302 Markson v. Heaney, Fed. Cas. No. 9,098 1178 Marlatt v. Wa,rwiek, 19 N. J. Eq. 439 656, 660 Marlow v. Orgill, 8 Jur. N. S. 829 962 Marmon v. Harwood, 26 111. App. 341 585 Marmon v. Harwood, 124 111. 104 125, 340, 572, 579 Marmon v. White, 151 Ind. 445. 95, 150, 152, 294 322 326, 579, 691 Marquam v. Sengfelder, 24 Or. 2 191, 461, 492, 597 Marquessi v. Felsenthal, 58 Ark. 293 473, 502, 503 Marr v. Rucker, 20 Tenn. 348 . . 649, 676 Marriman v. Knight, 7 Okla. 419 , Marriott v. Givens, 8 Ala. 694. Marsalis v. Brown, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas. Dec. 453 Marsh v. Bennett, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,110 575 Marsh v. Burroughs, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,112 101 Marsh v. Davis, 24 Vt. 363 242, 462, Marsh v. Fuller, 18 N. H. 360. . Marsh v. Hammond, 93 Mass. 483 Marsh v. Woodbury, 42 Mass. 436 54S 920 317 601 480 340 93r Table of Cases. clxxv PAGE Marshall v. Blass, 82 Mich. 518. 214 Marshall v. Croon, 52 Ala. 554. 224, 231, 247, 392, 393, 583, 878 Marshall v. Groom, 60 Ala. 121. 129, 688, 933, 956 Marshall v. Hutchison, 44 Ky. 298 ..358, 459, 504 Marshall v. Knox, 83 U. S. 551. 1121, 1213, 1219 Marshall v. Marshall, 2 Bush. (Kv.) 415 35, 146 Marshall v. Roll, 139 Pa. St. 399 196 Marshall v. Sears, 79 Va. 49 . . 162 Marshall v. Strange, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 410 384 Marshall v. Whitney, 43 Fed. 343 365 Marston v. Braekett, 9 N. H. 336 215, 220, 760 Marston v. Dres«n, 85 Wis. 530. 141, 857, 861 Marston v. Marston, 54 Me. 476 350 Marston v. Vultec, 21 N. Y. Sxuper. Ct. 129 518 Martel v. Somers, 26 Tex. 551. 161, 904, 931 Martha v. Curley, 90 N. Y. 372. 768 Martin v. Atchison, 2 Ida. 624. 761 Martin v. Berry, 116 Ala. 233. 967 Martin v. Bigelow, 7 Am. B. R. 218 1170 Martin v. Cowles, 18 N. C. 29.. 721 Martin v. Adams, 104 Mass. 262 550 Martin v. Crosby, 79 Tenn. 198. 765 Martin v. Crosby, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 198 157 Martin v. Drumm, 12 La. Ann. 494 907 Martin v. Duncan., 156 111. 274. 528 Martin v. Duncan, 47 111. App. 84 -..961, 977 Martin v. Duncan, 181 111. 120. 918", 933, 950 Martin v. Dungan, 156 111. 274. 394 Martin v. Blden, 32 Ohio St. 282 1021 Martin v. Estes, 132 Mo. 402. . 599 Martin v. Fox, 40 Mo. App. 664. 249, 395, 860, 901, 907, 920 Martin v. Hausman, 14 Fed. 160 472, 488 Martin v. Hulen & Co. (C. C. A.), 17 Am. B. R. 510 1090 Martin v. Johnson, 23 Mo. App. 96 214 Martin v. Kennedy, 83 Ky. 335. 395 Martin v. Livingston, 68 N. H. PAGE. 562 994 Martin v. Marshall, 54 Kan. 147 612 Martin v. Martin, 1 Vt. 91 633 Martin v. Mathiot, 14 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 214 34 Martin v. Matthews, 10 Wash. 176 809 Martin v. McAlpine, 8 Ont. App. 675 45 Martin v. Michael, 23 Mo. 50 . . 774, 783 Martin v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 186.. 520 Martz V. Pfeifer, 80 Ky. 600 . . 774, 782, 783 Martin v. Rexroad, 15 W. Va. 512 960, 961 Martin v. Rice, 24 Mo. 581 82 Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 222. . 60, 102 Martin v. Sheiars, 110 N. W. 1010 632 Martin v. Tillman, 70 Miss. 614 639 Martin v. Walker, 12 Hun (N. Y.), 46 195, 201, 205 Martin v. Warner, 34 W. Va. 182 37, 40, 963, 966 Martin v. White, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 162 519 Martin v. White, 115 Ga. 866.. 293, 329 Martin-Brown Co. v. City Nat. Bank, 41 S. W. 524 998 Martin Brown Co. v. Cooper, 82 Tex. 242 907, 909 Martin Brown Co. v. Perrill, 77 Tex. 199 188 Martin-Brown Oo. v. Siebe, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 232 462, 467, 472, 474, 484 Martindale v. Booth, 3 B. & Ad. 498 518 Marvin v. Anderson, 111 Wis. 387 ..276, 279, 1152 Marvin v. Chambers, Fed. Cas. No. 9,179 1122 Marvin v. Smith, 22 Alb. L. J. 115 519 Marx v. Meyer, 50 La. Ann. 1229 45, 816 Marx V. Taller, 12 N. Y. Civ. Proc. R. 226 811 Maseh v. Grauer, 68 App. Div. 560 (N. Y.) , 230 Maskelyni v. Smith, 2 K. B. 158 463 Mason v. Baker, 8 Ky. 208 626, 637 clxxvi Table of Cases. PAGE Mason v. Echels, 8 Wkly. L. Bui. (Ohio) 7 36 Mason v. Eiehiels, 8 Ohio Dec. 436 753, 758, 767 Mason v. Franklin, 58 Iowa, 506 228, 260 Mason v. Perkins, 180 Mo. 702. 240, 410 Mason v. Pierron, 69 Wis. 585. 678, 679, 806, 970 Mason v. Scott, 20 Grant Ch. 84 582 Mason v. Somers (N. J. Oh.), 45 Atl. 602 206 Mason v. Somers, 59 N. J. Eq. 451 181, 410 Mason v. Trustees of Schools, 11 111. App. 454 722 Mason v. Vestal, 88 Cal. 396.. 66, 732, 749 Massey v. Gorton, 12 Minn. 145 774 Massey v. McCoy, 79 Mo. 169 . . 299 Massle v. Enyart, 32 Ark. 251. 608, 703, 705, 706 Massie v. McKee (Tex. Civ. App.), 56 S. W. 119 514 Mast V. Henry, 65 Iowa, 193 .. . 727 Master v. Campbell, 41 Mich. 513 632 Masters v. Teller, 7 Okla. 668. 541, 1004 Masten v. Webb, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 172 558 Masuret v. Stewart, 22 Ont. 290 172, 681 Metador Land, etc., Co. v. Coo- per (Tex. Civ. App.), 87 S. W. 235 141 Metador Land & Cattle Co. v. Cooper, 87 S. W. (Tex.) 235. 582 Mather v. Coe, L Am. B. R. 504. 1101, 1230 Mateer v. Hissim, 3 Penr. & W. (Pa.) 160 190, 249, 265, 340 Mathes v. Dobschuetz, 72 111. 438 579 Mathews v. ArbrittOH, 83 Ky. 22 136 Mathews v. Feaver, 1 Cox Ch. (Eng.) 278 294 Mathews v. Feaver, 1 Cox Ch. 278 91 Mathews v. Green, 19 Fed. 649. 118 Matthews v. Ha,rdt, 9 Am. B. K. 373 1154 Mathews v. Jordan, 98 111. 602. 339 Mathews v. Mack, 95 Ind. 431. 43 PAGE Mathews v. Mobile Ins. Co., 75 Ala. 85 1035 Mathews v. Rentz, 5 Ohio Dec. 72 220 Mathews v. Rinehardt, 149 111. 635 354, 618, 716, 982, 1003 Mathews v. Thompson, 186 Mass. 14 339, 358 Mathews v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 132 364 Mathiez v. Day, 36 N. J. Eq. 88 581 Matlock V. Bledsoe (Ark.), 90 S. W. 848 99, 209 Matson v. Melchor, 42 Mich. 477 343, 586 Matter of Adler, 16 Am. B. R. 414 1229 Matter of Alden, 16 Am. B. R. 362 1124, 1167 Matter of Alex, 15 Am. B. R. 450 1202 Matter of Andre, 13 Am. B. R. 132 1214 Matter of Barthelme, 11 Am. B. R. 67 1164 Matter of Bay City Irrigation Oo., 14 Am. B. R. 370 1221 Matter of Berry & Co., 16 Am. B. R. 564 1107, 1181, 1190 Matter of Bradway, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 212 514 Matter of Burrell & Carr, 9 Am. B. R. 625 1085 Matter of Cavagnaro, 16 Am. B. R. 320 -.. 1193 Miatter of Cotton Export, etc., Co., 10 Am. B. R. 14 1161 Matter of Department of Parks, 73 N. Y. 560 ; 23 Matter of Downing, 15 Am. B. R. 423 1144, 1145 Matter of Duplex Radiator Co., 15 Am. B. R. 324 1104 Matter of Farrell Co., 9 Am. B. R. 341 1132 Matter of Fletcher, 16 Am. B. R. 491 1179 Matter of Fuller, 35 Hun (N. Y.), 162 50 Matter of Gesas (C. C. A.), 16 Am. B. R. 872 1124, 1160 Matter of Girard Glazed Kid Co. (2), 14 Am. B. R. 485... 1213 Matter of Gray, 3 Am. B. R. 647 1072 Matter of Grissler, 13 Am. B. Table of Cases. clxxvii PAOE R. 508 1121 Matter of Hawkins, 9 Am. B. R. 598 1188 Matter of Hess, 14 Am. B. R. 635 1192 Matter of Hooks Smelting Co., 15 Am. B. R. 83 1179 Matter of Hornstein, 10 Am. B. R. 308 1221 Matter of Hunt, 14 Am. B. R. 416 1156 Matter of Hurlburt, 13 Am. B. R. 50 1190 Matter of Hutchinson, 14 Am. B. R. 518 _1134 Matter of Kiauter & Cohen, 9 " Am. B. R. 372 1226 Matter of Keller, 16 Am. B. R. 727 1190 Matter of Levi, 16 Am. B. R. 756 1196 Matter of Maher^ 15 Am. B. R. 786, 16 Am. B. R. 340.. 1077, 1107 -Matter of Mandel, 10 Am. B. R. 774 1154 Matter of Marks Bros., 15 Am. B. R. 457 1097 Matter of McBride, 12 Am. B. R. 81 1189 Matter of Metropolitan Store, etc., Co., 15 Am. B. R. 119.. 1116 Matter of Milbury Co., 11 Am. B. R. 523 1103 Matter of Murphy, etc., Shoe Co., 11 Am. B. R. 428 1195 Matter of Paine, 11 Am. B. R. 351 1236 Matter of Patterson, 10 Am. B. R. 748 1196 Matter of Phelps, 15 Am. B. R. 170 1191 Matter of PoUman, 16 Am. B. R. 144 1143, 1226 Matter of Rasmussen, 13 Am. B. R. 462 1194 Matter of Riggs Restaurant Co., 11 Am. B. R. 508 ^1077, 1093 Matter of Robertshaw Mfg. Co., 13 Am. B. R. 409 1132 Matter of Rodgers, 16 Am. B. R. 401 1192 Matter of Roeber, 9 Am. B. R. 303, 778 1120, 1121 Matter of Rosenblatt, 16 Am. B. R. 306 1106 Matter of Rung Furniture Co., 14 Am. B. R. 12 1075, 1096 Matter of Russell, 13 Am. B. R. 1 PAGE 24 1188 Matter of Sherman Mfg. Co., 15 Am. B. R. 740 1179 Matter of Sunseri (Pa.), 18 Am. B. R. 231 1215 Matter of Talbot, 16 Am. B. R. 159 1104 Matter of Thompson, 10 Am. B. R. 242 1116, 1216 Matter of United States Food Co., 15 Am. B. R. 329 1122 Matter of Van Dermoor, 42 Hun (N. Y.), 326 123 Matter of Weinger, 11 Am. B. R. 424 1143 Matter of Werder, 10 Fed. 275. 117 Matter of Wright, 16 Am. B. R. 778 1189 Matteucei v. Whelan, 123 Cal. 312 557 Matthai v. Heather, 57 Md. 483. 187, 190, 195, 350 Matthews v. Albritton, 83 Ky. 32 36 Matthews v. Buck, 43 Me. 265. 75, 77, 82, 83, 143 Matthews v. Lloyd, 89 Ky. 625. 819 Matthews v. Matthews, 154 N. Y. 288 878 Matthews v. Mobile Ins. Co., 75 Ala. 85 796 Matthews v. Reinhardt, 149 111. 635 231 Matthews v. Rice, 31 N. Y. 457. 256, 257, 992 Matthews v. Thompson, 186 Mass. 14 274 Matthewson v. Caldwell, 59 Kan. 126 473 Mattingly v. Nye, 8 Wall. (U. S.) 370 186, 189, 190 Mattocks V. Rogem, Fed. Cas. No. 9,300 1087 Mattingly v. Obley, 1 111. App. 626 ,,.. 113 Maouoon v. McGrew, 112 U. S. 7i3 358 Mauran v. Crown Carpet Lining Co., 6 Am. B. R. 734 1143 May V. Hoover, 48 Neb. 199 402, 409 May V. Huntington, 66 Ga. 208. 335 May V. Jenkins, 15 HI. 101 .. . 402 Mays V. Rose, 1 Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 703 206 May V. State Nat. Biarug Co. v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 27 Utah, 59 527 Nellis V. Clark, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 24 13 Nellis V. Clark, 4 Hill (N. Y.), 424 662 Nelms V. Steiner, 113 Ala. 562. 74, 914, 916, 929, 1004 Nelson v. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 334 266 Nelson v. Kinney, 93 Tenn. 428. 462, 510 Nelson v. Leiter, 190 111. 414.. 489, 492, 493, Nelson v. Leiter, 93 111. App. 176 Nelson v. Smith, 28 111. 495 .. . 256, 259, 262, Nelson v. Venden, 99 Tenn. 224. 192, 195, 349, Nelson v. Warren, 93 Ala. 408. PAOE 999; 917 392 350 69 Nelson Distilling Co. v. Voss- meyer, 25 Mo. App. 578.. 233, 353 Neppach v. Jones, 20 Or. 491 . . 840 Neresheimer v. Smyth, 167 N. Y. 202 636 Nesbitt V. Digby, 13 111. 387 .. . 297 Neslin v. Wells, 104 U. S. 428. 255 Neuberger v. Keim, 134 N. Y. 35 190, 353, 862 Neubert v. Massman, 37 Fla. 91 434, 440, 446 Neuffer v. Pardue, 35 Tenn. 191 301 Neusbaum v. Keim^ 24 N. Y. 325 48, 78a Neustadt v. Joel, 9 N. Y. Super. Ct. 530 1041 Nevers v. Hack, 138 Ind. 260 . . 852, 901, 902 New England L. & T. Co. v. Avery (Tex. Civ. App.), 41 S. W. 673 898 New England L. & T. Oo. v. Avery, 41 S. W. (Tex.) 673. 717 New England Marine Ins. Co. V. Chandler, 16 Mass. 275. . . 428, 443, 446, 460, 472 New Haven Steamboat, etc., Co. V. Vanderbilt, 16 Conn. 420. 254 New Home Sewing Mach. Co. V. Wray, 28 S. C. 86 814 New Orleans Gas, etc., Co. v. Currell, 4 Rob. (La.) 438..,. 861 New Orleans Acid, etc., Co. v. O. Guillory & Co. (La.), 42 So. 329 , 259 New South Bldg., etc., Assoc. V. Reed, 96 Va. 345 349. 350, 368 New York Commercial Co. v. Carpenter, 4 Misc. Rep. iN. Y.) 240 573 New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 69 App. Div. (N. Y.) 153... 596, 618, 985- New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 174 N. Y. 544 310, 472, 492, 994, 97ft New York Co. Nat. Bank v. Massey, 192 U. S. 138 Table op Cases. CXCT PAGE 1157, 1159, 1162 New York, etc., R. Oo. v. Kyle, 18 N. Y. Super a. 587 ....... 956 New York, etc., R. Oo. v. Kyle, 5 Bosw. (N. Y.) 587.... 585, 832 New York Pire Ins. Co. v. Tooker, 35 N. J. Eq. 408.581, 613 New York Fourth Nat. Bank v. American Mills Co., 137 U. S. 234 512 New York Ice Oo. v. Cousins, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 560... 497, 519, 587, 599 New York Public Library v. Tilden, 29 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 169 692 New York Stove Mercantile Co. V. West, 107 Mo. App. 254.. 915, 954, 977 New V. Driver, 89 Ga. 434 1001 New V. New, 127 Ind. 576 815 New V. Oldfield, 110 111. 138... 363 New V. Sailors, 114 Ind. 407.. 436, 449 New V. Young (Ala.), 41 So. 523 734 Newall V. Newall, 34 Miss. 385. 635 Newark v. Funk, 15 Ohio St. 462 100 Newberry v. Princeton Bank, 98 Va. 471 613 Newbouid v. Warrin, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 80 870 Newdigate v. Jacobs, 9 Dana (Ky), 17 478, 782 Newell V. Morgan, 2 Harr. (Del.) 225 36, 44, 136, 1035 Newell V. Wagness, 1 N. D. 62. 435, 439, 442, 445, 448 Newhoff V. Clegg, 99 Ga. 167 . . 582 Newkirk v. Newkirk, 56 Mich. 525 301 Newlin v. Garwood, 18 Fed. Caa. No. 10,172 275 Newlove v. Callaghan, 86 Mich. 297 92 Newman Grove State Bank v. Linderholm (Neb.), 94 N. W. 616 759 Newman v. Baer^ 50 La. Ann. 323 42, 55 Newman v. Cordell, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 456 9 Newman v. Cordell, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 448 578, 1004 Newman v. Kirk, 45 N. J. Bq. 677 227, 711, 712 Newman v. Van Duyne, 42 N. PAGE J. Eq. 485 418, 847 Newman v. Willetts, 52 111. 98. 794, 795, 844 Newsom v. Roles, 23 N. 0. 179. 442 Newsom v. Russell, 77 N. C. 277 667 Newton v. Manwarring, 56 Hun (N. Y.), 645 177 Newton v. ShaiTer, 6 Kulp. (Pa.) 357 392 News Pub. Co. v. Tyndale, 2 Neb. (Unoff.) 256 562 Niagara County Nat. Bank v. Lord, 33 Hun (N. Y.), 557.. 545 Nichol V. Davidson County, 8 Lea (Tenu.), 389 163 Nichol V. Levy, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 433 86 Nichol v. Nichol, 63 Tenn. 145. 192, 214, 633 Nicholas v. ^aton, 91 U. S. 716 1188 Nicholas v. Higby, 35 Iowa, 401. 254 Nicholas v. Ward, 38 Tenn. 323. 188, 192 Nieholl V. Mumford, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 522 465 Nichols, etc,, Co. v. Burch, 128 Ind. 324 160 Nichols, etc., Oo. v. Gerlich, 84 Minn. 483 408, 971, 976 Nichols Shepard & Co. v. Burch, 128 Ind. 324 384 Nichols V. Bancroft, 74 Mich. IW 386 Nichols V. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716. T.T- , , 86' 134, 163 Nichols V. H. Seiter & Co., 41 111. App. 627 280 Nichols V. Levy, 5 Wall. (U. S.) 433 134 Nichols V. McCarthy, 53 Conn. 299 649 Nichols V. Morrow, 11 N. Y. Supp. 878 .' 407 Nichols V. Morrow, 58 Hun (N Y.), 606 967 Nichols V. Nichols, 40 Misc. Rep. 9 693, 828, 964 Nichols V. Patten, 18 Me. 231. 549, 550, 631, 647 Nichols V. Walker, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 295 384 Nichols V. Wallace, 41 111. App. 627 .''.'. 280 Nichols V. Ward, 38 Tenn. 323. 349 Nicholson v. Condon, 71 Md. 620 897 Nicholson v. Leavittj 6 N. Y Super. Ct. 252 171, 430, 448, 684, 1017 CXCVl Table of Cases. 4S9 156 965 711 113 PAGE Nicholson v. Leavitt, 4 Sandf. (N. Y.) 252 74, 78, 570 669, 763, 812 Nicholson v. Schmucker, 81 Md. 459 Nicholson v. Shannon, 20 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 378 ■ Nichthauaer v. Lehman, 17 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 336 Niokerson v. Meacham, 14 Fed. 881 Nickle V. Emerson Mercantile, etc., Co. (Ark.), 13 S. W. 78. 62, 112, Nicol V. Crittenden, 55 6a. 497. 256, 257, 569, 670, 573, 610, 985 Nieters v. Brockman, 11 Mo. App. 600 789 Niederhofer v. Bange, 12 Lane. Bar. (Pa.) 37 738 Niles V. Mathusa, 162 N. Y. 546 548 Nill V. Phelps, 20 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 488 766, 789 Nippes' Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 472. 118, 119 Nisbet V. Quinn, 7 Fed. 760 .. . 28, 257, 258 Niver v. Crane, 98 N. Y. 40. . . 682 Nix V. Dukes, 58 Tex. 96 827 Nixon V. Goodwin, 85 Pac. (Cal.) 169 Nixon V. Goodwin (Cal. App.), 85 Pac. 169 66, 926, 935, 936, Nixon V. McKinney, 105 N. C. 23 927, Noble V. Coleman, 16 Ala. 77 . . Noble V. Coleman, 86 Ala. 367. 563, Noble V. Davies, 4 S. E. (Va.) 206 322, 323, 584, 984 Noble V. Gilliam, 136 Ala. 618. 861, 875, 876, 882, 885, 896, 965 Noble V. Hines, 72 Ind. 12 278, Noble V. Holmes, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 194 Noble V. Laidlaw, 100 N. W. (Mich.) 179 234, Noble V. McKeith, 127 Mich. 163 Noble V. Noble, 26 Ark. 317 Noble V. Smith, 2 Johns. (N. Y.) 52 Noblet V. St. John. 29 Minn. 180 724, Noel V. Gaines, 23 Kj'. L. Rep. 335 928 938 946 562 564 851 784 355 203 639 565 727 FAGB 2093 366 Nollis V. Rodgers, 106 Ga. 13 . . 373 Noonan v. Orton, 12 N. B. R. 405 1198, 1234 Norberg v. Rioords, 84 Md. 568. 1012 Narcross v. Nathan, 3 Am. B. R. 613 1072 Noreutt v. Dodd, 1 Cr. & Ph. 100 20, 99, 102 Norris v. JoneSj 93 Va. 176. . . . 346, 387, 681 Norris v. Lake, 89 Va. 513 228, 523 Norris V. McCanna, 29 Fed. 757 997 Norris v. Norris, 39 Ky. 317.., 655 Norris V. Persons, 49 Wis. 101. 961, 962 Norse v. Velzy, 123 Mich. 532. 961 North American Fire Ins. Co. V. Graham, 7 Sandf. (N. Y.) 197 792, 793 North Hudson Mut. Bldg., etc., Assoc. V. Ohilds, 86 Wis. 292. 7S0 North Platte Milling, etc., Co. V. Price, 4 Wyo. 293 101, 325 North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. Ladd, 32 Minn. 381 . . 119, 747, 751 North V. Belden, 13 Conn. 376. 31 226 North V. Crowell, 11 N. H. 25 1! 301 North V. Gordon, 15 La. Ann. 221 100, 101, 102, 736, 741 North V. House, 18 Fed. Oas. No. 10,310 258, 1172 North V. Shearn, 15 Tex. 174.. 16« North V. Taylor, 6 Am. B. R. 233 1160, IIGj North v. York, 35 N. C. 206 .. . 109 Northington v. Faber, 52 Ala. 45 513 Norton v. Billings, 4 Fed. 623. 25,S, OiS North V. Bradway, 9 Minn. 183. 812, 824, 879 Norton v. Cobb, 20 Ga. 44 472 Norton v. Doolittle, 32 Conn. 405 535 Norton v. Kearney, 10 Wis. 443 70, 177 Norton v. Mallory, 63 N. Y. 434 321 Norton v. McNutt, 55 Ark. 59. 66, 69, 569, 902, 1002, ]003 Norton v. Norton^ 5 Cush. (Mass.) 524 .•i30 Norton v. Norton, 59 Mass. 524 213 Norton v. Switzer, 93 U. S. Table of Cases. cxcvii PAGE 355 1234 Norton v. Thiebes Stierling Mu- sic Co., 82 Mo. App. 216 55 Norwalk v. Ireland, 68 Conn. 1. 397 Norwegian Plow Co. v. Haw- thorn, 71 Wis. 520 523 Norwegian Plow Co. v. Haw- thorn, 71 Wis. 529 574, 940, 1003, 1005 Norwood' V. Washington, 136 Ala. 657 290, 612, 905, 978 Northington v. Faber, 52 Ala. 45 370 Nott V. Shutts, 87 III. App. 341." 964 Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Pratt, 21 Mo. App. 171 360 Noyes v. Belding, 5 S. D. 603. . 153 Noyea v. Brent, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,372 699 Noyes v. Carter (Va.), 23 S. B. 1. 898, 1035 Noyes v. Morris, 56 Hun (N. Y.), 501 979 Noyes v. Ross, 23 Mont. 425 . . 395, 408, 554 Noyes v. Sanger, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 388 309, 491, 506 Noyes v. Sehner, 70 Wis. 224.. 309 Noyes v. Tootle, 2 Ind. T. 144. 415, 575, 908 Nuckolls V. Pence, 52 Iowa, 581 528 Nugent V. Goldsmith, 59 Mich. 593 576 Nugent V. Jacobs, 103 N. Y. 125 918, 979 Nugent V. Nugent, 70 Mich. 52. 774, 779 Numan v. Kapp, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 73 697 Numsen v. Ellis, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., sec. 134 355, 462, 928, 946 Nunn v. Wilsmore, 8 T. R. (Eng.) 521 336, 337 Nusbaum v. Louchheim, 1 Pa. Cas. 106 45 Nutter V. Harris, 9 Ind. 88 . . . 520, 528, 534 Nuzum V. Herron, 52 W. Va. 499 833 O Oak Creek Valley Bank v. Hel- mer, 59 Neb. 176 986 Oakford v. Dunlap, 63 111. App. 498 71, 331, 458, 471 579, 587, 593, 626 Oakland v. Carpenter, 21 Cal. FADE 642 855 Oakley v. Tugwell, 33 Hun (N. Y.), 357 811 Oakley v. Young, 6 N. J. Eq. 453 1045 Ober V. Howard, 11 Mo. 425. . . 641 Oberdorfer v. Meyer, 88 Va. 384 583 Oberholser v. Greenfield, 47 Ga. 530 1044, 1047 Oberholtzer v. Hazen, 92 Iowa, 602 895 Obermeyer v. Jung, 51 App. Div. (N. Y.) 247 471 Oberneir v. Treseler, 19 Mo. App. 519 275 O'Brien v. Ballou, 116 Cal. 318 565 O'Brien v. Cavanagh, 36 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 362 293 O'Brien v. Chamberlain, 50 Cal. 285 557 O'Brien v. Coulter, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 421 325, 387 O'Brien v. Gaslin, 20 Neb. 347 . 720 O'Brien v. Stambach, 101 Iowa, 40 180, 797, 1030 O'Brien v. Whigam, 9 App. Div. (N. Y.) 113 189 Ocean Nat. Bank v. Hodges, 9 Hun (N. Y.), 161.. 269, 295, 365 Ocean Nat. Bank v. Olcott, 46 N. Y. 12 752 Ockerman v. Cross, 54 N. Y. 29 86 Ocoee Bank v. Nelson, 41 Tenn. 186 395, 523 O'Connell v. Cruise, 1 Handy (Ohio), 164 75, 77, 179, 391 O'Connell v. Kilpatrick, 64 Md. 122 624 O'Connor v. Boylan, 49 Mich. 209 790 O'Connor v. Coats, 79 Ind. 596 459 O'Connor v. Docen, 50 App. Div. (N. Y.) 610 233, 261, 309, 353, 955 O'Connor v. Meehan, 47 Minn. 247 958 O'Connor v. Ryan, 9 Ohio Dec. 575 650 O'Connor v. Ward, 60 Mo. 1025 4, 152, 160, 162, 644, 655 O'Connor v. Williams, 53 Atl. (N. J.) 550 691, 972 O'Daniel v. Crawford, 15 N. C. 197 14 Odell V. Mylins, 53 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 250 374 CXCVUl Table of Cases. PAGE Odenheimer v. Hanson, 4 McLean (U. S.), 437 758 O'Doherty v. Ontario Bank, 32 U. C. C. P. 285 37, 136 O'Donald v. Constant, 82 Ind. 212 459, 480 O'Donnell v. Hall, 157 Mass. 463 915, 944 O'Donnell v. Hall, 154 Mass. 429 988 O'Donnell v. Segar, 25 Mich. 367 158 Off V. Hakes (C. C. A.), 15 Am. B. E. 696 1166, 1168, 1170 Officer v. Evans, 48 Iowa, 557 . . 160, 164 Offutt V. King, 1 McArthur (D. C), 312 328, 376, 789 O'Gara v. Lowry, 5 Mont. 427. 529, 536, 552, 990 Ogden V. Saunders, 12 Wheat. (U. S.) 213 1069, 1071 Ogden State Bank v. Barker, 12 Utah, 13 275, 279, 341 597 852 942 Ogg V. Schultz, 61 Neb. 221..,' 314 Ogilvie V. Knox Ina. Co., 22 How. (U. S.) 380 101 Ogle V. Lichteberger, 1 Am. L. Reg. (Pa.) 121 692, 702 Oglesby v. Walton, 118 Ga. 203 1003 O'Gorman v. Madden, 9 Ky. L. Eep. 567 105 O'Harra v. Stone, 48 Ind. 417 . . 147 Ohm V. San Francisco, 85 Cal. 545 773 O'Kane v. Terrell, 144 Ind. 599.. 656 O'Kane v. Vinnedge, 198 Ky. 34 196, 310, 346, 798, 860 861, 862, 909 O'Kane v. Whelan, 124 Cal. 200 524 Oldham v. McClanahan, 63 Ky. 416 971 Old Nat. Bank v. Heckman, 148 Ind. 490 305, 855 O'Leary v. Duvall, 10 Wash. 666 589, 851 O'Leary v. Walter, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. y.) 439 113 Oliphant v. Hartley, 32 Ark. 465 822 Oliphant v. Liverridge (111.), 27 N. E. 921 248, 249 Oliver v. Cunningham, Fed. Gas. 19,493 1233 Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108.. 572, 986 PAGE Oliver v. King, 8 DeG. M. &. G. 110 211 Oliver v. Moore, 26 Ohio St. 298 683 Oliver v. Moore, 23 Ohio St. 473 312, 903 Oliver v. McDowell, 100 111. App. 45 971 Oliver v. McLaughlin, 24 Ont. 41 586 Oliver v. Piatt, 3 How. (U. S.) 333 869 Oliver v. Reading Iron Co., 170 Pa. St. 396 928, 989, 1006 Oliver v. Townes, 2 Mart. N. S. (La.) 93 87 Oliver v. Wilhite, 201 111. 552. . 668 Oliver, etc., Wire Co. v. Wheeler, 106 Mich. 408 309 Oliver Finnie Grocery Co. v. Bodenheimer, 77 Miss. 415.. 1012 Oliver-Finnie Grocer Co. v. Miller, 53 Mo. App. 107 32 Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank v. Talcott, 19 N. Y. 148 24 Olmstead v. Mattison, 45 Mich. 617 594 Olmstead County v. Barbour, 31 Minn. 256 956 Olmsted v. Hoyt, 11 Conn. 376 939 Olney v. Balch, 154 Mass. 318. 144 Olney v. Tanner, 18 Fed. 636.. 204 Olney v. Tanner, 10 Fed. 101.. 537, 1207 Olsen V. Kern, 10 111. App. 578 114 Olson V. Hanson, 74 Minn. 337 220 Olson V. O'Connor, 9 iiT. D. 504 161, 167 Omaha Brewing Assoc, v. Zel- ler, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 198.... 180, 183, 350, 403 Omaha Coal, etc., Co. v. Suess, 54 Neb. 379 986 Omaha Hardware Co. v. Dun- can, 31 Neb. 217 973 O'Melia v. Hoffmeyer, 119 Iowa, 444 969 O'Neal V. Boone, 82 111. 589. .. . 892 O'Neal V. Clymer (Tex. Civ. App.), 61 S. W. 545 349, 823, 834, 910, 950, 951, 967 O'Neal V. Smith, 10 Lea (Tenn.), 340 206 O'Neal V. Seixas, 85 Ala. 80. . . 371 O'Neil V. Birmingham Brewing Co., 101 Ala. 383 186, 807 O'Neil V. Chandler, 42 Ind. 471 177, 631, 665 Table of Oases. cxcix PAGE O'Neil V. Glover, 5 Gray (Mass.), 144 1087 O'Neil V. Orr, 5 111. 1 296 O'lSTeil V. Patterson, 52 111. App. 26 721 Ontario Bank v. Hurst, 103 Fed. 231 457, 472 Oppenheimer v. Collins, 115 Wis. 283 293, 797, 801 Oppenheimer v. Guckenheimer, 39 Fla. 617 297 Oppenheimer v. Halff, 68 Tex. 409.. 314, 315, 462, 603, 686, 940 Oppenheim v. Loovis, 9 La. Ann. 261 62 Orchard v. Collier, 171 Mo. 390 969 Orendorf v. Endlong, 12 Fed. 24 731, 760, 769 Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 44 Mass. 332 68,82,211, 434 443, 452, 521 Orr V. Gilbert, 68 111. App. 429 526 Orr V. Gilmore, 7 Lans. (N. Y.) 345 944, 1020 Orr V. Moore, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., sec. 588 1043 Orr V. Peters, 197 Pa. St. 606 318, 760 Osborn v. Koenigheim, 57 Tex. 91 552 Osborn v. McCallum, 38 So. (Miss.) 609 580 Osborn v. Katliff, 53 Iowa, 748 216, 217, 520, 951 Osborne v. Carey, 5 Manitoba, 237 898 Osborne V. Evans, 185 Mo. 509. 364 Osborne v. Moss, 7 Johns. (N. Y.) 161 69, 631, 63% 735 Osborne v. Osborne, 5 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 619 215 Osborne v. Tuller, 14 Conn. 520 520 Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. L. 633 632, 665 Osborne v. Wilkes, 108 N. C. 651 114, 115, 364, 400 899, 918, 994 Osen V. Sherman, 37 Wis. 501 . . 530 Osgood V. Franklin, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 1 231, 353 Osgood V. Thorne, 63 N. H. 375 461, 490 Oshkosh Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 100 Mich. 485 .. . 597 Oamun v. Galbraith, 9 Am. B. R. 339 1186 Osterbag v. Galbraith, 23 Neb. PAGE 730 33 Ostrander v. Fay, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 431 564 O'Sullivan's Trustee v. Doug- lass, 30 Ky. L. Hep. 366 1131 Otis V. Hadley, 112 Mass. 100 258, 1152 Otis V. Rose, 9 Colo. App. 449 967, 971 Otis V. Sill, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 102 18 Otis V. Spencer, 102 111. 622. . . 324 Otis V. Sprague, 118 Mich. 61. . 356 Otley V. Manning, 9 East, 64 . . 3 Ott V. Doroshow, 17 Am. B. R. 417 1128 Ouerbacker v. White, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 739 823 Overall v. Parker (Tenn. Ch. App.), 58 S. W. 905 297, 536, 979 Overmire v. Haworth, 48 Minn. 372 682, 767, 774, 788 Overatreet v. Manning, 67 Tex. 657 774 Owen V. Arvis, 26 N. J. L. 22 78, 80, 296 Owen V. Brown, 9 Am. B. R. 717 1098 Owen V. Dixon, 17 Conn. 492. . 66, 631, 645, 734, 735, 754 Owens V. Clark, 78 Tex. 547 . . 462, 490, 595 Owens V. Foley, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 86 564 Owens V. Gascho, 154 Ind. 225 458, 482, 1007 Owens V. Gentry, 30 S. C. 490. 950 Owens V. Hobble, 82 Ala. 467 . . 503, 508, 511, 603, 973 Owen V. Sharp, 12 Leigh. (Va.) 427 633, 658 Oxford Iron Co. v. Slafter, Fed. Cas. No. 10,637 1093 P Pabst Brewing Co. v. Butchart, 67 Minn. 191 413 Pace V. Eobbins, 67 Ark. 232 . . 901 Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 Cal. 520 118 Pacific Nat. Bank v. Windram, 133 Mass. 175 248, 413, 423 Pack V. Bathurst, 3 Atk. 269 . . 144 Packard v. Wood, 70 Mass. 307 539, 548 Paddock v. Fish, 10 Fed. 125.. 724 Paddock v. Jackson, 16 Tex. Civ. App. 655 619 cc Table of Cases. Paddock-Hawley Iron Co. v. McDonald, 61 Mo. App. 559. 422, 428 Paddon v. Williams, 1 Eob. (N. Y.) 240 645, 646 Padgitt V. Porter (Tex. Civ. App.), 26 S. W. 429 485 Page V. Dixon, 59 Mo. 43 78 Page V. Edmunds, 187 U. S. 596 119Q Page V. Francis, 97 Ala. 379.. 435, 904, 973 Page V. Grant, 9 Or. 116 854 Page V. Kendrick, 10 Mich. 300 78, 265, 281 Page V. Simpson, 188 Pa. 393. . 596 Page V. Smith, 25 Me. 256 . . 748, 894 Page V. Williamsport Suspender Co., 191 Pa. St. 511.... 47, 756 Paige V. Edmunds, 187 U. S. 596 117 Paige V. O'Neal, 12 Cal. 483. . . 721 Paine v. Doe, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 485 192, 219 Painter v. Drum, 40 Pa. St. 467 923, 999 Palen v. Bushnell, 18 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 301 819, 839 Palmer v. Bray (Mich.), 98 N. W. 849 161 Palmer v. Hawes, 80 Wis. 474. 169 Palmer v. Henderson, 20 Ind. 297 579 Palmer v. Martindell, 43 N. J. Eq. 90 337 Palmer v. Smith, 126 Mieih. 352 376 Palmer v. Wyoming Mfg. Co., 1 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 271.... 848 Palmour v. Johnson, 84 Ga. 91 596, 979 Pancoast v. Gowen, 93 Pa. St. 66 117 Panhandle Nat. Bank v. Foster, 74 Tex 514 1002 Pannebaker v. Bitting, 11 Pa. Dist. 537 1069 Pappenheimer v. Roberts, 24 W. Va. 702 816, 824 Paper Co. v. Morse, 127 Fed. 643 1072 Paris V. Du Pre, 17 S. C. 282 67, 208, 738, 739, 749, 884, 922 Parish v. Danford, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,770 609 Parish v. Lewis, Freem. (Miss.) 299 774, 796 Pariah v. Murphree, 13 How. (U. S.) 99 190, 343 Parish v. Rhodes, Wright PAGE (Ohio), 339 38, 364 Park v. Bamberger, 52 Miss. 565 470 Park V. Battey, 80 Ga. 353. . 365, 612 Park V. Snyder, 78 Ga. 571.690, 948 Parke County Coal Co. v. Terre Haute Paper Co., 129 Ind. 73 195 Parker v. Barker, 43 Mass. 423 291, 225, 291, 317 Parker v. Barkenowitz, 116 Mich. 58 366 Parker v. Black, 16 Am. B. R. 202 978, 1166, 1170 Parker v. Cain, 28 111. App. 598 299 Parker v. Conner, 118 N. Y. 24. 1165 Parker v. Conner, 93 N. Y. 118 614 Parker v. Crittenden, 37 Conn. 148 721, 722 Parker v. Flagg, 127 Mass. 28. 765 Parker v. Freeman, 2 Tenn. Ch. 612 669 Parker v. Holmes, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 95 691, 696 Parker v. Kendrick, 29 Vt. 388 529 Parker v. Marvell, 60 N. H. 30. 522 Parker v. Moore, 115 I'-ed. 799. 1137 Parker v. Parker, 4 Neb. 692 . . 639 Parker v. Parker, 56 Iowa, 111 645 Parker v. Pattee, 4 N. H. 176 434, 441, 442, 445 Parker v. Roberts, 116 Mo. 657 60, 65, 962 Parker v. Tiffany, 52 111. 286 . . 269, 453 Parker v. Valentine, 27 W. Va. 677 965, 978 Parkhurst v. McGraw, 24 Miss. 134 637,893, 954 Parkinson v. Hanna, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 400 609, 706 Parkman v. Welch, 36 Mass. 231 192, 266, 433, 434 Parks V. Murray, 2 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 628 895, 967 Parlin, etc., Co. v. Daniels, 111 Iowa, 640 434, 961 Parlin, etc., Co. v. Hanson, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 401 428 Parlin, etc., Co. v. Ulrich, 57 Neb. 780 1051 Parmelee v. Egan, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 610 827 Parmenter v. Fitzpatrick, 135 N. Y. 190 1052 Parmenter v. Fitzpatrick, 14 N. Y. Supp. 748 519 Parmenter v. Lomax, 68 Kan. 61 580, 780, 789 Table of Cases. cci PAGE Pannenter Mfg. Oo. v. Stoever, 3 Am, B. R. 220 1098, 1142 Parmer v. Maugham, 31 La. Ann. 348 ,. . 563 Pamell v. Stedman, 1 Cab. & E. 153 582 Parr v. Saunders, 11 S. E. (Va.) 979 378, 688 Parriatt v. Bowers, 111 Iowa, 740 311 Parris v. Thompson, 46 N. C. 57 754 Parrish v. Danforth, 18 Fed. Gas. No. 10,770 626 Parrott v. Baker, 82 Ga. 364.. 631, 639, 642, 650, 655 Parrott v. Crawford (Ind. T.), 82 S. W. 688 68, 69, 733, 740, 770, 842, 848 Parsons v. Black, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) 339 55 Parsons v. Dickinson, 28 Mass. 352 518, 521 Parsons v. McKaight, 8 N. H. 35 182, 183, 242 Parsons v. Topliff, 119 Mass. 245 443 Partelo v. Harris, 26 Conn. 480 583 Parties v. Gibson, 17 Fed. 293. . 612 Partlow V. Jjane, 42 Ky. 424. . . 206 Partlow V. Swigart, 90 Mich. 61 950, 1000 Parton v. Yates, 41 Ind. 456 . . 346, 986 Partridge v. Arnold, 73 111. 600 106, 110 Partridge v. Gopp, Ambl. 596 . . 96, 99 Partridge v. Stokes, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 586 350, 971 Parvin v. Capewell, 45 Pa. St. 89 898 Pashby v. Mandigo, 42 Mich. 172 182, 206 Pass V. Lynch, 117 N. C. 453. . 220 Passavant v. Bowdoin, 60 Hun (N. Y.), 433 1050 Passavant v. Cantor, 21 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 259 880, 881 Passavant v. Sickle, 14 Civ. Proe. R. (N. Y.) 57 858 Passmore v. Eldridge, 12 Serg. & E. (Pa.) 198 435, 442 Patehen v. Rofkar, 52 App Div. (N. Y.) 367 761, 762 Patehen v. Rofkar, 12 App. Div. (N. Y.) 475 780, 788 PAGE Paterson v. Whittier, 19 N. H. 192 667 Patnode v. Darveau, 112 Mich. 127 162, 654 Patrick v. Ford 37 Tenn. 532. . 200 Patrick v. Patrick, 77 111. 555 266, 339 Patrick v. Riggs, 105 Mich. 616 227, 237, 317 Patrick v. Smith, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 113 ,. . . . 67, 418, 424, 646, 732 Patten v. Carley, 8 Am. B. R. 482 1118 Patten v. Casey, 57 Mo. 118... 264, 284, 344 Patten v. Clark, 22 Mass. 5 . . 34 Patten v. Smith, 4 Conn. 450. 151, 520 Pattersbee v. Farrington, 1 Swanst. 106 , 349 Patterson v. Campbell, 9 Ala. 933 411 Patterson v. Johnson 59 Iowa, 397 .' 156 Patterson v. McKinney, 97 111. 41 280, 281, 283, 286 Pattison v. Bragg, 95 Ala. 55 957, 1017 Pattison v. Letton, 56 Mo. App. 325 251, 434, 441, 442 Pattison v. Stewart, 6 Watts & S. (Pa.) 72 385 Patton V. Beecher, 62 Ala. 579 . 658 Patton V. Bragg, 113 Mo. 595. 37, 40 806, 897 Patton V. Gates, 67 111. 164 113 Patton V. McCane, 54 Ky. 555 723 Patty-Joiner, etc., Co. v. Cum- mings, 4 Am. B. R. 269 1071 Patulo V. Boyington, 4 U. C. C. P. 125 358 Payne v. Bruton, 10 Atk. 53 . . 639, 655, 656 Payne v. Buford, 106 La. 83 . . . 962 Payne v. Burke, 43 Ky. 492. . . 1020 Payne v. Freer, 4 N. Y. Supp. 644 283 Payne v. Huteheson, 32 Gratt. (Va.) 812 359 Payne v. Kemp, 33 La. Ann. 818 85, 184, 371 Payne v. Sheldon, 63 Barb. (N. Y.) 169 793, 806 Payne v. Stanton, 59 Mo. 158 191, 284, 344, 348, 572 Payne v. Wilson, 76 Iowa, 377 ceil Table of Cases. PAGE 141, 152, 369, 609 Payson v. Whitcomb, 32 Mass. 212 663 Paul V. Baugh, 85 Va. 955 . . 463, 703 Pavd V. Crooker, 8 N. H. 288. . 201, 436 Paulk V. C!ooke, 39 Conn. 566. . 194, 270, 356, 372 Paulk V. Wolfe, 34 Ala. 541. . . 402 Paulling V. Sturgus, 3 Stew. (Ala.) 95 562 Paulson T. Ward, 4 N. D. 100 798, 802, 857, 859 Paxton V. bmith, 41 Neb. 56 . . 522 Paxtonv. Sutton, 53 Neb. 81.. 168 Peabody v. Knapp, 153 Mass. 242 258 Peacock v. Williams, 110 Fed. 917 846 Pearee v. Jennings, 94 Ala. 524. 1048 Pearce v. Nix, 34 Ala. 183 940 Pearsall v. Smith, 149 U. S. 231 865 Pearson v. Outhbert, 58 App. Div. 395 310, 386 Pearson v. Hudson, 52 Tex. 352 184 Pearson v. Quist, 79 Iowa, 54. . 158 Pease v. Barkowsky, 67 111. App. 274 116 Pease v. Bridge, 49 Conn. 58 . . 980 Pease v. Dawson, 97 111. App. 620 260 Pease v. McKusick, 25 Me. 73. 856 Pease v. Shirlock, 63 Vt. 622 . . 161, 731, 748 Peaslee v. Barney, 1 D. Chipm. 331 641 Peaslee v. Collier, 83 Mich. 549 359 Peasley v. Barney, 1 D. Chipm. (Vt.) 331 821 Peasley v. Ridgeway, 82 Minn. 288 794 Peavey v. Cabaniss, 70 Ala. 253 36, 38 Peay v. Morrison, 10 Gratt. (Va.) 149 787 Peck V. Carmichael, 17 Tenn. 325 1005 Peck V. Grouse, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 151 985 Peck V. Dyer, 147 111. 592... 717 Peck V. Jenness, 7 How. (U. S.) 612 1112 Peck T. Lincoln, 76 Iowa, 424 366 Peck V. Land, 2 Ga. 1 . . . 12, 13, PAGE 16, 19, 247, 314, 520, 563, 587 Peck V. Peck, 77 Cal. 106 322 Peck V. Richardson, 9 Hun (N. Y.), 567 , 44 Peck V. Sprucks, 6 Lack. Leg. N. (Pa.) 132 490, 495 Peek Lumber Co. v. Mitchell, 95 Fed. 258 1141, 1144 Peckenhaugh v. Cook, 61 Iowa, 477 363 Pecot V. Armelin, 21 La. Ann. 667 272 Peebles v. Horton, 64 N. C. 374 223, 227, 254 Peeler v. Peeler, 109 N. C. 628 574, 588, 600, 897, 899, 1005 Peerson v. Maxfield, 51 iowa, 76 278 Peet V. Morgan, 6 Mart. N. S. 137 741 Peetsch v. Sommers, 31 App. Div. 255 303, 614 Peevey v. Cabaniss, 70 Ala. 253 363 Pehrson v. Hewitt, 79 Cal. 594. 855 Peigne v. Snowden, 1 Desauss Eq. (S. C.) 591 329 Peiser v. Petieolas, 50 Tex. 638 987 Pell V. Prewitt, 62 111. 361 317 Pell V. Treadwell, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 661 195, 211, 407, 410 Pemberton v. Klein, 43 N. J. Eq. 98 302 Pence v. Croan, 51 Ind. 336 15, 290, 346, 571, 892, 986 Pence v. Makepeace, 65 Ind. 345 122, 124 Pender State Bank v. Frey, 3 Neb. (Unoff.) 83 187 Pendery v. Allen, 9 Ohio Cir. Ct. 245 1031 Pendleton v. Eaton, 23 La. Ann. 435 520 Pendleton v. Hughes, 65 Barb. (N. Y.) 136 200 Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565 99 Penball v. Elwin, 1 Smale & G. (Eng.) 258 250, 311 Peninsular Stove Co. v. Roark, 94 Iowa, 560 367 Peninsula Stove Co. v. Saeket, 74 Wis. 526 226, 254 Penman v. Slocum, 41 N. Y. 59. 689 Penn v. Trompen (Neb.), 100 N. W. 312 393 Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. (Va.) 503. . . .108, 110, 112, 115 Penn v. Young, 10 Bush (Ky.), Table of Cases. CClll PAGE 626 ,.. 105 Pennett v. Warner, 53 Neb. 780 958 Penney v. McCullougli, 134 Ala. 580 905, 979 Penniman v. Cole, 49 Mass. 496. 469 Pennington v. Chandler, 5 Harr. (Del.) 394 557 Pennington v. Clifton, 11 Ind. 162 61, 200, 434 Pennington v. Flock, 93 Ind. 378 563, 892 Pennington v. Seal, 49 Miss. 518 16, 19, 182, 187, 339, 348 Pennington v. Woodall, 17 Ala. 685 307, 318, 334, 482, 4B3 Penn Plate Glass Co. v. Jones, 189 Pa. St. 290 461, 492 Penrod v. Mitchell, 8 Serg. & R. 522 685 Penrod v. Morrison, 2 Pen. & W. (Pa.) 126 757 Pennsylvania Knitting Co. v. Bibb Mfg. Co., 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 537 58, 346, 414 Peoples' Bank v. Smith, 75 Miss. 753 744, 747 Peoples Nat. Bank v.- Kern, 193 Pa. St. 59 761 Peoples Nat. Bank v. Loeifert, 184 Pa. St. 164.... 130, 758, 761 Peoples Sav. Bank v. Bates, 120 U. S. 556 199,457,773, 804 People V. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28. 460 People V. Colorado Ct. App., 65 Pac. 42 987 People V. District Police Jus- tice, 41 Mich. 224 1061 People V. Duncan, 41 Cal. 507. 1189 People V. New York Common Pleaa, 28 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 477 813 People V. nice, 79 Mich. 354 .. . 961, 965 People V. Tatum, 36 N. C. 414. 775, 796 People V. Underwood, 16 Wend. (N. Y.) 546 1062 People V. Van Buren, 136 N. Y. 252 784, 1045, 1046 Pepper v. Carter, 41 Mo. 540.. 207 Pepper v. Carter, 11 Mo. 540.. 191, 193, 348 Pepperdine v. Bank of Seymour, 10 Am. B. U. 570 1144 Percival v. Hichbom, 56 Me. 575 1057, 1058 Perea v. DeGallegos, 3 N. M. 151 768 PAGE Perego v. Bonesteel, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 69 744, 746 Peregoy v. Krautz, 31 Neb. 58. 510 Perham v. Haverhill Fiber Co., 64 N. H. 2 782 Pericho V. Quinn, 52 111. App. 102 434 Perisho v. Perisho, 95 III. App. 644 212, 639 Perkins v. Baer, 95 Mo. App. 70 870 Perkins v. Brierfield Iron, etc., Co., 77 Ala. 403 818 Perkins v. Center, 35 Cal. 713. 865 Perkins v. Douglass. 52 S. C. 129 462, 523, 532, 986 Perkins v. Mann, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 575 959, 969 Perkins v. McOullough, 31 Or. 69 652, 728 Perkins v. Meighan, 147 Mo. 617 138 Perkins v. Perkins, 1 Tenn. Ch 537 328 Perkins v. Petten, 10 Ga. 241 . . 564 Perkins v. Scott, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 596 300 Perkins v. Swank, 43 Miss. 349 610 Perkins v. Warren, 6 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 341 1042, 1043 Perrin v. Reed, 35 Vt. 2 558 Perrine v. Perrine, 50 Atl. (N. J.) 694.... 181, 564, 603, 955, 967 Perry Ins. Co. v. Poster, 58 Ala. 502 428, 457, 483 Perry v. Bedell, 59 Hun (N. Y.), 619 977 Perry v. Calvert, 22 Mo. 361 . . 648 Perry v. Foster, 3 Harr. (Del.) 293 526, 557 Perry v. Hardison, 99 N. 0. 21. 227, 298, 915, 943 Perry v. Hayward, 12 Cush. (Mass.) 344 69 Perry v. Hayward, 66 Mass. 344 177 Perry v. Lorillard, 61 N. Y. 214 1189 Perry v. Patton (Tex. Civ. App.), 68 8. W. 1018 523 Perry v. Ruby, 81 Va. 317 328, 367, 898 Perryclear v. Jacobs, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 504 149 Personette v. Cronkhite, 140 Ind. 586 275, 576, 892 Persse, etc.. Paper Works v. Willett, 24 N. Y. Super Ct. 131 57, 58,-914, 917, 918 Pessels V. Schwab Clothing Co. CCIV Table of Cases. PAGE (Tex. Civ. App.), 25 S. W. 814 472 Peters-Miller Shoe Co. v. Case- beer, 53 Mo. App. 640 909 Peters Saddlery, etc., Co. v. Sehoelkopf, 71 Tex. 418 448 Peters Shoe Co. v. Arnold, 82 Mo. App. 1 186 Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670 . . 12, 17 Peters v. Kahn, 93 Ala. 201 .. . 676 Peters v. Light, 76 Pa. St. 289. 173 Peterson v. Brown, 17 Nev. 172 642 Peterson v. Doak (Wash.), 86 Pac. 663 174 Peterson v. Farmer^ 121 Mass. 476 752, 753 Peterson v. Gittings, 107 Iowa, 306 781, 782 Peterson v. Mulford, 36 N. J. L. 481 107, 149 Peterson v. Rome, 76 Iowa, 447 620 Petetin v. His Creditors, 51 La. Ann. 1660 467 Petingale v. Barker, 21 D. C. 156. 362, 713 Petit V. Hubbell, 105 Mieh. 405. 97, 139 Petree v. Brotherton, 133 Ind. 692 200, 350, 862 Pettee v. Dustin, 58 N. H. 309. 75, 77 Pettibone v. Byrne, 97 Mich. 85 32 Pettibone v. Stevens, 15 Conn. 19 299 Pettibone v. Stevens, 15 Conn. 26 3 Pettingill v. Jones, 30 Mo. App. 280 907 Pettit V. Coachman (Fla.), 41 So. 401 253, 358 Pettit V. Seaman, 2 Root (Conn.), 178 1069 Pettit V. Shepherd, 5 Paige (N. Y.), 493 5 Pettus V. Glover, 68 Ala. 417.. 769 Pettus V. Smith, 4 Rich. Eq. 197 (S. C.) 240, 696 Pettyjohn v. Newhart, 7 Kan. App. 64 299, 378, 459, 510 Pewett V. Coopwood, 30 Miss. 369 644 Peyser v. Myers, 56 Hun (N. Y.), 175 335 Peyton v. Lamar, 42 Ga. 131 . . 1045 Pfister V. Dascey, 65 Cal. 403.. 821 Pharis v. Leachman, 20 Ala. PAGE 662 790, 821 Phelps v. Cutler, 4 Gray (Mass.), 137 533 Phelps V. Curtis, 80 III. 109 .. . 691 Phelps V. Foster, 18 111. 309 .. . 1044 Phelps V. Jackson, 27 Ark. 585. 773 Phelps V. Morrison, 24 N. J. Eq. 195 206, 337, 375, 706 716 722 Phelps V. Piatt, 50 Barb, (n! Y.) 430 789 Phelps V. Smith, 116 Ind. 387.. 42, 52, 171, 172, 278, 671, 778 Phenix Ins. Co. v. Feilder, 133 Ind. 557.. 152, 157, 164, 631, 649 Phettiplace v. Sayles, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,083 527, 562 Phifer v. Erwin, 100 N. C. 59. . 522, 572, 918, 927, 928, 949 Philbrick v. O'Connor, 15 Or. 15 615, 622 Philbrook v. Handley, 27 Me. 53 1060 Phillips-Buttorff Mfg. Co. v. Williams, 63 S. W. (Tenn.) 185 958, 965 Phillips V. Chamberlain, 61 Miss. 740 697, 701, 702 Phillips V. Cunningham, 58 S. W. (Tenn.) 463.... 378, 473, 595 597 627 Phillips V. Hall, 160 Pa. St! 60 107 Phillips V Kennedy, 139 Ind. 419 359, 625, 861 Phillips V. Kesterson, 154 111. 572 336 764 Phillips V. Meyers, 82 111. 67 . . .' 327 Phillips V. North, 77 111. 243.. 85, 140, 192 Phillips V. Reitz, 16 Kan. 396. 520, 910 Phillips V. Rhodes, 2 Colo. App. 70 363 Phillips V. Rhodes, 21 Colo. 217. 375 Phillips V. Shipp, 81 Ky. 436.. 833, 836 Philips V. Turner, 8 Am. B. R. 171 1211 Phillips V.' Wesson, 16 Ga. 137. 761 Phillips V. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 412 186, 212, 347, 575 Phimzy v. Clark, 62 Ga. 623. . . 226 Phinizy v. Clark, 62 Ga. 623 497, 596, 603. Phinney v. Holt, 50 Me. 570 . . 924 Phipps V. Boyd, 54 Pa. St. 342 . 17r Phipps V. Sedgwick, 95 U. S. Table of Cases. OCT PAGE! 3 680, 689, 1024 Phoenix Bank v. Staflford, 89 N. Y. 405 186, 194, 347 Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Fielder, 133 Ind. 557 877 Phoenix Ins. Oo. v. Moog, 78 Ala. 284 855 Phoenix v. Dey, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 412 456 Piatt V. St. Clair, 6 Ohio, 227 . . 28 53 Pickens v. Dent, 187 U. S. 177 .' 1226 Pickens v. Roy, 187 tJ. S. 177. 1228 Pickens v. Taylor, 47 Kan. 294. 677 Picket V. Garrison, 76 Iowa, 347 202, 915, 919, 921, 979 Pickett V. Pickett, 14 N. C. 6.. 675, 676 Pickett V. Pickett, 2 Hill. Eq. (S. 0.) 470 600 Pickett V. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 520 . . 85, 178, 226, 395, 585, 579 631, 830, 832, 855, 858 900, 953, 978 Pickstoek v. Lyster, 3 M. & S. 371 463 Pidcock V. Voorhies, 84 Iowa, 705 892, 900 Piedmont Bank v. Bowman, 39 W. Va. 622 968 Pierce Steam Heating Co. v. Ransom, 16 App. Div. (N. Y.) 258 ■• 503 Pierce v. Bowers, 67 Tenn. 353. 204 Pierce v. Chiipman, 8 Vt. 334.. 544 Pierce v. Clark, 25 La. Ann. HI 892 Pierce v. Curtis, 6 Mast. (La.) 418 521 Pierce v. Harrington, 58 Vt. 649 322 Pieraon v. Heisey, 19 Iowa, 114 533 Pierce v. Hill, 35 Mich. 194... 67, 131, 208, 734, 735, 749 Pierce v. Hower, 142 Ind. 626. 587, 852 Pierce v. Jackson, 6 Mass. 242. 42, 55 Pierce v. Kelly, 25 Or. 95 52^, 529, 530 Pierce v. LeMonier, 172 Mass. 508 636, 637, 655, 669 Pierce v. Lowder, 54 Mo. App. 25 309 Pierce v. Milwaukee Constr. Co., 38 Wis. 253 101, 1040 Pierce v. O'Brien, 189 Mass. 58 305 PAOE Pierce v. Partridge, 3 Mete. (Mass.) 44 42 Pierce v. Partridge, 44 Mass. 44 475 Pierce v. Rich, 76 Mich. 648 . . 806 Pierce v. Thompson, 17 Pick. (Mass.) 391 148 Pierce v. Thompson, 34 Mass. 391 361 Pierce v. White, 10 Ohio Dee. 552 927 Pierce v. Winberly, 78 Tex. 187. 320 Pierson v. David, 1 Iowa, 23 . . 870 Pierson v. Manning, 2 Mich. 446 71 Pierson v. Slifer, 52 Mo. App. 273 581, 609 Pierson v. Tom, 1 Tex. 577 704 Pierstoff v. Jorges, 86 Wis. 128. 201, 761 Pieter v. Bales, 126 Iowa, 170. 966 Pigue V. McFerrin, 80 Tenn. 645 1015 Pike V. Miles, 23 Wis. 164 153. 161, 193, 279, 873 Pilling V. Otis, 13 Wis. 495 .. . 224, 574, 1001, 1005 Pillsbury v. Kingon, 31 N. J. Eq. 609 638 Pinckston v. Brown, 56 N. C. 494 644 Pincus V. Reynolds, 19 Mont. 564 196 Pine Cone Lumber Co. v. White Sand Mercantile Co., 66 Neb. 48 857 Pinger v. Leach, 70 Mo. 42 1051 Pinkerton v. Manchester & L. R. Co., 42 N. H. 424 548 Pinkston v. McLemore, 31 Ala. 308 105, 106, 191, 362 Pinnell v. Stringer, 59 Ind. 555 582 Pioneer Printing Co. v. San- born, 3 Minn. 413 Ill Piper V. Johnston, 12 Minn. 60 14, 62, 163, 165, 632, 665, 848 Pipkin v. Williams, 57 Ark. 242 159 Pippin V. Tapia, 42 So. (Ala.) 545 357 Pique V. Arendale, 71 Ala. 91 . 227, 290 Pirie v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 182 U. S. 438 618, 1070, 1076, 1077, 1078, 1157 Pirie v. Stern, 97 Wis. 150. .47, 292 Pitkin V. Burnham, 62 Neb. 385 45 Pitkin V. Mott, 56 Mo. App. 401 364 Pittman v. Eotan Grocery Co., CCVl Table of Cases. PAGE 15 Tex. Civ. App. 676 333 Pitney v. Bolton, 45 N. J. Eq. 639 139, 659 Pitney v. Leonard, 1 Paige (N. Y.), 461 42, 44 Pitts V. BuUard, 3 Ga. 5 36 Pittsburg Plate Glass Co. v. Edwards (C. C. A.), 17 Am. B. R. 447 1168 Pittsfield Bank v. Clough, 43 N. H. 178 746 Place V. Hayward, 117 N. Y. 487 644 Place V. Rhem, 70 Ky. 585 348 Plaisted v. Holmes, 58 N. H. 619 ... . 217, 522, 524, 530 Plant V. Billings-Drew Co., 127 Mich. 11 57 Plant V. Geffinger, 22 Ky. U Rep. 1475 376 Planters', etc.. Bank v. Bor- land, 5 Ala. 531 985 Planters', etc., Bank v. Walker, 7 Ala. 926. .14, 759, 763, 768, 769 Planters' Bank v. Henderson, 23 Tenn. 75 91, 133 Planters' Bank v. Watson, 9 Rob. (La.) 272 521, 569, 580, 837 Platner v. Platner, 66 Iowa, 378 203 Plass V. Morgan, 36 Wash. 160 175 Plass V. Thomas, 6 Mo. App. 157 322 Plaster v. Thorne Franklin Shoe Co., 123 Ala. 360 856 Piatt-Barber Co. v. Groves, 193 Pa. St. 475 963 Piatt V. Jones, 59 Me. 232 1055, 1057, 1059 Piatt V. Jones, 96 N. Y. 24 117 Piatt V. McClong, 49 Atl. (N. J.) 1125 583, 879 Piatt V. McQuown, 20 Pa. Co. Ct. 401 618, 990 Piatt V. Schreyer, 25 Fed. 83.. 825 Piatt V. Stewart, Fed. Cas. No. 11,220 1118 Pleasanton v. Johnson, 91 Md. 673 87 Plimpton V. Goodell, 143 Mass. 365 .... 187, 197, 434, 996 Plows V. Maughan, 42 U. C. Q. B. 129 114 Plummer v. Green, 49 Neb. 316 485 Plummer v. Myers, 14 Am. B, R. 805 1167 PAGE Plummer v. Bohman, 61 Neb. 61 320 Plummer v. Eohman, 62 Neb. 145 160, 884 Plummer v. Rvimmell, 26 Neb. 142 511, 894, 895 Plunkett v. Plunkett, 114 Ind. 484 418, 434 Poague V. Boyce, 20 Ky. 70 . . 82, 800 Pochelu V. Catonnet, 40 La. Ann. 327 736, 867 Pochel V. Read, 20 App. Div. (N. Y.) 208 313, 569, 574 Podozinski v. Kruger, 44 Mich. 79 .... ; 952 Pohalski v. Ertheiler, 18 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 33 616, 943 Poindexter v. Jefifries, 15 Grat. 363 361 Poling v. Flanagan, 41 W. Va. 191 523 Poling V. Williams, 55 W. Va. 69 633, 640, 646, 647, 728 Polk V. Boggs, 122 Cal. 114 970 Polk County Nat. Bank v. Scott, 132 Fed. (U. S.) 897 268, 293, 338 Pollack v. McNeil, 100 Ala. 203 164 Pollak V. Searey, 84 Ala. 259 . . 438, 904 Pollard V. Farwell, 48 Mo. App. 42 538, 556 Polley V. Johnson, 52 Kan. 478 422 Pollock V. Butler, 23 So. (Miss.) 577 620 Pollock V. Jones, 10 Am. B. R. 616 1126, 1129, 1134 Pollock V. Jones, 96 Ala. 492 . . 307 Pollock V. Meyer, 96 Ala. 172. 457, 471, 492, 495, 592 Polling V. Otis, 13 Wis. 495 .. . 224 Pollock V. Van Camp, 74 Hun (N. Y.), 342 978 Pomeroy v. Bailey, 43 N. H. 118 282, 295, 341, 925 932, 988, 992 Pomeroy v. Hindmarsh, 5 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 437 1042, 1043 Pond V. Comstock, 20 Hun (N. Y.), 492 690, 692 Pond V. Davenport, 44 Cal. 481 47, 48, 49, 319 Pond V. New York Exchange Bank, 10 Am. B. R. 343.... 1170 Pond V. Wadsworth, 24 Ala. 531 645, 640 Pool V. Cummings, 20 Ala. 563 941 Table ob* Cases. ccvii FAOS Pool V. Gramling, 88 Ga. 653. . 520 Poole V. Mitchell, 1 Hill (S. C), 404 557 Pope V. Andrews, 9 Miss. 135 245, 257, 580, 626, 954 Pope V. Brandon, 2 Stew. (Ala.) 401 234, 355 Pope V. Cheney, 68 Iowa, 563. . 541 Pope V. Cole, 55 N. Y. 124 801 Pope V. Kingman & Co., 2 Neb. 184 596 Pope V. Pope, 40 Miss. 516 312 627 Pope V. Wilson, 7 Ala. 690. .79] 572 Popendiek v. Forbenius, 66 Mich. 317 374 Popfinger v. Yutte, 102 N. Y. 38 39, 146, 402, 688, 689, 694 Poppe V. Poppe, 114 Mich. 649 650, 651 Porche v. Labatut, 33 La. Ann. 544 547 Porter v. Bucher, 98 Cal. 454.. 536, 552 Porter v. Dunn, 131 N. Y. 314. 363 Porter v. Goble, 88 Iowa, 565 . . 367 Porter v. Greene, 10 Ky. L. Eep. 484 346 Porter v. Lazear, 109 U. S. 84. 1188 Porter v. Parmley, 52 N. Y. 185 528, 769 Porter v. Sticker, 33 S. C. 183. 995 Porter v. Williams, 9 N. Y. 142 204 Portland Bank v. Staoey, 4 Mass. 661 540 Post V. Berwind-White Coal Min. Co., 176 Pa. St. 297 536 Post V. Bird, 28 Fla. 1 739, 743 Post V. Eoach, 26 Fla. 442 775 Post V. Stiger, 29 N. J. Eq. 554 19, 182, 200, 266, 368, 897 Postlewait v. Howes, 3 Iowa, 365 815, 821, 843, 847 Poston V. Balch, 69 Mo. 115. .. 644 Potier V. Harman, 1 Rob. (La.) 527 569 Potter V. Adams, 125 Mo. 118. 676, 731, 748 Potter V. Couch, 141 U. S. 296. 134 Potter V. Gracie, 58 Ala. 303 . . 24, 294, 688, 692, 698, 699 Potter V. Gratiot, 1 Mo. 368.. 526 Potter V. Mather, 24 Conn. 551. 530, 990 Potter V. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62 284, 327, 572, 986, 998 Potter V. Payne, 21 Conn. 361. 528 PAGE Potter V. Pickle, 2 Ont. Pr. 391 48 Potter V. Phillips, 44 Iowa, 353 820 Potter 'v. s'kilesj 114 Ky. ' i32 .' .' 135, 358 Potter V. Stevens, 40 Mo. 229. 67, 663, 696, 745, 825, 1050 Potter V. Washburn, 13 Vt. 558 544 Potts V. Blackwell, 56 N. C. 449 216, 217, 724 Potts V. Hart, 99 N. Y. 168. .. . 921 Poulson V. Stanley, 122 Cal. 655 1053 Poundstone v. Jones, 182 Pa. St. 574 915 Potts V. Hahn, 32 Fed. 660... 682, 626, 870 Powe V. McLeod, 76 Ala. 418 . . 819 821 Powell V. Boulton, 2 U. C. q! B. 487 964 Powell V. Burk, 7 Ky. L. Eep. 220 402 Powell V. Inman, 53 N. C. 436 69, 632, 637, 662 Powell V. Ivey, 88 N. C. 256 . . 143, 653, 668 Powell V. Jeffries, 5 111. 387.. 605, 610, 685, 687 Powell V. Powell, 63 N. C. 283 99 776 Powell V. Stickney, 88 Ind. 310 307, 520 Powell V. Waldron, 89 N. Y. 328 117 Powell V. Westmoreland, 60 Ga. 572 268, 277, 569, 985 Powell V. Yeazel, 46 Neb. 225 . . 581, 998 Powers V. Benedict, 88 N. Y. 605 768 Powers V. Green, 14 111. 386... 1051 Powers V. Patten, 71 Me. 583. . 882, 931 Powers V. Eussell, 13 Pick. 69. 184 Powers V. Wheeler, 63 111. 29. 756, 861 Powers Dry Goods Co. v. Nel- son, 7 Am. B. E. 506 1145^ Powers-Taylor Drug Co. v. Faulconer, 52 W. Va. 581 .. . 476 Powles V. Dilley, 2 Md. Ch. 119 460, 976 Poynter v. Mallory, 20 Ky. L. Eep. 284 182, 205, 295, 833, 836, 837 Prats V. His Creditors, 5 Eob. La. 288 837 CCVlll Table of Cases. PAGE Pratt V. Bothe, 12 Am. B. R. 529 1174 Pratt V. Burr, 2 Biss. (U. S.) 36 163, 168 Pratt V. Burr, 5 Biss. (U. S.) 36 1028 Pratt V. Christie, 12 Am. B. R. 1 1164 Pratt V. Columbia Bank, 18 Am. B. R. 406 1166 Pratt V. Cox, 22 Gratt. (Va.) 330 188 Pratt V. Curtis, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,375 708, 1138 Pratt V. Green, 25 Iowa, 39 . . . 856 Pratt V. Pratt, 96 111. 184 892 Pratt V. Wheeler, 72 Mass. 520 741 Pregnall v. Miller, 21 S. C. 385 523 Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 362 . . 108, 153, 161 Prentice v. Madden, 3 Pinn. (Wis.) 376 856 Prentice v Steel, 4 Montreal Super. Ct. 319 120 Prentiss v. Bowden, 145 N. Y. 342 185, 776 Prentiss Tool, etc., Co. v. Schirmer, 136 N. Y. 305 997 Prescott V. Hayes, 43 N. H. 593 904, 941 Prescott V. Pfeifler, 57 Mich. 21 204 Preslar & Tier v. Walker, 116 La. 661 294, 356, 371 Pressel v. Bice, 142 Pa. St. 263 990 Pressler v. Joffrion, 39 La. Ann. 1116 971 Prestidge v. Cooper, 54 Mass. 74 216, 220 Preston v. Crofut, 1 Conn. 527 721 Preston v. Cutter, 64 N. H. 461 586, 722 Preston v. Griffin, 1 Conn. 393. 246 Preston v. Jones, 50 Pa. St. 54 271 Preston v. Smith, 26 Fed. 884. 1040 Preston v. Southwick, 115 N. Y. 139 519, 537 Preston v. Turner, 36 Iowa, 671 580 Preston Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 112 Mich. 435 183 Preston-Parton Milling Co. v. Horton, 22 Wash. 236 68, 646, 647, 739, 740 Prestwood v. Troy Fertilizer Co., 115 Ala. 668 191 Prewit V. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22 323, 583, 584, 612, 617 Pribe v. Glenn, 31 Mo. App. 215 705 PAGE Price V. Bradford, 4 La. 35. .67, 741 Price V. Heubler, 63 Conn. 374 66, 734, 754 Price V. Mahoney, 24 Iowa, 582 937 Price V. Masterson, 35 Ala. 483 693, 696 Price V. Mazange, 31 Ala. 701 . . 945 Price V. Price, 48 Fed. 823... 1233 Price V. Thrash, 30 Gratt. (Va.) 515 1050 Prichard v. Hopkins, 52 Iowa, 120 892 Pride v. Andrew, 51 Ohio St. 405 640 650, 651 Priest V. Brown, 100 Cal. 626 296, 458, 467, 471, 476, 477, 478, 579, 611, 703, 704, 962 Priest V. Conklin, 38 111. App. 180 385, 690 Prignon v. Daussat, 4 Wash. 199 609 Prim V. Mcintosh, 43 W. Va. 790 97, 141 Primrose v. Browning, 50 Ga. 369 207 Prince v. Guillemot, 1 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 187 322 Prince v. Shepard, 26 Mass. 176 73, 333, 608 Pringey v. Warrell, 73 Iowa, 561 402 Pringle v. Rhame, 10 Rich. L. (S. C.) 72 523, 539, 987 Prior V. White, 12 111. 261. .. . 260 Pritchett v. Jones, 87 Ala. 317 695 Pritchett v. Pollock, 82 Ala. 169 413, 433 Pritz V. Jones, 117 App. Div. (N. Y.) 643 31, 174, 271 Pritz V. Jones, 102 N. Y. Supp. 549 759, 859, 868 Probert v. McDonald, 2 S. D. 495 859, 907, 977 Probert v. Sonju, 110 Wis. 181 340 Procter v. Cole, 104 Ind. 373.. 378 Procter v. Lane, 62 N. H. 457. 744 Procter v. Prout, 17 Mich. 473. 1063 Produce Bank v. Morton, 67 N. Y. 199 780 Proetzel v. Buck Stove, etc., Co., 26 S. W. (Tex.) 1110... 604, 611 Prosek v. Kuehta, 9 Ohio Dee. 129 161 Proskauer v. People's Sav. Bank, 77 Ala. 257... 213, 305, 333, 440 Prosser v. Henderson, 11 Ala. 484 233, 355 Prout V. Vaughn, 52 Vt. 451. . Table of Cases. ccix PAGE 153, 161, 218, 604 Provencher v. Brooks, 64 N. H. 479 104, 158 Providence City Nat. Bank v. Hamilton, 34 N. J. Eq. 158 141, 190, 586 Providence Sav. Bank v. Hunt- ington, 10 Fed. 871 . . ..178, 278 Provident L., etc., Oo. v. Fidel- ity Ins., etc., Co., 203 Pa. St. 82 121, 128, 322 Pruden v. Leavensworth, 2 Root (Conn.), 129 67, 741, 744 Pruitt V. Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co., 75 Miss. 447 613 Pruynv. Young, 51 La. Ann. 320 895, 961, 967 Puckett V. Reed, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 350 560 Puckett V. Richardson Drug Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 634 428 Puget Sound Hotaling Co. v. Clancy, 21 Wash. 1 657 Puget Sound Nat. Bank v. Levy, 10 Wash. 499 49 Pugh V. Bussell, 2 Blackf. (Ind.) 394 1069 Pugh V. Harwell, 108 Ala. 488 436, 438, 452 PuIIen V. Hutchinson, 25 Me. 249 350, 626, 1057 PuUiam v. Taylor, 50 Miss. 551 794, 799 Pullins V. Pullins, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 313 , 959 PuUis V. Robinson, 73 Mo. 201 124, 274 Pullman v. Stebbins, 51 Fed. 10 824, 864 Pulsifer v. Hussey, 9 Am. B. R. 657 154, 1191 Pulsifer v. Waterman, 73 Me. 233 .. 91, 152, 267, 1055, 1056, 1060 Pulte V. Geller, 57 Mich. 560... 321 Purcell Wholesale Grocery Co. V. Bryant, 89 S. W. (Ind. T.) 662 269, 329, 579, 583 Purdy V. Upton, 10 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 494 48 Purington v. Chandler, 5 Harr. (Del.) 394 52 Purkitt v. Polaek, 17 Cal. 327 250 Pursel V. Armstrong, 37 Mich. 326 382 Puryear v. Beard, 14 Ala. 121. . 666 Putnam v. Dutch, 8 Mass. 287 540 n PACK Putnam v. Osgood, 52 N. H. 148 238, 434, 436 Putney v. Fletcher, 148 Mass. 247 209, 767 Putney v. Kohler, 84 Ga. 528. . 1045 Putney v. Whitmire, 66 Fed. 385 773, 846 Putney v. Wolberg, 127 Ala. 124 953 Putzel V. Shulhof, 59 N. Y. Super. Gt. 88 684 Pyatt V. Powell, 51 Fed. 551. . . 87 Pyper v. Cameron, 13 Grant Oh. (U. C.) 131 822, 823 Pyron v. Lemon, 67 Ala. 458 .. . 971 Q Quarl V. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233 100, 101, 787, 813 Quarles v. Grigsby, 31 Ala. 172 803 yuarles v. Kerr, 14 Gratt. ( Va. ) 48 574 Quarles v. Lacy, 4 Munf. (Va.) 251 38, 358, 364, 1029 Queyrounze v. Thibodeaux, 30 La. Ann. 1114 274 Quidort's Adm'r v. Pergeaux 18 N. J. Eq. 472 107, 108, 146 Quimby v. Carter, 20 Me. 218 1055, 1060 Quimby v. Dill, 40 Me. 528 .. . 184 Quimby v. Strauss, 90 N. Y. 664 756 Quimby v. Williams, 67 N. H. 489 216, 220, 441 Quinn v. People, 146 III. 275 . . 162, 166, 820, 822, 843, 854, 1025 Quinn v. People, 45 111. App. 547 798 Quinnipiac Brewing Co. v. Fitz- gibbons, 73 Conn. 191 725 Quinnipiac Brewing Co. v. Fitz- gibbons, 71 Conn. 80 244, 343 Quiriaque v. Dennis, 24 Cal. 154 565 Quirk V. Thomas, 6 Mich. 76. 720, 722 B Racek v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Neb. 669.. 193, 348, 420, 434, 439 Raehofsky v. Benson, 19 Colo. App. 173 398 Racine Wagon, etc., Co. v. Rob- erts, 54 111. App. 515 187, 348 Radley v. Riker, 80 Hun (N. Y.), 353 357 Rafferty v. McKennan (Pa.),l Atl. 546 551 ecx Table of Cases. PAGE Eagland v. McFall, 137 III. 81 939, 948 Eahn v. Kniess, 74 111. App. 367 305, 626 Eahn v. MeElrath, 6 Watts (Pa.), 151 309, 446 Kains v. Dunegan, 71 Mo. 148. 379 Rains v. Rainey, 30 Tenn. 261 1031, 1032 Raley v. Raymond Bros. Clarke Co., 103 N. W. 57 (Neb.)... 1127 Rambaut v. Mayfield, 8 N. C. 85 1039 Ramsay v. Gilchrist, A. C. 412 215 Ramsay v. Quiilen, 73 Tenn. 184 676 Ramsey v. Nichols, 73 111. App. 643 126, 127, 341, 572 Ramsey v. Richarason, Riley Eq. (S. C.) 271 322 Rand v. Iowa Cent. R. Co., 186 N. Y. 58 1180, 1199 Randall v. Buffington, 10 Cal. 491 .. . 169, 458, 485, 489 Randall v. Cook, 17 Wend. (N. Y.) 53 519, 524 Randall v. Dopp, 22 Ont. (Can.) 422 291 Randall v. Howard, 2 Black (U. S.), 585 650, 655, 660 Randall v. Lang, 23 Ala. 751. . 347 Randall v. Lunt, 51 Me. 246.. 369 Randall v. Morgan, 12 Ves. Jr. (Eng.) 67 327 Randall v. Parker, 3 Sandf. (N. Y.) 69 528, 893, 911 Randall v. Phillips, 19 Fed. Cas. 11,555 631 Randall v. Shaw, 28 Kan. 419 459, 473, 499 Randall v. Vroom, 30 N. J. Eq. 353 . . . .6, 240, 306, 308, 337, 627 Randolph v. Allen, 73 Fed. 23 457, 506, 507 Randolph v. Daly, 16 N. J. Eq. 313 800, 808, 823, 824, 870 Randolph v. Hudson, 50 S. W. (Tex.) 128 1000 Rankin v. Arndt, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 251 55, 63 Rankin v. Gardnsr (N. J. Ch. ), 34 Atl. 935 ... . 94, 284, 821, 826 Rankin v. Harper, 23 Mo. 579 70, 753 Rankin v. Holloway, 11 Miss. 614 521 Rankin v. Shaw, 94 N. C. 405. 162 Rankin v. Vandiver, 78 Ala. PAGE 562 506 Rapauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hardware Co., 101 Fed. 948 . . 315 Rapp V. Rush, 96 111. App. 356 . 1003 Rapple V. Hughes (Ida.), 77 Pae. 722 540, 990 Rappleya v. International Bank, 93 111. 396 1036 Rappleya v. International Bank, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 71 1036 Rarro v. Bluestlon, 84 '±ex. 57. 1003 Rasher v. Thompson, 1 Giff. (Eng.) 49 324 Rath V. Rankins, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1120 107 Rateau v. Bernard, 20 Fed Cas. No. 11,579 711 Ratlifif V. Ratliff, 102 Va. 880 633, 637, 640 Ratto V. Bluestien, 84 Tex. 57 970 Raventas v. Green, 57 Cal. 254 565 Raven v. Subin, 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 193 578 Ravis^ies v. Alston, 5 Ala. 297. 428, 557, 563 Rawls V. CJarr, 17 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 96 814 Ray V. Harris, 7 La. Ann. 138. 215, 915 Ray V. Life Assoc, of America, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 514 356 Ray V. Roe, Blackf. (Ind.) 258. 240, 242 Ray V. Simons, 76 Ind. 150. . . . 78, 80 Ray V. Teabout, 65 Iowa, 157. 256, 884 Ray V. Yarnell, 118 Ind. 112.. 152 Raymond v. Harris, 84 App. Div. (N. Y.) 546 137 Raymond v. Richmond, 78 N. Y. ,351 560 Raymond v. Whitney, 5 Ohio St. 201 947 Rayner v. Whicher, 88 Mass. 292 157, 681 Raynor v. Mintzer, 67 Cal. 159. 817 Raynor v. Page, 2 Hun (N. Y.), 652 939 Rea V. Alexander, 27 N. C. 644. 522, 987 Rea V. Missouri, 17 Wall. 532. 571, 578 Read v. Moody, 60 Vt. 668 29, 258 Read v. Mosby, 87 Tenn. 759 . . 91, 92 Read v. Stanton, 4 Tenn. 159.. 721 Table of Cases. ccxi PAGE Read v. Wilson, 22 III. 376... 538 Reads v. Waterhouse, 52 N. Y. 587 1223, 1233, 1234 Reade v. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.). 481 191, 264, 268 269, 327, 337, 793, 1030 Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623. . . .71, 212, 213, 331, 332 Ready v. Bragg, 38 Tenn. 511. 374 Ready v. Smith, 170 Mo. 163.. 777 Real Estate Trust Co. v. Thomp- son, 7 Am. B. R. 520 1212 Reaume v. Guiehajd, 6 U. C. O. P. 170 1052 Re Bossart's Estate^ 77 Pa. Super. Ct. 100 231, 232 Re Bossart's Estate, 11 Pa.. Super. Ct. 100 232 Receiver Graham Button Oo. v. Spielman, 50 N. J. Eq. 120 . . 196 Receivers, etc., v. Staake, 13 Am. B. R. 281 1118, 1180 Reekers v. AUmond, 29 Wash. 238 960 Rector v. City Deposit Bank Co., 15 Am. B. R. 336.. 1159, 1211 Rector v. Danley, 14 Ark. 304. 533 Redd V. Redd, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2379 408, 469, 895 Redd V. Wallace, 40 So. (Ala.) 407 315 Redden v. Potter, 16 111. App. 265 162, 794 Redfield v. Buck, 35 Conn. 328. 244, 295 Redfield v. Hewes, 67 Miss. 479 680 Redfield, etc., Mfg. Oo. v. Dy- sart, 62 Pa. St. 62 240, 894, 905, 941 Redford v. Cramer, 30 N. J. L. 250 988 Redford v. Penny, 58 Mich. 424 613 Redhead v. Pratt, 72 Iowa, 99. 590, 612, 879, 958, 960 Redmond v. Candley, 119 N. C. 575 897 Redpath v. Lawrence, 42 Mo. App. 101 291 Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. North Star Boot & S. Co., 8 N. D. 432 448 Red River Valley Nat. Bank v. Barnes, 8 N. D. 432 349, 554 Redwitz v. Waggaman, 33 La. Ann. 26 736 Reed v. Baker, 42 Mich. 272 .. . 1043 Reed v. Bott, 100 Mo. 62 885 PAGE Reed v. Bott, 167 Mo. 185 856 Iteed V. Carl, 3 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 74 627 Reed v. Jewett, 5 Me. 96 251, 443, 521 Reed v. Loney, 22 Wash. 433 . . 854, 861 Reed v. Mclntyre, 98 U. S. 510 463 Reed v. Mellor, 5 Mo. App. 567. 292, 481 Reed v. Minor, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,647 537 Reed v. Noxon, 48 111. 323 83, 894 Reed v. Reed, 70 Me. 504 521 Reed v. Smith, 14 Ala. 380 723, 948 Reed v. Stryker, 4 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 26 811, 823, 870 Reed v. Thayer, 9 Ind. 157 332 Reed v. Wilson, 22 111. 377 .. . 260 Reed v. Woodman, 4 Me. 400 . . 184, 443 Reed Bros. v. Nicholson, 189 Mo. 396 150, 160 Reed Fertilizer Co. v. Thomas, 97 Tenn. 478 873 Reeder v. Speake, 4 S. C. 293. 789 Reeg V. Bumham, 55 Mich. 39. 680, 840, 858 Reehling v. Byers, 94 Pa,. St. 316 392, 394, 409 Reel V. Livingston, 34 Fla. 377. 36, 40, 182, 363 Reels V. Knight, 8 Mart. N. S. (La.) 267 915 Rees V. Wittrock, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 418 872 Reese v. Bradford, 13 Ala. 837. 773, 788 Reese v. Reese, 157 Pa. St. 200. 188, 194, 349, 397 Reese v. Shell, 95 Ga. 749 397 Reese River Silver Mining Co. V. Atwell, L. R. 7 Eq. 347. . . 777 Reeves v. Dougherty, 15 Tenn. 222 676 Reeves v. Estes, 124 Ala. 303. 905, 969 Reeves v. John, 95 Tenn. 434 . . 258, 321, '498 Reeves v. McNeill, 127 Ala. 175 106 Reeves v. Miller, 121 Mich. 311. 51 Reeves v. Peterman^ 109 Ala. 366 168 Reeves v. Sherwood, 45 Ark. 520 240, 250, 800 ccxu Table of Cases. PAGE Reeves v. Skipper, 94 Ala. 407. 394, 587, 1000 Reeves v. Slade, 71 Ark. 611.. 164, 367 Reg. V. Chappie, 17 Cox 0. C. 455 1065 Reg. V. Henry, 21 Out. (Can.) 113 199, 1062 Reg. V. Smith. 6 Cox C. C. 31.. 1062 Regan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 lud. 623 612 Regli V. McClure, 47 Cal. 612. 530 Reich V. Reich, 26 Minn. 97 . . . 279, 889 Reichard v. Castator, 5 Binn. (Pa.) 109 634, 640 Reiehenbaek v. Winkhaus, 67 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 512 425 Reid V. Brown, Wils. (Ind.) 312 832 Reid V. Cross, 1 Am. B. R. 34. 1230 Reid V. Davis, 33 Mass. 388 .. . 956 Reid V. Kennedy, 21 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 86 201 Reid V. Loney, 22 Wash. 433 . . 619 Reid, Murdock & Co. v. Lloyd, .52 Mo. App. 278 715 Reiff V. Mack, 160 Pa. St. 265. 156 Reiger v. Davis, 67 N. C. 185 . . 895 Reigelman v. Todd, 77 Iowa, 696 1003 Reilly v. Barr, 34 W. Va. 95 . . 245, 314 Reilly v. Sicilian Asphalt Pav- ing Co., 170 N. Y. 40 102 Rein v. Kendall, 55 Neb. 583 . . 894 Reinhard v. Commonwealth Bank, 45 Ky. 252 459 Reinheimer v. Heminway, 35 Pa. St. 432 242 Reitanbach, 1 Rawle (Pa.), 362 940 Reithmann v. Ctodsman, 23 Colo. 202 579, 615 Remington v. Willard, 15 Wis. 646 177 Remington Paper Co. v. O'Dougherty, 99 N. Y. 673... 892 Renaud v. O'Brien, 35 N. Y. 99 837 Renfrew v. McDonald, 11 Hun (N. Y.), 254 645 Renney v. Williams, 89 Mo. 139. 954, 1050 Renniek v. Bank of Chillieothe, 8 Ohio, 530 83, 211 Renninger v. Spatz, 128 Pa. St. 524 541, 588, 990 Renshaw v. Dowty, 39 La. Ann. PAGE 608 835 Re North (1895), 2 Q. B. 264. 1096 Repauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hardware Co., 101 Fed. 948. 309, 457, 487, 489, 491 492, 498, 917 Re Pennington, 59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 774 324 JE'^PPy ^- Reppyj 46 Mo. 571.. 341, 364, 375 Respublica v. Tryer, 3 Yeates (Pa.), 451 1063 Re Sweet's Petition, 20 R. I. 557 231, 234 Reubens v. Joel, 13 N. Y. 488. . 772, 1041, 1042, 1043 Revercomb v. Duker, 74 Mo. App. 570 529, 555 Revercomb v. McCully, 74 Mo. App. 575 441 Rex v. Duchess of Kingston, 20 How. St. Tr. 544 3 Rex V. Jones, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 401. 530, 991 Rexroad v. Johnson, 6 Kan. App. 607 228, 305 Rex Buggy Co. v. Hearick, 12 Am. B. R. 726 1089 Reyburn v. Mitchell, 106 Mo. 365 797 Reynolds v. Beck, 108 Mo. App. 188 529, 530, 990 Reynolds v. Boland, 202 Pa, St. 642 651 Reynolds v. Crook, 31 Ala. 634. 418 Reynolds v. Ellis, 103 N. Y. 115 772 Reynolds v. Faust, 179 Mo. 21. 216, 863 Reynolds v. Gawthrop, 37 W. Va. 3. . ..255, 275, 571, 976, 980 Reynolds v. Lansford, 16 Tex. 286.. 245, 249, 264, 328, 342, 414 451, 676 Reynolds v. Park, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 149 722 Reynolds v. Vilas, 8 Wis. 471. 53, 215, 720 Reynolds v. Weinman (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 560.... 894, 908, 1001, 1006 Reynolds v. Weinman (Tex. Oiv. App.), 25 S. W. 33 893 Reynolds v. Welsh, 47 Ala. 200. 236, 316 Reynolds v. Wilkins, 14 Me. 104 601 Rhead v. Hounson, 46 Mich. 243 854 Rhem v. Tull, 35 N. C. 57 763 Table of Cases. ccxm Rheliifeldt v. Dahlman, 19 Misc. Rep. (N. y.) 162 528, 534, 985 Rhines v. Phelps, 8 111. 455... 526 Rhoads v. Blatt, 84 Pa. St. 31 . . 231 Rhode Island Cent. Bank v. Danforth, 14 Gray (Mass.), 123 88 Rhodes, etc., Co. v. Smith, 43 111. App. 400 579, 939 Rhodes v. BeamaUj 10 La. 363. 580 Rhoades v. Blatt, 84 Pa. St. 31 354 Rhodes v. Cousins, 6 Rand. (Va.) 188 1041 Rhodes v. Green, 36 Ind. 7 . . . . 610, 706 Rhodes v. Wood, 93 Tenn 702. . 899 Rice V. Adler-Goldman Commis- sion Co., 71 Fed. 151 471, 474, 498 Rice V. Allen (Neb.), 95 N. W. 704 899 Rice V. Austin, 17 Mass. 197.. 542 Rice V. Bancroft, 28 Mass. 469. 948 Rice V. Cunningham, 116 Mass. 466 435, 438, 449 Rice V. Eiseman, 122 Ala. 343. 56 Rice T. Jerenson, 54 Wis. 248. 893 Rice V. Less, 105 Ala. 298 56, 396 Rice V. Morner, 64 Wis. 599 . . 227, 318 Rice V. Perry, 61 Me. 145 576 Rice V. Rice^ 31 Ont. 59 899 Rice V. Sally, 176 Mo. 107 528 Rice V. Wood, 61 Ark. 442 499, 593 Rice V. Less, 105 Ala. 298 914 Rich V. Hayes, 99 Me. 51 639, 650, 658 Rich V. Levy, 16 Md. 174.. 459, 490 Rich V. Levy, 16 Md. 74... 774, 1041 Rich V. Reed, 22 Me. 28 986 Richards v. Allen, 25 Mass. 405 82 Richards v. Ewing, 30 Tenn. 327 172, 173, 722, 739 Richards v. Hunt, 6 Vt. 251 ... . 197 Richards v. Hyde, 21 111. 640.. 813 Richards v. McMillan, 6 Cal. 419 ■ 48, 49 Richards v. Orr, 118 Iov\ra, 724 160, 165 Richards v. Schreiber, 98 Iowa, 422 236, 593, 605 Richards v. Swan, 7 Gill. (Md.) 366 344, 387 Richards v. Vacearo, 67 Miss. PAGE 516 .,410, 905, 908 Richardson v. Armitage, 18 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 512 219 Richardson v. Champion, 143 Mo. 538 451 Richardson v. Cramer, 28 La. Ann. 357 563 Richardson v. Gerli, 54 Atl. (N. J.) 438 ; 726 Richardson v. Gilbert, 21 Pla. 544 847 Richardson v. Kimball (Me.), 28 N. E. 463 29 Richardson v. Marqueze, 59 Miss. 80 460 Richardson v. Moimce, 19 S. C. 477 557, 838 Richardson v. Ralphsnyder, 40 W. Va. 15 225, 1035 Richardson v. Rhodus, 14 Rich. 95 (S. C.) 193, 265, 275, 279, 338, 349 Richardson v. Shaw, 16 Am. B. R- 842 1162, 1185 Richardson v. Smellwood, Jac. (Eng.) 552 190 Richardson v. Subers, 82 Ga. 6a. 427 898 Richardson v. Welch, 47 Mich. 309 177 Richardson v. Woodring, 74 Iowa, 149 535 Richey v. Carpenter, 33 Atl. (N. J.) 472 600 Richolson v. Freeman, 56 Kan. 463 612, 624, 907, 946 Richmond v. Bloch, 36 Or. 590. 140 Richmond Standard Steel, etc., Co. V. Allen, 17 Am. B. R. 583 1096, 1158 Richter v. Nimmo, 6 Am. B. R. 680 1171 Rickards v. Rickards, 98 Md. 136 585 Ricker v. Ham, 14 Mass. 137.. 219 Rickers v. AUmond, 29 Wash. 238 962 Ricketts v. McCully, 54 Tenn. 712 281 Ricks V. Stancil, 119 N. C. 99. . 903 Riddell v. Munro, 49 Minn. 532. 571, 610, 705 Riddell v. Shirley, 5 Cal. 488 . . 413 Riddick v. Parr, 111 Iowa, 733 408, 510, 808 Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 Md. 359 344 CCXIV Table of Cases. PAGE Riddle v. Lewia, 70 Ky. 193 .. . 664 Eiddle v. Varnum, 37 Mass. 280 542 Eidenour-Baker Grocery Co. v. Monroe, 142 Mo. 165 339, 387 Eider v. Hulse, 24 N. Y. 372 . . 896 Rider v. Hunt, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 238 230, 595 Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. Jr. 360 99, 181 Rider v. White, 3 Mackey (S. C), 305 639 Ridge V. Greenwell, 53 Mo. App. 479 509, 510 Ridge Ave. Bank v. Sundiieim, 16 Am. B. Rep. 863 1152, 1159, 1164, 1167 Eidgeway v. Underwood, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,815. ... 190, 352 Eidout V. Williams, 75 Tenn. 59 182 Eiebli v. Husler (Cal.), 69 Pac. 1061 524 Riegel v. Wooley, 81 Pa. St. 227 305, 308 Rielle v. Eeid, 26 Out. App. 54 58, 214 Eiethmann v. Godsman, 23 Colo. 202 894 Rife V. Geyer, 95 Pa. St. 393. . 135 Righter v. Riley, 42 W. Va. 633 514 Riggan v. Wolfe, 53 Ark. 537. 333, 617, 722 Eiggs V. Murray, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 565 23, 424, 425 Riggs V. Sterling, 60 Mich. 643 160 Riggs V. Whitaker, 130 Mich. 327 376 Rigney v. Tallmadge, 17 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 556 250, 442 Rigor V. Simmons, 47 111. App. 428 429 Eike V. Ryan (Ala.), 41 So. 959 457 Rilaborrow v. Titus, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 95 321 Riley v. Carter, 76 Md. 581... 858, 874 Riley v. Vaughn, 116 Mo. 169 367, 603 Eilling V. Schultze, 95 Tex. 352 714, 913 Einchey v. Stryker, 28 N. Y. 45 66, 185, 208, 479, 740, 742, 784 Eindge v. Grow, 99 Mich. 575 . . 386 Eindskopf v. Myers, 71 Wis. 639 939, 948 Eindskopf v. Myers, 87 Wis. 80 PAGE 613, 615, 999, 1005 Eindskopf v. Vaughan, 40 Fed. 394 593 Rindskoph v. Kuder, 145 111. 607 895 Rine v. Hall, 187 Pa. St. 264.. 366, 951, 974 Rinehart v. Long, 95 Mo. 396, 38, 217, 207, 364, 824 829, 851, 853, 870 Ringgold V. Lieth, 73 111. App. 656 298, 711 Ringgold V. Waggoner, 14 Ark. 69 244, 247, 250 Ringold V. Suiter, 35 W. Va. 186 686, 1023 Rinkle v. Nichols, 7 Mo. App. 591 954 Rio Grande R. Co. v. Vinet, 132 U. S. 565 32 Eipou Knitting Works v. Schreiber, 4 Am. B. R. 299.. 1072 Eipstein v. British Canadian Loan, etc., Co., 7 Manitoba, 189 898 Eipley v. Severajice, 23 Mass. 474 303, 698, 746 Eiske V. Eotan Grocery Co., Civ. App. (Tex.) 84 S. W. 245 180 Riske V. Eotan Grocery Co. (La.) 239 Eiske V. Eotan Grocery Co., 93 S. W. (Tex.) 708 311 Eisley v. Parker, 50 N. J. Eq. 284 637 Rison V. Knapp, 20 Fed. Cas. No. 11,861 258, 1163 Eisser v. Eathbone, 71 Iowa, 113 669, 690, 744 Eitchey v. McKay (Ind. App.), 75 N. E. 161. . .264, 278, 806, 1090 Eitterband v. Baggett, 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 556 117 Eitzinger v. EauClaire Nat. Bank, 103 Wis. 346 597 Rivera v. White, 63 S. W. (Tex.) 125 651 Rivers v. Thayer, 7 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 136 322 Eives V. Stephens, 28 S. W. (Tex.) 707 165, 351, 418, 961, 966 Eixey v. Detrick, 85 Va. 42 . . . 692, 703, 898, 899, 929 Rixey's Adm'r v. Deitrick, 85 Va. 42 331, 361 Table of Cases. ccxv PAGE Eizer v. McCarthy, 3 Colo. App. 348 711 E. M. Sutton & Co. v. Christie, 53 S. E. (W. Va.) 602 582 Roach V. Deering, 9 Sm. t M. (Miss.) 316 28 Eoach V. White, 94 Ind. 510. . . 147 Eoan V. Winn, 93 Mo. 503 390, 594, 625, 626 Eoane's Adm'r v. Vidal, 4 Munf. (Va.) 187 218 Eoaue v. Bank of Nashville, 38 Tenn. 526 235, 316 Eoanoke Nat. Bank v. Far- mers' Nat. Bank, 84 Va. 603. 1015 Eoark v. Bach, 116 Ky. 457... 160 Eobb V. Brewer, 60 Iowa, 539 . . 156 Eobb V. Eobb, 41 S. W. (Tex.) 92 646 Bobbins v. Armstrong, 84 Va. 810 898 Eobbins v. Sackett, 23 Kan. 301 197 Robert Graves Co. v. McDade, 108 Ala. 420 73, 974 Eobert v. Hodges, 16 N. J. Eq. 299 356, 763, 782, 793, 794, 844, 1041 Eoberts v. Anderson, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 202 876 Roberts v. Anderson, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 371 219,715, 720 Roberts v. Barnes, 127 Mo. 405 436 Eoberts v. Brothers, 119 Iowa, 309 319, 509 Roberta v. Burr, 135 Cal. 156 489, 508, 510, 513, 582 Roberts v. Burr (Cal.), 54 Pac. 849 536, 914, 917, 985 Roberts v. Farmers', etc.. Bank, 136 Ind. 154 599 Roberts v. Gibson, 6 Harr. & J. 116 (Md.) 195 Eoberts v. Guernsey, 3 Grant Caa. (Pa.) 237 893 Eoberts v. Hawn, 20 Colo. 77 35, 525 Roberts v. Jackson, 1 Wend. (N. Y.) 478 1034 Eoberts v. Kelly, 2 Pat. & H. (Va.) 396 557 Roberts v. Johnson (C. C. A.), 18 Am. B. E. 132 1127 Eoberts v. Lund, 45 Vt. 82 637 Eoberts v. Miller (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 381 928 Eoberts v. Press, 97 Iowa, 475 579, 583 Eoberts v. RadclifT, 35 Kan. 502 244, 257, 958, 959, Roberts v. Shepard, 2 Daly (N. Y.), 110 Roberts v. Winton, 100 Tenn. 484 Robertson & Co. v. Columbus Ins., etc., Co., 85 Miss. 234 . . 189, Eobertson v. Gourley, 84 Tex. 575 927, Eobertson v. Huffman, 92 Ind. 247 Eobertson v. Sayre, 134 N. Y. 97 643, 647, Robinett v. Donnelly, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 361 Robins v. Armstrong, 84 Va. 810 Robinson Notion Co. v. Foote, 42 Neb. 156 Robinson v. Bass, 100 Va. 190 320, Robinson v. Baugh (Tenn. Ch. App.), 61 S. W. 98 75, Robinson v. Belt (Ind. T.), 51 S. W. 975 Robinson v. Bliss, 121 Mass. 428 171, 916, Eobinson v. Blood, 64 Kan. 290 638, 650, Robinson v. Brems, 90 111. 351 62, 113, Robinson v. Clark, 76 Me. 493 341, 375, Robinson v. Collier, 50 Ky. 332 Robinson v. Davis, 11 N. J. Eq. 302 Robinson v. Dryden, 118 Mo. 534 Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 513 Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. (U. S.) 524 Eobinson v. Frankel, 85 Tenn. 475 257, 395, Eobinson v. Frankville First M. E. Church, 59 Iowa, 717 278, 770, Eobinson v. Hawley, 45 App. Div. (N. Y.) 287 474, 499, 501, 780, Eobinson v. Holt, 39 N. H. 557 13, 14, 588, Eobinson v. Huffman, 15 E. Mon. (Ky.) 80 41, Eobinson v. Martell, 11 Tex. PAGE 961 256 129 252 1001 138 658 733 890 461 366 555 433 929 680 115 397 473 819 952 413 555 396 958 590 131 CCXVl Table of Cases. 149 220, Kobinaon v. McCune, 128 Mo. 577 440,447, Robinson v. McDoimell, 2 B. & Aid. 134 Boblnaon v. McKenna, 21 R. I. 117 103, 104, 449, Robinson v. Mitchell, 62 N. H. 529 308, Robinson v. Monjoy, 7 N. J. L. 173 Robinson v. Moseley, 93 Ala. 70 366, 885, Robinson v. Ponyius, 136 Ind. 641 Robinson v. Robards, 15 Mo. 459 . 231, 354, Robinson v. Robinson, 17 Ohio St. 480 Robinson v. Rogers, 84 Ind. 539 Robinson v. Springfield Co., 21 Fla. 203 90, 752, 770, 771, 807, 840, 868, Robinson v. Stevens, 93 Ga. 535 Robinson v. Stewart, 10 N. Y. 189 129, 296, 297, 299, 636, 688, 690, 692, 772, Robinson v. Stuart, 1 Rich. (S. C.) 3 Robinson v. Van Dolcke, 3 Ohio S. & C. PL Dec. 107 188, 349, Robinson v. White (Ind.), 3 Am. B. R. 88 1220, Robinson v. Williams, 22 N. Y. 380 Robinson v. Woodmansee, 80 Ga. 249 914, Robinson v. Woolstein, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 883 Robion v. Walker, 82 Ky. 60.. Robaon v. Hamilton, 41 Or. 239 340, 895, 922, Roehelle v. Harrison, 8 Port. 351 645, Rochester v. Sullivan, 2 Ariz. 75 Rock V. Collins, 99 Wis. 630 . . 251, Rock V. Collins, 99 Wis. 630.. Rockford Boot, etc., Mfg. Co. V. Mastin, 75 Iowa, 112 369, 385, 509, Rockford Watch Co. v. Manifold, 36 Neb. 801 211, Rockford Watch Co. v. Rumpf. 12 Wash. 647 Rock Island Nat. Bank v. Pow- PAGE PAGE 635 ers, 134 Mo. 432 Rock Island Plow Co. v. Hill, 32 440 1008 S. W. (Tex.) 242 Rock Island Stove Co. v. Wal- 595 638 rod', 75 Iowa, 479 Rockland County v. Summer- 193 573 vllle, 139 Ind. 695 459, 508, 510, 895 538 Rocky Mountain Nat. Bank v. Bliss, 89 N. Y. 338 772 632 Roden v. Ellis, 113 Ala. 652 578, 711 897 Roden v. Murphy, 10 Ala. 804. Roden v. Norton, 128 Ala. 129 639 1052 436, Rodenberg v. H. B. Claflin Co., 448 418 104 Ala. 560 28, Rodgers v. Kinsey, 8 Ohio Dee. 259 658 308 297, 768 846 Roe v. Moore, 35 N. J. Eq. 526 581, 595 773 Roeber v. Bowe 26 Hun (N. 1042 Y.), 554 587 369 Rogers, etc.. Hardware Co. v. Randall, 69 Mo. App. 342. . . 318 330 Rogers v. Abbott, 128 Mass. 102 879 303, Rogers v. Brown, 61 Mo. 187. . 937 752 837, Rogers v. Dare, Wright (Ohio), 838 136 522 976 Rogers v. Dimon, 106 111. App. 201 3, 185, 773 1222 Rogers v. Evans, 3 Ind. 574 . . . 243 Rogers v. Jones, 1 Neb. 417. .99, 101 302 Rogers v. Mayer, 59 Miss. 524 Rogers v. McCauley, 22 Minn. 366 944 384 168 Rogers v. Michigan, etc., R. Co., 403 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 539 1043 155 Rogers v. Munnerlyn, 36 Ela. 591 72 923 Rogers v. Page, 15 Am. B. R. 502 1117, 1130 647 Rogers v. Palmer, 102 U. S. 263 892 1168, Rogers v. Rogers, 3 Paige (N. 1169 443 Y.), 379 776, 825 443 Rogers v. Thurston, 24 Neb. 326 940 Rogers v. Verlander, 30 W. Va. 597 619 188, 192, 275, 346, 349, 905, 910, 942 856 Rogers v. Winsor, Fed. Cas. No 12,023 1124 1044 Rohrer v. Snyder, 29 Wash. 199 807, 952 Table of Cases. CCXVll FAOE Rohrer v. Turrill, 4 Minn. 407 . 667 Roig V. Schults, 42 Ohio St. 165 162 Roland v. Ross, 120 Mo. 208.. 230 Rollet V. Heiman, 120 Ind. 511. 861 Rollins T. Henry, 78 N. C. 342 45, 47 Rollins V. Moers, 25 Me. 192 . . 299, 449, 961, 967 Romans v. Maddux, 77 Iowa, 203 959 Roman v. Mali, 42 Md. 513.. 644, 650 Romine v. Romine, 59 Ind. 346 287 Root-Tea-Na-Herb C!o. v. Right- mire, 48 W. Va. 222 1029 Root V. Reynolds, 32 Vt. 139 . . 489 Roper V. MoOook, 7 Ala. 318. . 796 Rorrer v. Guggenheimer, 87 Va. 533 1041, 1047 Rose V. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122 37, 40, 131, 193, 349, 364 Rose V. Campbell, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 885 348 Rose V. Colter, 76 Ind. 590.. 78, 520, 567, 910 Rose V. Conle, 61 N. C. 517 595 Rose V. Dunklee, 12 Colo. App. 403 203, 231, 277, 281, 342, 837, 838, 853 Rose V. Keystone Shoe Co., 2 Pa. Cas. 243 1052 Rose V. Sharpless, 33 Grratt. (Va.) 153 154, 162 Rose V. Wortham, 95 Tenn. 505 124, 126, 154 Roselle v. Klein, 42 App. Div. (N. Y.) 316 779, 843 Rosenbaum v. Davis (Tenn. Ch. App.) 48 iS. W. 706. .110, 141 295, 332, 366, 379, 408, 511, 691 Rosenblath v. Buttlar, 7 N. J. L. J. 143 405 Rosenberg v. Smith, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 341 469, 477 Rosenburgher v. Thomas, 3 Grant Ch. 635 658 Rosencranz v. Swoflford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 175 Mo. 518. 186 Rosemhiem v. Flanders, 114 Iowa, 291 . .. .598, 603, 612, 696 Rosenheimer v. Krenn, 126 Wis. 617 353, 1052 Rosenthal v. Bishop, 98 Mich. 527 915, 959 Rosenthal v. Scott, 41 Mich. 632 152, 153 Rosenthal v. Walker, 111 U. PAGE S. 185 864 Roser v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 56 Kan. 129 163 Ross V. Ashton, 73 Mo. App. 254 497, 594 Ross V. Caywood, 16 App. Div. (N. Y.) 591 619, 620 Ross V. Cooley, 113 Ga. 1047 247, 520, 560, 561 Boss V. Crutsinger, 7 Mo. 245 . . 255 Ross V. Draper, 55 Vt. 404 . . 533, 542 Ross V. Duggan, 5 Colo. 85 . . 251, 318, 442 Ross V. Sedgwick, 69 Cal. 247. 458 Ross-Mecham Co. v. Southern Car & F. Co., 10 Am. B. R. 624 1220 Roswald V. Hobbie, 85 Ala. 73 . . 912 Rothchild v. Maunesoviteh, 29 App. Div. (N. Y.) 580.. 474, 475 Rothohild v. Rowe, 44 Vt. 389 . 527, 529, 991 Rothchild v. Trewella, 36 Wash. 679 186, 774 Rothell V. Grimes, 22 Keb. 526 272, 461 Rothgerber v. Gough, 52 111. 436 583, 593 Rothschild v. Knight, 184 U. S. 334 678 Rothschild v. Swope, 116 Col. 670 524. 558 Rounds v. Green, 29 Minn. 139 287, 838, 843, 853- Roundtree v. Lathrop, 69 Ga. 757 397 Rountree v. Marshall (Ariz.), 59 Pac. 109... 737, 861, 976, 979 Rourke v. Bullens, 74 Mass. 549 548 Rouse V. Bowers, 108 N. C. 182 983 Rouse V. Frank, 84 Ga. 623.977, 1051 Rousseau v. Bleau, 8 N. Y. Supp. 823 .' 672 Rousseau v. Bleau, 60 Him (N. Y.), 259 938, 941 Rousseau v. Blow, 56 Hun (N. Y.), 639 670 Roussel V. Dukeylus Syndics, 4 Mart. (La.) 240 82 Rowe V. Blake, 99 Cal. 167 117 Howell V. Klein, 44 Ind. 291 . . 951 Rowland v. Coleman, 45 Ga. 204 855, 859 Rowland v. Martin, 3 Pa. Cas. 162 657 Rowland v. Plunimer, 50 Ala. ccxvm Table of Cases. fagb: 182 370 Rownd V. state, 152 Ind. 39.. 608 Koyer Wheel Co. v. Fielding, 101 N. Y. 504 427, 430, 507 Royer Wheel Co. v. Fielding, 31 Hun (N. Y.), 274.. 273, 341, 346 Koyer Wheel Co. v. Fielding, 61 Mow. Pr. (N. Y. 437 293, 793, 802 Royer Wheel Co. v. Frost, 13 Daly (N. Y.), 233 428 Rozell V. Vansyckel, 11 Wash. 79 644 Rozek V. Redzinski, 87 Wis. S25 161, 167, 917, 763 Rozier v. Williams, 92 111. 187 526 R. P. Gustiu Co. V. Arm, 107 Mich. 231 61 Rankin v. Goodwin, 103 Va. 81 898 Rucker v. Abell, 8 B. Mon. (Ky.) 566 36, 285, 345, 346 Rueker v. Abell, 47 Ky. 566.. 701 Ruckman v. Gonover, 37 N. J. Eq. 583 650 Rueker v. Moss, 84 Va. 634 414 Ruekman v. Ruckman, 32 N. J. Eq. 259 632 Ruckner v. Stein, 48 Mo. 407 . . 340 Rudershausen v. Atwood, 19 111. App. 58 514, 515 Ruddle's Ex'rs v. Ben, 10 Leigh (Va.), 467 290, 291 Ruddle V. Givens, 76 Cal. 457. . 534 Rudy V. Austin, 56 Ark. 73 . . 347 Ruse V. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619 337 Rue V. .Scott, 21 Atl. (N. J.) 1048 366 Ruflfner v. Mairs, 33 W. Va. 655 1049 Rufling V. Tilton, 12 Ind. 259. . 192, 626, 815, 977 Ruggles V. Cannedy (Cal.), 53 Pae. 911 775, 804 Ruggles V. Robinson, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 437 897 Ruhl V. Phillips, 48 N. Y. 125 . . 244, 256, 272, 476, 477, 578, 618 Rule V. BoUes, 27 Or. 368 950 Rumbolds v. Parr, 51 Mo. 592 345, 378, 906 Rumsey v. Novelty, etc., Co., 3 Am. B. R. 704... 1082, 1089, 1100 Rundlett v. Ladd, 59 N. H. 15 . . 358 Kunkle v. Runkle, 98 Va. 663. 358, 899 Runnels v. Smith, 89 Iowa, 636 572 Runyon v. Leary, 20 N. C. 373 PAGE 97, 138 Runyon v. Groshon, 12 K. J. Eq. 86 522, 910 Ruohs V. Hooke, 3 Lea (Tenn.), 302 163 Rupe V. Alkire, 77 Mo. 641 . . 574, 703 Rupe V. Hadley, 113 Ind. 416.. 1030 Ruppert V. Hurley (N. J. Ch. ), 47 Atl. 280 897, 953 Ruse V. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619. 203 Rush V. Vought, 58 Pa. St. 437 110, 111, 114 Rusho V. Richardson (Neb.), 109 N. W. 394 259 Rusie V. Jameson, 62 Iowa, 52 233, 353 Russell's Appeal, 2 Walk. (Pa.) 363 462 Russell & Erwiu Mfg. Co. v. E. C. Faitoute Hardware Co., 62 Atl. (N. J.) 421 587, 628 Russell V. Cole, 167 Mass. 6 580 Russell V. Davis, 133 Ala. 647 76 394 487, 511, 599, 900, 905,' 953^ 969 Russell V. Dyer, 33 N. H. 186. 180, 749 Russell V. Fabyan, 34 N. H. 218 749 Russell V. Fanning, 1 HI. App. 632 ,. 278 Russell V. Fanning, 2 111. App. 632 344, 377 Russell V. Garrett, 75 Ala. 348 870 Russel V. Hammond, 1 Atk. 13 336, 349 Russell V. Haltom & Lester (Ark.), 89 S. W. 471.., 528, 546 Russell V. Huiskamp, 77 Iowa, 727 951 Russie V. Jameson, 62 Iowa, 52 315 Russell V. Keefe, 28 La. Ann. 928 552, 819 Russell V. Lasher, 4 Barb. (N. Y.), 232 826 Russell V. Lau, 1 Neb. L. J. 442 468 Russell V. Letton, 56 Mo. App. 541 594 Rush V. Mitchell, 71 Iowa, 333. 913 Russell V. Nail, 2 Tex. Civ. App. 60 660 Russell V. O'Brien, 127 Mass. 349 541 Russell V. Randolph, 26 Gratt (Va.), 705 328, 778 Russell V. Russell, 34 Ky. 40. . 716 Russell V. Stinson, 3 Hawy. Table of Cases. ccxix PAOE (Tenn.) 1 738 Russell V. Stinson, ,6 Tenn. 1 . . 753 Russell V. Stinson, 4 Tenn. 1 . . 267 Russell V. Thatcher, 2 Del. Ch. 320 343, 585 Russell V. Winne, 37 N. Y. SPl 554 Rutherford v. Alyea, N. J. Bq. 411 : 790, 806, 808 Rutherford v. Clirr ^Tex. Civ. App.), 84 S. W. 659 68, 733, 738, 761, 833 Rutherford v. Chapman, 59 Ga. 177 39, 85, 91, 140 Rutherford v. Schattman, 119 N. y^. 604 47, 305 Rutland County Nat. JBank v. Graves, 19 Am. B. R. 446 1074 Rutland, etc., R. Co. v. Powers, 25 Vt. 15 383 Rutledge v. Evans, 11 Iowa, 287 739, 743 Rutledge v. Hudson, 80 Ga. 266 1004 Rutledge v. Smith, 1 McCord Hq. (S. C.) 119 219 Rutt V. Shuler, 49 111. App. 655 74, 76, 78 Ruthven v. Clarke, 109 Iowa, 25 597 Ryall V. Rolle, 1 Atk. 165... 99 Eyan v. Daly, 6 Cal. 238 242 Ryan v. Meyer, 108 Mich. 638. 569 Kyau V. Ryan, 97 111. 38.. 650, 655 Hyan v. Spieth, 18 Mont. 45 . . 844 Ryder v. Hunt, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 238 333 Eyland v. Almutt, 11 Grant. Ch. (Can.) 135 323 Ryland v. Callison, 54 Mo. 513 67, 207, 678, 734, 737 Rynearson v. Turner, 52 Mich. 7 382 Ryttenberg v. Shaefer, 131 Fed. 313 225 Ryttenberg v. Schefer, 11 Am. B. R. 652 1164 Saar v. Finkin, 79 Iowa, 61 . . . 1052 Saar v. FoUer, 71 Iowa, 425... 1001 Sabin v. Anderson, 31 Or. 487. 696 Sabin v. Oimp, 3 Am. B. R. 578 1092, 1134, 1152, 1153, 1162 Sabin v. Columbia Fuel Co., 25 Or. 15 581 Sabin v. Connor, Fed. Cas. No. 12,197 1120 Sabin v. Mitchell, 27 Or. 66 . . . 744 Sabin v. Wilkins, 31 Or. 450.. 461, 514 PAGE Sack V. Hemann, 6 Ohio Dec. 1104 461, 490 Saokett v. Andross, 5 Hill (N. Y.), 327 1008 Sackett v. Spencer, 65 Pa. 89 . . 140 Sackett v. Stone, 115 Ga. 466. 964, 966 Sage V. Memphis, etc., R. Co., 125 U. S. 361 797 Sage V. Mosher, 28 Barb. (N. Y.) 287 822 Sage V. Wynkoop, Fed. Cas. No. 12,215 1168 Sale V. McLean, 29 Ark. 621.. 773 Salemonson v. Thompson, 101 N. W. (N. D.) 320 588, 737 Salisbury v. Burr, 114 Cal. 451. 612 Sallee v. Sallee, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 74 645 Salmon v. Bennett, 1 Conn. 525 278, 343, 344, 377 Salmon v. Wilson, 41 Cal. 595. 378 Salomon v. Moral, 53 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 342 585, 614 Salomon v. Salomon, A. C. 22 . . 58 Salt Springs Nat. Bank v. Fan- cher, 92 Hun (N. Y.), 327.. 679, 688 Salzenstein v. Hettrick, 105 111. App. 99 5, 626 Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co. v. Carson, 59 Kan. 295 459 Sammis v. Poole, 89 111. App. 118 339 Sammons v. O'Neill, 60 Mo. App. 530 460, 591, 594 Sajnpson v. Brandon Grocery Co., 127 Ga. 454 174 Sampson v. Payne, 5 Munf. (Va.) 176 768 Samuel v. Kittenger, 6 Wash. 261.... 28, 138, 251, 443, 463, 583 Sanborn v. Kittredge, 20 Vt. 632 183, 542 Sanders v. Alexander, 25 Ky. 301_. 711 Sanders v. Chandler, 26 Minn. 273 193 Sanders v. Clark, 6 Houst. (Del.) 462 552 Sanders v. Logue, 88 Tenn. 355. 268 Sanders v. Main, 12 Wash. 665. 79 Sanders v. Malsburg, 1 Ont. 178 904 Sanders v. Miller, 79 Ky. 517. 322, 326 Sanders v. Muegge, 91 Ind. 214. 217 Sanders v. Pepoon, 4 Fla. 465. 520 Sanders v. Wagonseller, 19 Pa. ccxx Table of Oases. PAGE St. 248. . . -. 190, 381, 384 Sanders v. Watson, 14 Ala. 198. 773, 775, 788 Sanderson v. Snow, 68 III. App. 384 182, 274 Sanderson v. Stockdale, 11 Md. 563 778, 845, 1042 Saadford Mfg. Co. v. Wiggin, 14 N. H. 441 750 Sandlin v. Anderson, 82 Ala. 330 226 Saudlin v. Robbing, 62 Ala. 477. 413, 418, 420, 423, 426, 924 Sandman v. Seaman, 84 Hun (N. Y.), 337 356 Sandorn v. Maxwell, 18 App. Cas. (D. C.) 245 777 Sands v. Codwise, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 596 14, 246, 331, 395 587, 689, 655 Sands v. Hildreth, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 493.... 12, 206, 578, 902 Sands v. Marburg, 36 Ga. 534. 1042 Sands v. Pierson^ 61 Iowa, 702. 510 Sandwich Mfg. Co. v. Max, 5 S. D. 125 462 Sanford v. Allen, 42 S. W. (Tenn.) 183 366, 975 Sanford v. Atwood, 44 Conn. 141 322 Sanford v. Bliss, 29 Mass. 116. 746 Sanford v. Lackland, 2 Bill. (U. S.) 6 133, 1188 Sanford v. Reed, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 431 644 Sanford v. Sanford, 58 N. Y. 67 1233 Sanford v. Wheeler, 13 Conn. 165 483, 694 Sanger v. Colbert, 84 Tex. 668. 269, 570, 581, 907, 922 926, 939, 1052 Sanger v. French, 157 N. Y. 213. 878 Sanger v. Thomasson, 44 S. W. (Tex.) 408 623, 716, 727 Sanlon v. Murphy, 51 Minn. 536 794 Sansee v. Wilson, 17 Iowa, 582. 544 Sargent v. Chapman, 12 Colo. App. 529 311 Sargent v. Chubbuck, 19 Iowa, 37 375 Sargent v. Salmond, 27 Me. 539. 98, 101, 182, 205 Sarle v. Arnold, 7 R. I. 582. . . . 245, 523, 915, 916, 924 Sartwell v. North, 144 Mass. 1S8 42 PAGE Satterthwaite v. Emley, 4 N. J. Eq. 489 975 Satterwhite v. Hicks, 44 N. C. 105 895, 922 Sattler v. Marino, 30 La. Ann. 355 296, 314 Saner v. Behr, 49 Mo. App. 86. 560 Sauers v. Beechler, 38 Or. 228. 953 Sauerwein v. Renard Cham- pagne Co., 68 Mb. App. 29. . . 560 Saugerties Bank v. Mack, 34 App. Div. (N. Y.) 494 346, 385, 699, 700, 951 Saunders v. James, 85 Va. 936. 1040 Saunders v. King, 119 Iowa, 291 195, 220 Saunders v. Lee, 101 N. C. 3.. 666, 722, 912 Saunders v. Terrill, 23 N. C. 97 326 Saunders v. Waggoner, 82 Va. 316 415 Saunderson v. Broadwell, 82 Cal. 132 306, 458, 506, 510 Sauter v. Leveridge, 103 Mo. 615 667 Savage v. Dowd, 54 Miss. 728. 460, 513, 727 Savage v. Hazard, 11 Neb. 323. 588, 609, 619 Savage v. Johnson, 125 Ala. 673 64 Savage v. Knight, 92 N. C. 493. 576, 581 Savage v. Murphy, 3 N. Y. 508 270 Savage v. Murphy, 8 Bosw. (N. Y.) 75 585 Savage v. Murphy, 34 N. Y. 508 189, 194, 351, 563 Savage v. O'Neil, 44 N. Y. 298. 369 Savannah Bank v. Planters' Bank, 22 Ga. 466 458 Savits V. Speck, 21 Pa. Super. Ct. 608 963 Sawtelle v. Weymouth, 14 Wash. 21 723, 740 Sawyer v. Almand, 89 Ga. 314. 722 Sawyer v. Bradshaw, 125 111. 440 238, 318, 960 Sawyer v. Harrison, 43 Minn. 297 846 Sawyer v. Levy, 162 Mass. 190. 460, 470 Sawyer v. Linton, 23 Grant Ch. (U. 0.) 43 758, 859 Sawyer v. Moyer, 109 111. 461. 579, 981 Sawyer v. Nichols, 40 Me. 212. 521, 990 Sawyer v. Shaw, 9 Me. 47 35 Table of Oases. CCXXl Sawyer v. Turpin, 91 U. S. 114. 1084, 1093, Sawyers v. Langford, 68 Ky. 539 Sax V. Wilkeraon, 6 Kan. App. 203 Saxton V. Sebring, 96 App. Div. (N. Y.) 570 Saxton V. Seiberling, 48 Ohio St. 554 Sayre v. Flouraoyj 3 Ga. 541 . . 148, Sayre v. Fredericks, 16 N. J. Eq. 205 6, 337, 627, Sayers v. Texas Land, etc., Co., 78 Tex. 244 Scales V. Scott, 13 Cal. 76 Scandinavian Sveas Benev. Soc. V. Linquist, 133 Mich. 91 Scanlan v. Murphy, 51 Minn. 536 762, 764, 843, Scarborough v. Hilliard (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 231.. .. 462, Scarf V. Soulby, 19 L. J. Oh. (Eng.) 30 "Schaefer Brewing Co. v. Moebs, 187 Mass. 571 Rohaeffer v. Fithian, 17 Ind. 463 Schaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 565 26, 30, 203, 778, Sohaffer v. Boldsmeier, 107 Mo. 314 Schaffner v. Eeuter, 37 Barb. 44 Schaible v. Ardner, 98 Mich. 70. 201, 586, Schall V. Weil, 103 Ala. 411... 904, Schatz V. Kirker, 17 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 43 Schaungut v. Udell, 93 Ala. 302 255, 259, Schawaoker v. Ludingfcon, 77 Mo. App. 415 547, 594, Scheel v. Lackner, 4 Neb. (Unofif.) 221 164, Sehemerhorn v. DeChanibrun, 64 Fed. 195 Sehemerhorn v. Merrill, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 511 Schenok v. Barnes, 156 N. Y. 316 90, 136, 137, 422, Schenck v. Hart, 32 N. J. Eq. 774 212, Sehettler v. Brunette, 7 Wis. 197 .Seheuer v. Book, etc., Co., 7 Am. B. E, 384 PAGE PAGE Seheuer v. Smith, 7 Am. B. R. 1158 384 1085, 1100, 1108 Schideler v. Fisher, 13 Colo. 827 App. 106 458 Schilling v. Curran, 30 Mont. 919 370 ...1127, 1133 Schlesinger v. Kansas City, 1126 etc., R. Co., 39 Fed. 741 342 Schidlower v. McCafferty, 85 54 App. Div. (N. Y.) 493 990 Schloss V. Estey, 114 Mich. 429 979 149 Schloss V. McGuire, 102 Ala. 626 457, 471, 511 879 Sehmelz v. Michelson, 8 Ohio Deo. 538 213 59 Sehmick v. Connellee, 26 S. W. 334 (Tex.) 738 998 Schmiek v. Noel, 72 Tex. 1 . . . . 976 894, 927. 944. 951, 1004 Schmidt v. Opie, 33 N. J. Eq. 847 138 266. 595, 627 Schmilovitz v. Bernstein, 47 Atl. 884 1145 495 Sehmitt v. Dahl, 88 Minn. 506. 180 Sehmitt v. Dahl, U Am. B. R. 264 226 1133 Schneider v. Lee (Or.), 17 Pac. 354 269 755 356 Schneider v. Patton, 174 Mo. 684 143,172,820,866, 867 825 1017, 1024 Schofield V. Blind, 33 Iowa, 175. 952 166 Schoiield v. McConnell, 119 365 Mass. 368 449 Sohofield V. Ute Coal, etc., Co., 913 92 Fed. 269 763. 771, 772 794, 795", 796, 805 941 Scholey v. Worcester, 4 Hun, 302 (N. Y.) 211 231 Schondler v. Wace, 1 Camp. 487 120 122 1003 School Trustees v. Mason, 13 n! E. 235 582 597 Schoonmaker v. Verwalen, 9 Hun (N. Y.), 138 519 165 Schoonover v. Foley, 94 N. W. (Iowa) 492 ^ 311 649 Schott V. Chancellor, 20 Pa. St. 195 557 876 Schott V. Hudson, 109 U. S. 477 1208 Schott V. Machamer, 54 Neb. 423 514 393, 897 Schram v. Taylor, 51 Kan. 547 632 314, 459, 471, 487 491, 580, 601, 604 177 Schreck v. Hanlon, 66 Neb. 451 279 Schreeder v. Werry, 73 N. E. 1071 (Ind.) 832 366, 367 CCXXll Table of Oases. Schrenkeisen v. Miller, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,480 258 Scbreyer v. Scott, 134 U. S. 405 78, 138, 189, 190, 352, 862 Schreyer v. Piatt, 134 U. S. 405 180, 295, 350 Schrider v. Tighe, 38 Neb. 394. 1053 Schroeder v. Bobbitt, 108 Mo. 289 228, 460, 473 Schroeder v. Kisselbach, 5 Ohio Dec. 3 662 Schroeder v. Mason, 25 Mo. App. 190 594, 618 Schroeder v. Pratt, 21 Utah, 176 640, 657 Schroeder v. Walsh, 120 111. 403 225, 389, 392, 395 458, 469, 491, 555 579, 892, 925, 948, 952 Schuberth v. Schillo, 76 111. App. 356 373, 385, 508 Sehultz V. Brown, 3 Ohio Cir. Ct. 609 435, 670, 721, 728 Schurtz V. Howell, 30 N. J. Eq. 418 789 Sehultz V. Header, 69 111. App. 295 526 Sehultz V. Sehultz (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 56 202, 1012 Schultze V. Sohultze (Tex. Civ. App. ) , 66 S. W. 56 . . 172, 435, 686 Schultz's Appeal, 1 Pa. St. 258 1027 Schumacher v. Bell, 164 111. 181 913 Schumacher v. Connolly, 75 Cal. 282 534 Schumaker v. Bell, 164 111. 181 395 Schuman v. FlicIcenS'tein, Fed. Cas. No. 12,826 1172 Schuman v. Peddicord, 50 Md. 560 572, 639 Scliuster & Co. v. Stout, 30 Kan. 529 201 Schuster v. Bauman Jewelry Co., 79 Tex. 179 109, 110 Schuster v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 206 706, 987 Schuster v. Kurtz, 47 Kan. 255 996 Schwab V. Owens, 11 Mont. 473 1010 Schwab V. "Woods, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 433 529, 541, 990 Schwabacher v. Leibrook, 48 La. 821 715 Schwalber v. Ehman, 62 N. J. Eq. 314 632, 634 Schwartz v. Barley, 142 Ala. 439 198 PAGE- Schwartz v. Hazlett, 8 Cal. 118 380 Schwartz, Rosenbaum & Co. v. Barley, 142 Ala. 439 874 Schwartz v. Saunders, 46 111. 18 105 Scoble V. Henson, 12 U. C. C. P. 65 657 Scofield V. Spaulding, 54 Hun (N. Y.), 523 407 Scoggin V. Schloath, 15 Or. 380 293, 691, 973 Scott V. Alford, 53 Tex. 82... 554, 996 Scott V. Aultman Co., 211 111. 612 798, 824 Scott V. Brown, 106 Ala. 604.. 239 Scott V. Burnham, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 234 819 Scott V. Coleman, 21 Ky. 73 . . 1035 Scott V. Davis, 117 Ind. 232.. 583 Scott V. Devlin, 89 Fed. 970... 1235 Scott V. Hartman, 26 N. J. Eq. 89 200, 243, 403, 435 Scott V. Heilager, 14 Pa. St. 238 945 Scott Hardware Co. v. Riddle, 84 Mo. App. 275 314, 460, 497 Scott V. Indianapolis Wagon Works, 48 Ind. 75 20, 100, 101, 761, 832, Scott V. Keane, 87 Md. 709 .. . 195, 424 Scott V. Magloughlin, 133 111. 33 202 Scott V. McDaniel, 67 Tex. 315 462 Scott V. McMillen, 1 Litt. (Ky.) 302 787 Scott V. Mead (D. C), 37 Fed. 865 275 Scott V. Moore, 4 111. 306 1039 Scott V. Neely, 140 U. S. 106 . . 773, 779, 846 Scott V. Powers, 25 Ky. L. Kep. 1640 966 Scott V. Purcell, 7 Blackf . 66 . . 631, 721, 723 Scott V. Rowland, 82 Va. 484. . 39, 703 Scott V. Scott, 85 Ky. 385.. 67, 734 Scott V. Thomas, 104 Va. 330. . 6 Scott V. Thomas (Va.), 51 S. E. 829 1015 Scott V. Wallace, 27 Ky. 654.. 796 Scott V. Winship, 20 Ga. 429. . 35, 78, 231, 244, 520 Scoville V. Halladay, 16 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 43 738, 805- Table of Cases. CCXXlll PAGE Scraggs V. Hill, 43 W. Va. 162. 833 Screven v. Bostick, 2 MeCord Eq. (S. C.) 410 771 Scrivenor v. Scrivenor, 7 B. Mon. (Ky.) 374 252, 560 Serevenor v. Screvenor, 46 Ky. 374 563 Scripps V. Crawford, 123 Mich. 173 59, 460, 476 Scripps V. King, 103 111. 469 .. . 804 Scudder v. Atwood, 55 Mo. App. 512 650 Scudder v. Morris, 107 Mo. App. 634 187 Scudder v. Payton, 65 Mo. App. 314 418, 434, 445 Scudder v. Voorhis, 7 N. Y. Super. Ct. 271 826 Scully v. Albers, 89 Mo. App. 118 525, 1003 Scully V. Kearns, 14 La. Ann. 436 736 Scully V. Kirkpatrick, 79 Pa. St. 324 1071 Seaboard Steel Casting Co. v. Trigg Co., 10 Am. B. E. 594. 1103 Seager v. Armstrong, 95 Minn. 414 851, 862 Seager v. Aughe, 97 Ind. 285. . 861 Seals V. Pheiffer, 77 Ala. 278 . . 702 Seals V. Robinson, 75 Ala. 363 . 190, 347, 862 Seaman v. Bisbee, 163 111. 91 . . 920 Seaman v. Fleming, 7 Kich. Eq. 283 301 Seaman v. Hasbrouck, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 151 306, 308 Seaman v. STolen, 68 Ala. 463 . . 518 Seaman v. Wall, 54 How. Prac. (N. Y.) 47 328 Seamans v. White, 8 Ala. 656 . . 231, 354 Searcy v. Carter, 36 Tenn. 271 . 707 Searcy v. Gwaltney, 30 Tex. Civ. App. 158 910, 917 Searing v. Berry, 58 Iowa, 20 203, 979, 1014 Searles v. Little, 153 Ind. 432. 856 Sears v. Davis, 40 Or. 236 406 Sears v. Hanks, 14 Ohio St. 298 92, 162 Sears v. Eobinson, 61 Iowa, 745 398 Seasongood v. Ware, 104 Ala. 212 899, 974 Seavey v. Dearborn, 19 N. H. 351 950, 961 Seavey v. Walker, 108 Ind. 78. PAGE 520, 538, 546, 958, 960, 961 Seaving v. Brinkerhoff, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 329.. 48, 638 Seay v. Hesse, 123 Mo. 450... 114 Sebring v. Brickley, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 198.. 120, 128, 386, 408 Sebring v. Wellington, 6 Am. B. R. 671 1165 Sechler Carriage Co. v. Dryden, 71 111. App. 583 538, 556 Second Nat. Bank v. Brady, 96 Ind. 498 83 Second Nat. Bank v. Farr (N. J. Ch.), 7 Atl. 892 840 Second Nat. Bank v. Gilbert, 174 111. 485 528, 546 Second Nat. Bank v. Merrill, 81 Wis. 151 114, 286, 582 Second Nat. Bank v. O'Rourke, 40 N. J. Eq. 92 972 Second Nat. Bank v. Yeatman, 53 Md. 443 36, 439 Secor v: Sounder, 95 Ind. 95 . . 356 Security Warehousing Co. v. Hand (C. C. A.), 16 Am. B. R. 49 1124 Sedgwick v. Place, 25 L. T. Rep. N. S. 307. .340, 347, 721, 985 Sedgwick v. Place, 5 Ben. (U. S.) 184 1130, 1138, 1139 Sedgwick v. Stanton, 14 N. Y. 295 23 Sedgwick v. Tucker, 90 Ind. 271 358, 927, 1000, 1001 Sedgwick v. Wormser, Fed. Cas. No. 12,626 1131 Seed V. Jennings, 83 Pac. (Ore.) 872 180, 188, 200, 340, 349 Seeders v. Allen, 98 111. 468 . . 138, 579 Seeds v. Kahler, 76 Pa. St. 262 898 Seekel v. Winch, 108 Iowa, 102 299 Seeleman v. Hoagland, 19 Colo. 231 883 Seger v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 635. 245, 256, 229, 333, 479, 504, 572 Seller v. Walz, 100 Ky. 105 .. . 332, 510, 973 Seitz V. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580 105, 878, 879, 896 Seitz V. Rennig, Lehigh Val. L. Rep. (Pa.) 130 409 Seivers v. Dickover, 101 Ind. 495 695 Seixas v. King, 39 La. Ann. 510 823 Seligman v. Wilson, 1 Tex. Civ. •ccxxiv Table op Cases. PAGE App. Cas., sec. 895 665 Seligaon v. Brown, 61 Tex. 180 504, 1003 Sell V. Bailey, 119 Ind. 51. .278, 806 Sell V. West, 125 Mo. 621 641 Sellers v. Bailey, 29 Mo. App. 174 588 Sellers v. Bryan, 17 N. C. 358. 461 Sellers v. Hayes, 163 Ind. 422. 618 Selz V. Belden, 48 Iowa, 451.. 928 Selz V. Evans, 6 111. App. 466 . . 429 Selz V. Hocknell, 62 Neb. 101.. 172 Selz V. Hocknell, 63 Neb. 503 . . 572, 678, 800, 970 Semmes v. Underwood, 64 Ark. 415 191 Semmens v. Walters, 55 Wis. 675 898, 899, 908 Semple v. Fletcher, 3 Mart. N. S. (La.) 382 808 Sentell v. Hewitt, 49 La. Ann. 1021 468 Senter v. Williams, 61 Ark. 189 827 Serfoss v. Fisher, 10 Pa. St. 184 i5, 46 Servis v. Nelson, 14 N. J. Eq. 94 640, 658, 662 Servos v. Tobin, 2 U. C. Q. B. 530 45, 53 Sessions v. Little, 9 N. H. 271 . 87 Sessions v. Eomadka, 145 U. S. 29 1200 Severin v. Kueckerick, 62 Wis. 1 418, 421, 426 Severs v. Dodson, 53 N. J. Bq. 633 181, 206, 337 Sevier v. Allen, 80 Mo. App. 187 986 Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 406 263, 264, 290, 295 335, 337, 377, 382 Sewall V. Russell, 2 Paige (N. Y.), 175 819 Sewell V. Baxter, 2 Md. Ch. 447 265, 902 Sewall V. Glidden, 1 Ala. 52 . . 15, 16, 93, 533 Sexey v. Adkinson, 34 Cal. 346 177, 955 Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo. 373 460, 494, 594, 942 Sexton v. Martin, 37 111. App. 537 114 Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 229 41, 131, 186, 190, 192, 219 244, 328, 347, 848 PAGE Seymour v. Briggs, 11 Wis. 196 382 Seymour v. O'Keefe, 44 Conn. 128 552 Seymour v. Wilson, 16 Barb. 294 204 Seymour v. Wilson, 19 N. Y. 418 14, 22, 290, 310, 313, 456, 593 Seymour v. Wilson, 14 N. Y. 567 927, 928 Shackleford v. Todhunter, 4 111. App. 271 160, 179 Shadburne v. Amonette, 7 La. Ann. 89 392 Shaeffer v. Sheppard, 54 Ala. 244 106 Shaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 565 240 Shaffer v. Knox, 7 Kan. App. 182 1026 Shaffer v. Martin, 25 App. Div. (N. Y.) 501 331 Shaffer v. Mink, 60 Iowa, 754. . 892 Shaffer v. Ehynders, 116 Iowa, 472 892 Shatter v. Watkins, 7 Watts & S. (Pa.) 219 418, 435 Shainwald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. 766 101, 1042 Shakely v. Guthrie, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 414 299 Shallcross v. Deats, 43 N. J. L. 177 45, 638, 639 Shand V. Hanley, 71 N. Y. 319. 6, 85, 189, 347, 700, 1030 Shannon v. Commonwealth, 8 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 444 424, 431 Shannon v. Hanks, 86 Va. 338 1047, 1048 Shapiro v. Paketz, Oh. App. (Tenn.) 59 S. W. 774 182, 206, 247, 960, 966 Sharff V. Hayes, 110 N. W. 24. 358 Sharon v. Shaw, 2 Nev. 289 546 Sharp V. Carroll, 66 Wis. 62.. 523, 541 Sharp V. Congregational Pub. Co., 2 Pa. Co. Ct. 620 557 Sharpe v. Davis, 76 Ind. 17 . . 212, 213, 207, 635 Sharp V. Hicks, 94 Ga. 624 233, 267, 353, 754 Sharp V. Philadelphia Ware- house Co., 10 Fed. 379 . ... 293 Sharp V. Wickliffe, 13 Ky. 10. 956 Shattock V. Shattock, L. R. 2 Eq. 182 144 Table of Cases. ccxxv Shatz V. Kirker, 1 Pa. Cas. 332 353 Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U. S. 607 528, 612, 940, 1003 Sbaul V. Harrington, 54 Ark. 305 536, 567 Shaver v. Brainard, '29 Barb. (N. Y.) 25 819 Shaver v. Shaver, 35 App. Div. (N. Y.) 1 1, 123 Shaw v. Dwight, 27 N. Y. 249 793 Shaw V. Jeffery, 3 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1 633 Shaw V. Manchester, 84 Iowa, 246 356, 885, 979 Shaw V. Millsaps, 50 Miss. 380 177, 634, 734 Shaw V. Shaw, 15 Ky. u Rep. 592 510, 874 Shaw V. Tracy, 83 Mo. 224 727 Shaw V. Wilkshire, 65 Me. 485 560 Shawano County Bank v. Koep- pen, 78 Wis. 533 84, 161 Shay V. vVheeler, 69 Mich. 254 232, 355 Shea V. Hynes, 89 Minn. 423 . . 895 Sheafe v. Sheafe, 40 N. H. 516 784, 804 Shealy v. Edwards, 78 Ala. 176 610, 906, 950 Shealy v. Edwards, 15 Ala. 411 224, 261, 393, 457 Shean v. Shay, 42 Ind. 375.. 200, 239 Shearman V. Bingham, Fed. Cas. No. 12,733 12U Shears v. Rogers, 3 B. & Ad. 362 92, 336 Sheble v. Bryden, 114 Pa. 147. 428 SIheboygan Boot, etc., Co. v. Miller, 99 Wis. 527 958 Shedd V. Bank of Brattleboro, 32 Vt 709 . . . 319 Sheflfer v. Hines, 149 Ind. 413 . . 849 Sheffield v. Parker, 96 Ga. 774. 1048 Sheldler v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 105 298 Sheldon v. Dodge, 4 Den. (N. Y. 217 983 Sheldon v. Keokuk Northern Line Packet Co., 8 Fed. 769 833, 836 Sheldon v. Mann, 85 Mich. 265 76, 78, 460, 492 Sheldon v. Parker, 11 Am. B. R. 152 1183, 1203, 1235 Sheldon v. Parker, 66 Neb. 610 680, 971, 1025 o PAOE Sheldon v. Warner, 26 Mich. 403 545 Shell V. Boyd, 32 S. C. 359 .. . 790 Shelley v. Nolen (Tex. Civ. App.), 88 S. W. 524 1133 Shelley v. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74.. 460, 501, 588, 594 Shelton v. Church, 38 Conn. 416 231 Shelton v. Blake, 115 111. 275. . 959, 960 Sbepard v. Ostertag, 106 Wis. 82 952 Shepard v. Pratt, 32 Iowa, 296 278 Shepard v. Fish, 78 111. App. 198 307 Shepherd v. First Nat. Bank, 16 Mont. 24 397, 955 Shepnerd v. Reeves, 114 Ala. 281 959, 968 Shepherd v. Trigg, 7 Mo. 151. . 527 Shepherd v. Woodfolk, 78 Tenn. 593 696 Sneppard v. Iverson, 12 Ala. 97 436, 439, 760, 761 Sheppard v. Sheppard, 10 N. J. L. 250 49, 929 Sheppard v. Thomas, 24 Kan. 780 195 Sherazee v. Shoastry, 6 Moore (Ind. App.), 27 700 Sherk v. Endress, 3 Watts & S. (Pa.) 255 632 Sherman v. Barrett, 1 McMul. (S. C.) 147 24 Sherman v. Bingham, Fed. Cas. No. 12,762 1210 Sherman v. Davis, 137 Mass. 132 67, 737 Sherman v. Hogland, 73 Ind. 472.... 224, 275, 290, 398, 585, 850 Sherman v. Luckhardt, 11 Am. B. E. 26 1126, 1130 Sherrou v. Humphreys, 14 N. J. L. 217 522 Slherwin v. Gaghagen, 39 Neb. 238 235, 316 Shioler v. Hartley, 201 Pa. St. 286 44, 571 Shideler v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 106 599, 625 Shidlovsky v. Grorman, 51 App. Div. 253 593 Shields v. Keys, 24 Iowa, 298. 147, 148 Shields v. Lewis, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 842 116 Shields v. Mahoney, 94 Va. 487 598 CCXXVl Table of Cases. FAOB Shields v. Ord, Oiv. App. (Tex.) 51 S. W. 298 177 Shipo V. Kepass, 28 Gratt. (Va.) 716 162 Shipman v. Aetna Ins. Co., 29 Conn. 245 203 Shipman v. Seymour, 40 Mich. 274 926 Shipp V. Hibler, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 47 196 Shirley v. Long, 6 Rand. 735 . . 204, 561 Shirley v. Shields, 8 Blaekf. (Ind.) 273 773, 957 Shiveley v. Jones, 45 Ky. 274 85, 184, 206 Shober v. Wheeler, 113 N. C. 370 232,355, 951 SIhoemaJier v. Cake, 83 Va. 5.. 2 Shoemake v. Finlayson, 22 Wash. 12 633, 646 Shoeonaker v. Hastings, .61 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 79 . . . 415, 419 Shoemaker v. Katz, 74 Wis. 374 582 Sihoe Mfg. Co. V. Billings (Or.), 80 Pac. 422 1133 Shontz V. Brown, 27 Pa. 123.. 266 Shonts V. Brown, 27 Pa. St. 123 182 Shores v. Doherty, 65 Wis. 153 908 Short V. Hepburn, 75 Fed. 113. 1002 Short V. Tinsley, 1 Mete. 397 . . 330 Short V. Tinsley, 58 Ky. 397.. 459, 520, 564, 691, 692 Shortel v. Young, 23 Neb. 408 39, 110 Shorten v. Drake, 38 Ohio St. 76 725 Shorten v. Woodi-ow, 34 Ohio St. 645 36 Shorter v. Methoin, 52 Ga. 225 397 Shotwell V. McElhinney, 101 Mo. 677 . . 964 Showman v. Lee, 86 Mich. 556 227, 236, 317, 333, 979 Shreek v. Hanlon (Neb.), 104 N. W. 193 787 Shreok v. Hanlon, 66 Neb. 451 336 Shreve v. Miller, 29 N. J. L. 250 522 Shryock v. Latimer, 57 Tex. 674 369 Shufeldt V. Boehm, 96 111. 560 773, 843, 1045 Shultz V. Hoagland, 85 N. Y. 464 91 Shultz V. Morgan, 27 La. Ann. 616. . .232, 355, 588, 703, 705, 707 Shumaker v. Davidson, 116 Iowa, 569 PAGE 57, 58, 171, 612, 669, 671, 952 Shumway v. Rutter, 24 Mass. 56 518, 521, 548, 552, 635 Shumway v. Rutter, 7 Pick. (Mass.) 56 533 Shur V. Slater, 2 Ohio Dec. 70. 588 Shurmur ^. Sedgwick, 24 Ch. Div. (Bng.) 597 215 Shurtleff v. Willard, 36 Mass. 202 521, 550 Shute V. Harder, 9 Tenn. 3.. 752, 753 Sibley V. Hood, 3 Mo. 290 526 Sibley v. Nason (Mass.), 81 N. E. 87 1179 Sibley v. Stacey, 53 W. Va. 292 1027 Sibley v. Tutt, 1 McMul. Eq. (S. C) 320 361 Sibthorp v. Moxom, 3 Atk. 580 60, 102 Sickman v. Abernathy, 14 Col. 174 84, 211, 703 Sickman v. Lapsley, 13 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 224 640 Sickman v. Wilhelm, 130 Ind. 480 1007 Sidensparker v. Sidensparker, 52 Me. 481 299, 382, 434, 449, 832 Sides V. Sohartf, 93 Ala. 106.. 824, 860, 971 Siedenbaoh v. Riley, 111 N. Y. 560 519, 567, 910 Sieling v. Clark, 18 Miac. Rep. (N. Y.) 464 573 Sievers v. Martin, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 904 274 Sigler V. Knox County Bank, 8 Ohio St. 511 272 Sikking v. Fromm, 112 Ky. 773 897 Sliberstein v. Stahl, 4 Ajn. B. R. 626 1163 Silliek V. Mason, 2 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 79 134 Silliman v. Haas, 151 Pa. St. 52 839, 972 Silloway v. Columbia Ins. Co., 74 Mass. 199 815 Silver v. Lee, 38 Or. 508 753 iSilvis V. Oltmann, 53 111. App. 392 1004 Silvers v. Potter, 48 N. J. Eq. 539 386, 508, 509 Silverman's Case, 2 Abb. (U. S.) 243 1069, 1072, 1073 Silverman v. Greaser, 27 W. Va. 550 188, 189, 1057 Silver Valley Min. Co. v. North. Table of Cases. CCXXVll PAGE Carolina Smelting Co. 119 N. C. 417 276 Silvey v. Tift, 17 Am. B. R. 9 1195, 1196 Simerson v. Branch Bank, 12 Ala. 205 557 Simmons v. Biggs, 99 N. C. 236 123 Simmons v. Goldbaeh, 56 Hun (N". y.), 204 596 Simmons v. Ingram, 60 Miss. 886 . . . .37, 85, 136, 193, 350, 822 Simmons v. Johnson, 48 Hun (N. Y.), 131 968 Simmons v. Shelton, 112 Ala. 284 578, 617 Simmons Clothing Co. v. Davis, 3 Ind. T. 374 997 Simmons Hardware Co. v. Pfeil, 35 Mo. App. 256 990 Simms v. Lloyd, 58 Md. 477.. 864 Simms v. Morse, 2 Fed. 325 . . 457, 617, 722, 896 Simms v. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181. 141 Simms v. Tidwell, 98 Ga. 686. 458, 513 Simon v. Ash, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 202 333, 508, 685 Simon v. Ellison, 22 S. E. 860. 199 Simon V. Levy, 36 Fla. 438. .84, 211 Simon v. McDonald, 85 Tex. 237 33 Simon v. Norton, 56 Mo. App. 338 , 291 Simon v. Sabb, 56 S. C. 38 825 Simon-Gregory Dry Goods Co. v. • Schooley, 66 Mo. App. 406. . . 581, 615 Simon's Estate, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 450 640, 658 Simons v. Bushy, 119 Ind. 13. . 1021 Simons v. Daly (Ida.), 72 Pao. 507 541, 990 Simons v. Goldbaeh, 56 Hun (N. Y.), 204 72,333, 587 Simons v. Morse, 2 Fed'. 325. . . 616 Simonson v. Burr, 121 Ual. 582 168 Simonton v. Davis, 4 Strob. Eq. (S. C.) 133 54 Simpson v. Graves, Eiley Eq. (S. C.) 232 324 Simpson v. Millsj 12 La. Ann. 173 187, 736 Simpson v. Mitchell, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 417 72, 523, 555 Simpaon v. Simpson, 26 Tenn. 275 172, 680, 722 Simpson v. Van Etten, 6 Am. B. K. 204 1142 Simpson v. Warren, S5 Me. 18. Simpson v. Westenberger 28 Kan. 756 Sims v. Albea, 72 6a. 751 Sims V. Gaines, 64 Ala. 397 .. . 20, 33, 90, 135, 251, 435, 440, Sims V. Gray, 93 Iowa, 38 834, 835, Sims V. Moore, 74 Iowa, 497 . . Sims V. Phillips, 54 Ark. 193.. Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181 .. . 398, 400, Sims V. Thomas, 9 L. J. O. B 399 Sims V. Walsham: 9 Ky. L Rep. 912 Sinclair v. Healy, 40 Pa. St 417 Singer v. Jacobs, 11 Fed. 559. 587, Smger v. National Bedstead Mfg. Co., 11 Am. B. R. 276.. Singer, Baer & Co. v. Jacobs, 11 Fed. 559 Singer Mfg. Co. v. Stephen's, 169 Mo. 1 ^.56o; Singree v. Welch, 32 Ohio St. 320 Sinuickson v. Painter, 32 Pa. St. 384 Sinsheimer v. Simonson, 5 Am. B. R. 537 Sipe V. Earman, 26 Grat. (Va.) 563 241 523 Sipley V. Wass, 49 N. J. Eq! 463 _ Sisson V. Roath, 30 Conn, is ! . 579, Sivier V. Allen, 80 Mo. App. 187 _. Skeele v. Stanwood, 33 Me. 307. Skellie v. James, 81 Ga. 419 . . Skewis V. Barthell, 18 Am B. R. 429 1206, 1213, Skiles V. Houston, 110 Pa. St. 248 Skiles V. Nauman, 2 Lane. L. Rev. (Pa.) 145 Skillen v. Endelman, 39 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 261 1126, Skilton V. Coddington, 185 N. Y. 80 1116, 1119, 1135, Skinner v. Jennings, 137 Ala. 295 151, Skinner v. Judson, 8 Conn. 528. Skipper v. Reeves, 93 Ala. 332. 952, PAGE 203 044 195 433 572 837 972 151 51S lOtt 155 721 623 1071 612 668 358 747 1216 1031 709 618 597 774 397 1220 701 701 1205 1124 1221 157 1039 953 CCXXVlll Table of Oases. PAGE Skipworth v. Cunningham, 8 Leigh (Va.) 271 463, 464 Skowhegan Bank v. Cutler, 49 Me. 315 4, 27, 872, 1055, 1056 1059, 1060 Slack V. Gibbs, 14 Vt. 357 1059 Slagel V. Hoover, 137 Ind. 314. 626, 851, 886 Slater v. Dudley, 35 Mass. 373. 382 Slater v. Moore, 86 Va. 26 971 Slater v. Sherman, 68 Ky. 206. 19, 201 Slattery v. Stewart, 45 111. 293. 599, 619 Slayden-Kirksey Woolen Mills V. Anderson, 66 Ark. 419 .... 959, 966 Sleeper v. Chapman, 121 Mass. 404 915 Sleeper v. Pollard, 28 Vt. 709. . 546 Slessinger v. Topkis, 1 Marv. (Del.) 140.... 458, 474, 582, 593 ^lingluff V. Hall, 124 N. C. 397. 970 Sloane v. Hunter, 56 S. C. 385. 462, 474, 480, 510, 557, 818, 977 Sloan V. Thomas Mfg. Co., 58 Neb. 713 986 Sloan V. Torry, 78 Mo. 623... 711, 712 Sloan V. Whalen, 15 U. 0. C. P, 319 43 Sloan V. Wherry, 51 Neb. 703 . . 924 Slusher v. Simpkinson, 101 Ky. 594 827, 871 Sly V. Bell (Iowa), 108 N. W. 227 459, 505 Small V. Muller, 8 Am. B. R. 448 1222 Smalley v. Lawrence, 9 Bob. (La.) 210 922 Smalley v. Mass, 72 Iowa, 171. 411, 797 Smart v. Haring, 14 Hun (N. Y.), 276 - 359 Smart v. Harring, 52 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 505 375, 586 Smead v. Williamson, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 492 231, 256 Smethurst v. Thurston, Brightly (Pa.), 127 149 Smillie V. Quinn, 90 N. Y. 492. 122 Smiser v. Stevens-Wolford Co., 20 Ky. L. Rep. 501 818 Smit V. People, 15 Mich. 497 . . 1062, 1066 Smith V. Acker, 23 Wend. (N. Y.) 653 519 Smith V. A. J. Somers Mfg. Co., PAOB 69 111. App. 118 339 Smith V. Allen, 39 Miss. 469 .. . 152 Smith V. Allen, 87 Mass. 454.. 325 Smith V. AiiGres Township, 17 Am. B. R. 745 1157 Smith V. Babcoek, 3 Sumn. (U. S.) 583 871 Smith V. Belden, 6 Am. B. R. 432 1187 Smith V. Belford, 5 Am. B. R. 291 1215 Smith V. Bigelow, 99 N. W. (Iowa), 590 965 Smith V. Blake, 1 Day (Conn.), 258 756, 757 Smith V. Blank, 3 N. C. 229.. 418, 651, 658 Smith V. Bouquet, 27 Tex. 507. 53, 660 Smith V. Bowen, 3 N. C. 296 .. . 177 Smith V. Bowen, 3 N. C. 483. :. 651 Smith V. Bowen, 51 Neb. 245. . 317, 461 Smith V. Boyer, 29 Neb. 76 236 Smith V. Brookett, 69 Conn. 492 943 Smith V. Brown, 34 Mich. 455. 976 Smith V. Butcher, 28 Graft. (Va.) 144 1047 Smith V. Cahmpney, 50 Iowa, 174 565 Smith V. Chilton, 84 Va. 840 . . 640 Smith V. Crisman, 91 Pa. St. 428 530, 557 Smith V. Cockrell, 66 Ala. 64. . 760, 769 Smith V. Collins, 94 Ala. 394.. 276, 392, 511, 892, 914, 919 920 931, 934, 936, 954, 995, 998 1002, 1003 Smith V. Conkright, 28 Minn. 23 418, 434, 440., 506, 711 716, 1008 Smith V. Cook, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 487 897 Smith V. Cook, 39 Ga. 191 1046 Smith V. Craft, 123 U. S. 436 . . 430, 431, 433, 457, 465, 466 481, 502, 503, 527 Smith V. Cfoft, 12 Fed. 856 599 Smith V. Culbertson, 9 Rich. (S. C.) 106 201, 240, 243 Smith V. Curd, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 1960 778, 969 Smith V. Deidriek, 30 Minn. 60 460, 470 Smith V. Dobbins, 87 Ga. 303. 53, 55 Table of Cases. ccxxix PAGE Smith-Dimmick Lumber Co. v. Teague, 119 Ala. 385 823 Smith V. Elliott, 1 Pratt. & H. (Va.) 307 640, 641 Smith V. Ellison, 80 Ark. 447.. 97 Smith V. Ellison (Ark.), 97 S. W. 666 770 Smith V. Emerson, 43 Pa. St. 456 , 154 Smith V. Espy, 9 N. J. Eq. 160. 207 212 Smith V. Ford, 48 Wis. 115. . . .' 826 Smith V. 49-56 Quartz Min. Co., 14 Cal. 242 662 Smith V. Ft. Scott, etc., R. Co., 99 U. S. 398 773, 846 Smith V. Garland, 2 Meriv. 123. 640 Smith V. Gaylord, 47 Conn. 380. 187, 194, 195, 347 Smith V. Gibson, 1 Yeates (Pa.), 291 636 Smith V. Goodrich, 87 S. W. (Ark.) 125 965, 966 Smith V. Greer, 3 Humph. (Tenn.) 118 146 Smith V. Grimes, 43 Iowa, 356. 698 Smith V. Hahn, 130 N. Y. 694. 1051 Smith V. Hall, 19 Ky. L. Eep. 1662 S63 Smith V. Hall, 103 Ala. 235 418, 433, 658, 676 Smith V. Hardy, 36 Wis. 417 . . 486 Smith V. Heineman, 118 Ala. 195 620, 711 Smith V. Henry, 2 Bailey (S. C), 118 240, 523 Smith V. Henry, 1 Hill (S. C), 16 414, 416, 462, 523 Smith V. Hinson, 51 Tenn. 250. 70, 753 Smith V. Hubbs, 10 Me. 71 662 Smith V. Hunter, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,063 527 Smith V. Hurst, 10 Hare (Eng.), 30 186 Smith V. Hutchcraft, 2 Ky. L. Rep. 6 65, 649 Smith V. J. A. Sommers Mfg. Co., 69 HI. App. 230 373 Smith V. Jennings, 81 Mass. 69. 305 Smith V. Jensen, 13 Colo. 213 . . 907, 944, 979 Smith V. Jones, 63 Ark. 232 .... 87, 311, 519, 538 Smith V. Kaufman, 94 Ala. 364 616 Smith V. Kaufman, 100 Ala. 408 994 Smith V. Kehr, 2 Dill. (U. S.) 50 159, 1138 PAGE Smith V. Kelly, 56 Me. 64 874 Smith V. Kenny, 1 Mackey (D. C), 12 445 Smith V. Kinne, 19 Vt. 564... 1000, 1057 Smith V. Lane, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 205 140, 144 Smith V. Lasher, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 247 875 Smith V. Lee, 79 Mich. 465 973 Smith V. Little John, 2 McCord (S. C), 362 349 Smith V. Logan, 52 Neb. 585 . . 603 Smith V. Lowell. 6 N. H. 67. . . 441 Smith V. Mack, 94 Iowa, 539 .. . 305 Smith V. Mason, 81 U. S. ,419. . 1213 Smith V. McDonald, 25 Ga. 677. 563 Smith V. Millett, 12 R. I. 59. . . 774 Smith V. Missouri Valley L. Ins. Co., 4 Dill. (U. S.) 353.. . 124, 127 Smith V. Moffatt, 28 U. C. Q. B. 486 582, 627 Smith V. Montoya, 3 N. M. 39 . . 1000 Smith V. Muirhead, 34 N. J. Eq. 4. 6, 627, 807 Smith V. M'unroe, 1 App. Div. (N. Y.) 77 499, 502 Smith V. National R., etc.. Ex- position Assoc, 48 Mo. App. 462. 461 Smith V. Neufeld, 61 Neb. 699. 153 Smith V. Newlon, 62 Miss. 230. 751 Smith V. New York L. Ins. Co., 57 Fed. 133 28, 236 Smith V. Niel, 8 N. C. 341. .522, 986 Smith V. O'Brien, 57 N. J. L. 365 .... > . 332 Smith V. Onion, 19 Vt. 427... 251, 443 Smith V. Parker, 41 Me. 452 .. . 413 Smith V. Parry Mfg. Co., 9 Kan. App. 877 237, 973 Smith V. Pate, 3 S. C. 204 318, 583 Smith V. Patton, 194 lU. 638.. 102 Smith V. Pattison, 84 Md. 241. 613 Smith V. Perine, 49 Hun (N. Y.), 605 290, 295, 356 Smith V. Phelan, 40 Neb. 765 . . 605 Smith V. Post, 3 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 647 582 Smillie v. Quinn, 90 N. Y. 493. 151, 154 Smith V. Rankin, 45 Kan. 176. 307 Smith V. -Reavis, 29 N. C. 341.. 188, 269, 279 Smith V. Reid, 11 N. Y. Supp. 739 893 ccxxx Table of Cases. PAGr Smith V. Reid. 134 N. Y. 568.. 66, 68, 69, 206, 263, 338, 343 734, 735, 739, 740, 902 977, 978 Smith V. Riggs, 56 Iowa, 488.. 310 Smith V. Ringgold, Fed. Cas. No. 13,101 527 Smith V. Rogers, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala.) 317 957 Smith V. Rumsey, 33 Mich. 183. 206, 816 Smith V. Sands, 17 Neb. 498.. 685, 687 Smith V. Schmitz, 10 Neb. 600. 340, 344, 586 Smith V. Schwed, 9 Fed. 483.. 601 Smith V. Selz, 114 Ind. 229... 330, 847 Smith V. Seiberling, 35 Fed. 677 359 Smith V. Shermaji, 52 Mich. 637 871 Smith V. Skeary, 47 Conn. 47.. 458 SmaJl v. Small, 56 Kan. 1 254 Smith V. Smith, 11 N. H. 460. . 426, 449 Smith V. Smith, 11 N. H. 459. 274, 280, 299 Smith V. Smith, 21 Pa. 367 ... . 577 Smith V. Smith, 24 S. C. 304.. 376 Smith V. Cook, 10 App. Cas. (D. C.) 487 180 Smith V. Spencer, 73 Ala. 299. 306 Smith V. Summerfield, 108 N. C. 284 816, 847, 851 Smith V. Tarbox, 70 Me. 127 . . 944 Smith V. Tate, 30 Ind. App. 367 489, 850 Smith V. Tonstall, Garth. 3 756 Smith V. Toaini, 1 S. D. 632 . . . 37, 40, 898, 913, 929, 963, 966 Smith V. Utesch, 85 Iowa, 381. 972 Smith V. Van Olinda, 48 N. Y. 169 62, 63 Smith V. Vodges, 92 U. S. 183. 189, 351, 569, 1139 Smith V. Vreeland, 16 N. J. Eq. 198 337 Smith V. Waggoner, 50 Wis. 155 535 Smith V. Welch, 10 Wis. 91 . . . 523 Smith V. Wellborn, 75 Ga. 799. 240, 612, 914, 924 Smith V. Wells Mfg. Co., 148 Ind. 333 -....211, 212 Smith V. Whitfield, 67 Tex. 124 309, 462, 493, 595 Smith V. Whitman, 88 Mass. 562 959, 967 Smith V. Wood, 42 N. J. Eq. PAGE 563 731, 759, 768, 856 Smith V. Wright, 2 N. Brunsw. Eq. 528 511 Smith V. Wright, 6 Blackf. (Ind.) 550 756 Smith V. Yell, 8 Ark. 470 278, 283, 338, 344 Smitheal v. Gray, 20 Tenn. 491 763 Smitherman v. Allen, 59 N. C. 17 734, 760 Smiser v. Stevens-Wolford Co., 20 Ky. L. Rep. 501 691 Smock V. Jones, 11 Atl. (N. J.) 497 361 Smyth V. Carlisle, 17 N. H. 417 81, 192, 348, 441, 452, 918, 920 Smyth V. Hall, 126 Iowa, 627. . " 908, 854 Smyth V. Reber, 18 Atl. (N. J.) 462 362 Snapp V. Snapp, 87 Ky. 554. . . 160 Snapp V. Orr, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 355 67, 737 Snarr v. Waddell, 24 U. C. Q. B. 165 43 Snayberger v. Fahl, 195 Pa. St. 336 312, 461, 471, 495 498, 500, 581, 595, 996, 997 Snedeker v. Snedeker, 18 Hun (N. Y.), 355 206, 792 Snell V. Harrison, 104 Mo. 158 958, 960, 964 Snellgrave v. Evans, 40 So. (Ala.) 567 312 Snoddy v. Haskins, 12 Gratt. (Va.) 363 675 Snodgrass v. Andrews, 30 Miss. 472 641, 676, 765, 766 805, 811, 813, 824 Snodgrass v. Branch Bank, 25 Ala. 161 676, 864, 949 Snodgrass v. Decatur Branch Bank, 25 Ala. 161 179, 933 Snouffer v. Kinley, 96 Iowa, 102 75, 960 Snow V. Paine, 114 Mass. 520. . 580, 946 Snowball v. Neilson, 16 Can. Sup. Ct. 719... 964, 967 Snyder v. Berger, 3 Pa. Cas. 318 994, 996 Snyder v. Bougher, 16 Am. B. K. 792 1190 Snyder v. Christ, 39 Pa. St. 499 352 Snyder v. Christ, 39 Pa. St. 499 191, 195 Table of Cases. CCXXXl PAGE 'Snyder v. Dangler, 44 Neb. 600 522, 567, 588, 910 Snyder v. Free, 114 Mo. 360. . . 275, 342, 344, 377, 381 384, 572, 922, 976 ■Snyder v. Gee, 4 Leigh (Va.), 535 553 Snyder v. Grandstaflf, 96 Va. 473 323 Snyder v. Martin, 52 Ind. 434 . . 146 Snyder v. Partridge, 138 111. 173 217 Snvder v. Perger, 3 Pa. Gas. 318 947 Snyder v. Snyder, 51 Md. 77.. 639, 656 Sobernheimer v. Wheeler, 45 N. J. Eq. 614 768 Sockman v. Sockman, 18 Ohio, 362 1021 Soden v. Soden, 34 N. J. Eq. 115 182 Solberg v. Peterson, 27 Minn. 431 958 Solinger v. Earl, 82 N. Y. 393 . 649 Solinsky v. Lincoln Sav. Bank, 85 Tenn. 368 1024 Solomons v. Chesley, 58 N. H. 238 549 Solomon v. C. M. Schneider & Co., 56 Neb. 680 451 Solomon v. Smith, 16 Colo. 293 883 Solomon v. Sparks, 27 Ga. 385 473 Solomon v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 414 70 Solomon v. Wright, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 565 919, 922 Soly V. Aasen, 10 N. D. 108. . . 200, 967 Somers v. Pumphrey, 24 Ind. 231 719 Somers v. Smyth, 3 Desaus. (S. C.) 214 390 Sommer v. New York Blev. E. Co., 14 N. Y. Supp. 619 779 Sommermeyer v. Schwartz, 89 Wis. 66 232 Sommermeyer v. Sommer- meyer, 89 Wis. 66 696, 697 Sommers v. Cottentin, 26 App. Div. (N. Y.) 241... 537, 596, 625 Sommers v. Hamberger, 91 Wis. 107 640 Sommerville v. Horton, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 541 72, 555 Songer v. Partridge, 107 111. 529 269, 453, 650, 652 PAGE Sonnenschein v. Bantels, 41 Neb. 703 927, 1052 Sonnentheil v. Christian Moer- lein Brewing Co., 172 U. S. 401 9, 914, 978 Sonnentheil v. Texas Guar- anty, etc., Co., 10 Tex. Civ. App. 274. . .74, 608, 915, 926, 1004 Sonstiby v. Keeley, 11 Fed. 578 305 Sorrells v. Sorrells, 4 Ark. 296 720 South Alabama Oil, etc., Co. v. Garner, 112 Ala. 447 34 South Bend Iron Works Co. v. Duddleson, 27 N. E. (Ind.) 312 579, 946 South Branch Lumber Co. v. Stearns, 2 Ind. App. 7 520 South Omaha Nat. Bank v. Boyd (Ark. 1906), 97 N. W. 288 298 South Omaha Nat. Bank v. Chase, 30 Neb. 444 1051 Southard v. Benner, 72 N. Y. 424. . . 185, 203, 555, 772, 778, 844 Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 184 519, 554 Southern Bank v. Wood, 14 La. Ann. 554 67 Southern Dry Dock Co. v. Bayou Sara Packet Co., 24 La. Aim. 217 580 Southern Flour Co. v. Mclver, 109 N. C. 120 963, 964, 968 Southern Home Bldg., etc., Assoc. V. Riddle, 129 Ala. 562 897 Southern L. & T. Co. v. Ben- bow, 135 N. C. 303 992, 1001, 1072, 1073, 1221 Southern Lumber, etc., Co. v. Verdier (Fla.), 40 So. 676.. 897 Southern Pine Co. v. Savannah Trust Co. (C. C. A.), 15 Am. B. R. 618 1197 Southern White Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Iowa, 390. .473, 487, 490 Southern White Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Iowa, 399 459 Southwood V. Southwood, 98 S. W. (Ky.) 304 634 Sowles V. Witters, 55 Fed. 159 42, 44, 604 Spader v. Davis, 5 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 280 101, 117 Spalding v. Brown, 36 Or. 160. 617 Spalding v. Heideman, 96 III. App. 405 ; 458 Sparhawk v. Cloon, 125 Mass. CCXXXll Table of Oases. PAGE 263 134 Sparhawk v. Yerkes, 142 U. S. 1 1199 Sparkes v. Ponder, 94 S. W. (Tex.) 428 311 Sparks v. Colson, 109 Ky. 711. 409 Sparks v. Mack, 31 Ark. 666.. 413, 415, 433, 437, 457, 960 Sparrow v. Chesley, 19 Me. 79. 171, 721 Spaulding v. Adams, 63 Iowa, 437 257, 919, 922, 923 Spaulding v. Austin, 2 Vt. 555 304, 334, 482, 544 Spaulding v. Blythe, 73 Ind. 93 861 Spaulding v. Fisher, 57 Me. 411 100, 101, 757, 1055 Spaulding v. Keyes, 1 Silv. Sup. (N. Y.) 203 151, 155 Spaulding v. Keyes, 125 N. Y. 115 90, 944 Spaulding v. Myers, 64 Ind. 264 579, 855, 859, 861 Spaulding v. Strange, 37 N. Y. 135 456, 466 Spear v. Campbell, 5 111. 424.. 820 Spear v. Rood, 51 Mich. 140.. 303 Spears v. Shropshire, 11 La. Ann. 559 322 Spear v. Spear (Me. 1903), 54 Atl. 1106 8 Spear v. Spear, 97 Me. 498 299, 342, 339, 585 Spelman v. Freedman, 130 N. Y. 421 772, 842, 845 Spence v. Dunlap, 74 Tenn. 457 269 Spence v. Repass, 27 S. E. (Va.) 583 366 Spence v. Repass, 94 Va. 716.. 141, 398, 795 Spence v. Smith, 34 W. Va. 697 712, 905 Spencer v. Armstrong, 59 Tenn. 707 789 Spencer v. Ayrault, 10 N. Y. 202 311, 334 Spencer v. Broughton, 77 Conn. 38 , 526 Spencer v. Duplan Silk Co., 11 Am. B. R. 563 1181, 1209 Spencer v. Godwin, 30 Ala. 355 337, 711 Spencer v. Mugge (Fla.), 34 So. 271 620 Sperry v. Baldwin, 46 Hun (N. Y.), 120 945 Sperry v. Kain, 84 Iowa, 203 . . 1052 PAGE Sperry v. Haslam, 57 Ga. 412 . . 146, 149, 361 Spicer v. Ayers, 2 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 626 789 Spicer v. Ayers, 53 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 405 191, 249, 264, 278, 285 Spicer v. Hunter, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 4 825 Spicer v. Robinson, 73 111. 519 722 Spiegel V. Hays, 5 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 879 438 Spiegel V. Hayes, 118 N. Y. 660 1000, 1001 Spielman v. Knowles, 50 N. J. Eq. 796 196 Spiers v. Whitesell, 21 Ind. App. 204 . . . 299, 585 Spies v. Boyd, 1 E. D. Smith (N. Y.), 445 71 Spies V. Boyd, 11 N. Y. Leg. Obs. 54 439 Spindler v. Atkinson, 3 Md. 409 67, 648, 734, 738 Spindle v. Shreve, 111 U. S. 542 86, 134 Spinner v. Weick, 50 Ind. 213. 375, 586 Spirett V. Willows, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 450 349 Spirett V. Willows, 11 Jur. N. S. (Eng.) 70 280 Spitz V. Kerfoot, 42 Mo. App. 77 1044 Spivey v. Wilson, 31 La. Ann. 653 520, 563 Splawn V. Martin, 17 Ark. 146 583 Spofford V. Weston, 29 Me. 140 221 Spooner v. Hilbish, 92 Va. 333 209 Spooner v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 76 Minn. 311 95, 771, 799 Sporer v. Dale, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 611 34 Sporrer v. Eifler, 48 Tenn. 633 392 Spoors v. Cowen, 44 Ohio St. 497 813 Spotten V. Keeler, 12 St. Rep. 385 274, 340, 382, 412, 418, 528, 572 Sprague v. Benson, 101 Iowa, 678 64, 513 Sprague v. Gardiner, 5 S. D. 246 235 Sprague v. Graham, 29 Me. 160 200 Sprague v. Ryan, 11 S. D. 54. . . 681 Spratlin v. Colson, 80 Miss. 278 621 Spratt V. Early, 169 Mo. 357. 160, 967" Spricer v. Ayers, 53 How. Pr. Table of Cases. CCXXXlll PAGE (N. Y.) 405 178 Spring Lalce Ins. Co. v. Waters, 50 Mich. 13 580 Springer v. Bigford, 160 111. 495 179, 187 Springer v. Drosch 32 Ind. 486 642, 656 Springer v. Kruger, 3 Colo. App. 487 949 Springfield Grocery Co. v. Thomas, 3 Ind'. T. 330 791, 797, 1047 Springfield Homestead Assoc, v. EoU, 137 111. 205 631, 650, 653, 658 Sprogg V. Bichman, 28 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 409.. 117, 818, 824 Sproui V. Atchison Nat. Bank, 22 Kan. 336 169, 374 Spruek v. Logan, 97 Md. 152.. 16, 183, 188, 194, 434, 576, 626 Spurlock V. Mainer, 1 La. Ann. 301 371 Spurrier v. Haley, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 364 ■ 510 Squier v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 35 N. J. Eq. 344 42 Squires v. Riggs, 4 N. O. 253. . 220 St. Cyr. V. Daignault, 4 Am. B. R. 638 1143 Stacker v. Wilson (Tenn. Ch. App.), 52 S. W. 709 849 Staekhouse v. Holden, 66 App. Div. ( N. Y. ) 423 .... 255, 456, 547 Stacy V. Deshaw, 7 Hun (N. Y.),449 95,309, 918 Stadtler v. Wood, 24 Tex. 622 523, 530, 944 Stafford v. Lick, 7 Cal. 479... 560 Straight v. Roberts, 126 Ind. 383 , 597 Stainbrook v. Duncan, 45 111. App. 344 458 Staller v. Kirkpatrick, 1 Mona. (Pa.) 486 193, 349, 559, 990 Stam V. Smith, 183 Mo. 464. . 91, 97, 152, 160, 563, 947, 1051 Sitamlord Bank v. Ferris, 17 Conn. 259 936 Stamp V. Case, 41 Mich. 267.. 553 Stamy v. Laning, 58 Iowa, 662 691 Standard Implement Co. v. Parlin, etc., Co., 51 Kan. 632 473, 597 Standard Nat. Bank v. Garfield Nat. Bank, 70 App. Div. (N. Y.) 46 172, 726 Standard Varnish Works v. Haydoek (C. C. A.), 16 Am. B. R. 286 1196 Stange v. Graham, 56 Ala. 614 635 Stanley v. National Union Bank, 115 N. Y. 122 115 Stanley v. Eobbins, 36 Vt. 422 272, 383, 529 Stanley v. Schwalby, 162 U. S. 255 291, 292 Stanley v. Smith, 15 Or. 505 . . 1000 Standard Paper Co. v. Guenther, 67 Wis. 101 253 Stanton v. Crane, 25 Nev. 114. . 138, 295 Stanton v. Embry, 46 Conn. 595 788 Stanton v. Green, 34 Miss. 576 460, 661, 663, 823, 875, 877, 912 Stanton v. Keyes, 14 Ohio St. 443 17, 1036 Stanton v. Kirseh, 6 Wis. 338. 898 Stanton v. Shaw, 62 Tenn. 12. 83, 143, 653, 668 Staples V. Bradley, 23 Conn. 167 212, 737 Staples V. Smith, 48 Me. 470.. 925 Stapleton v. Brannan, 102 Wis. 26 418, 426 Starin v. Kelly, 88 N. Y. 418. . 5, 14, 493, 614, 578, 909, 945 Starin v. Kelly, 36 Super. Ct. (N. Y.) 366 . . .297, 312, 662, 703 Stark V. Grant, 16 N. Y. Supp. 526 519 Starke v. Lamb (Ind.), 78 N. E. 668 809, 877, 890 Stark V. Littlepage, 4 Rand. (Va.) 368 633, 646 Stark V. Ward, 3 Pa. St. 328 527, 558, 714 Starks v. Bates, 12 How. Pr. (N. :C.) 65 813 Starkweather v. Cleveland Ins. Co., 2 Abb. (U. S.) 67.. 1189, 1191 Starr v. Dow, 108 N. W. (Neb.) 1065 310 Starr v. Plant, 28 Conn. 377 . . 599 Starr v. Rathbone, 1 Barb. (N. Starr v. Starr, i Ohio, 321 . 312, 563 Starr v. Strong, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 139 218, 278 Starr v. Tracy, 2 Root (Conn.), 528 66, 741, 742 Starr v. Wright, 20 Ohio St. 97 678 State V. Aebly, 9 Mo. 55 1001 State V. Bowen, 38 W. Va. 91 761, 778, 1022, 1034 <3CXXXIV Table of Cases. PAGE State V. Bragg, 63 Mo. App. 22 1062 State V. Burkeliolder, 30 W. Va. 593 239 State V. Casteel, 51 Mo. App. 143 567 State V. Chapman, 68 Me. 477. 1062 State V. Cryts, 87 Mo. App. 440 904 State V. Diveling, 66 Mo. 375 . . 162 State V. Durant, 53 Mo. App. 493 529, 566, 603 .State V. Estel, 6 Mo. App. 6 . . 221, 575, 615 State V. Evans, 38 Mo. 150. . . . 527 State V. Excelsior Distilling Co., 20 Mo. App. 21 72, 75, 309, 461, 481 State V. Fife, 2 Bailey (S. C.) 377 302 State V. Flynn, 56 Mo. App. 236 538 State V. Flynn, 66 Mo. App. 373 529 State V. I'oot, 27 S. C. 340 844, 851, 870 State V. Goetz, 131 Mo. 675.526, 528 State V. Hellman, 20 Mo. App. 304 552, 991, 1002 State V. Hope, 102 Mo. 410.. 230, 332, 333, 581, 594, 907, 1001 State V. Jacobs, 2 Mo. App. 183. 418 State V. Johnson, 33 N. H. 441 1064, 1065 State V. Jones, 83 Mo. App. 151 376 State V. Koch, 47 Mo. App. 269 153 State V. Laurie, 1 Mo. App. 371 575 State V. Leslie, 16 N. H. 93.. 1063 State V. Manhattan Rubber Mfg. Co., 149 Mo. 181 976 State V. Marsh, 36 N. H. 196. . 1062 State V. Martin, 77 Conn. 142 . . 278, 283, 347, 350, 909 State V. Mason, 112 Mo. 374. . 231, 232, 354, 355, 494, 580, 594, 615, 619, 940, 986, 992 State V. McBride, 105 Mo. 265 92, 129, 131, 450 State V. Merritt, 70 Mo. 275 . . 30, 250, 257, 258, 526, 528, 530, 986 State V. Miller, 98 Ind. 70... 1063 State V. Mueller, 10 Mo. App. 87 418, 428 State V. Nauert, 2 Mo. App. 295 574, 584, 590 State ex rel. O'Bryan v. Koontz, 83 Mo. 323 282 State V. O'Neill, 151 Mo. 67.. 253, 997 State V. Osborn, 143 Ind. 671. . 322, 324, 833, 834, 830 faoe: State V. Parsons, 147 Ind. 579 852, 853, 861, 862, 877 State ex rel. Pierce v. Merritt, 70 Mo. 275 272 State V. Pureell, 131 Mo. 212 574, 615 State V. Smith, 31 Mt. 566.. 894, 911 State V. State Bank, 6 Gill & J. (Md.) 205 460 State V. Tomlinson, 16 Ind. App. 662 121 State V. True, 20 Mo. App. 176 408, 409 State V. Wallace, 67 Iowa, 77. . 193 State V. William Barr Dry Goods Co., 45 Mo. App. 96. 1006 State V. Wilson, 66 Mo. App. 540 • 1062, 1064 State Bank v. Backus, 160 Ind. 682 253, 475, 561, 1007, 1008 State Bank v. Ellis, 30 Ala. 478 808, 853 State Bank v. First Nat. Bank, 34 N. J. Eq. 450 88 State Bank v. Frey, 3 Neb. 83. 350 State Bank of Chase v. Chatten, 69 Han. 435 195, 9l0 State Bank of Chicago v. Cox, 16 Am. B. R. 32 1178, 1184 State Bank of Indiana v. Har- row, 26 Iowa, 426 411 State Bank v. Whittle, 48 Mich. 1 386, 510 State Ins. Co. v. Prestage, 116 Iowa, 466 160, 782, 900, 901, 906, 955 State Grimm v. Manhattan Rub- ber Mfg. Co., 149 Mo. 181 . . 607 State, Jiramer v. Mason, 96 Mo. 559 308 State, Little v. Parsons, 147 Ind. 579 808 State, Pierce v. Merritt, 70 Mo. 276 615 State Trust Co. v. Casino Co., 19 App. Div. (N. Y.) 344.. 548 Staton V. Pittman, 11 Gratt. (Va.) 99 204 Stauffer v. Kennedy, 47 W. Va. 714 896, 954 Stavers v. Stavers, 69 N. H. 158 435, 452 St. Avid' V. Weimprender, 9 Mart. (La.) 648 392 Stead V. Mahon, 70 Mo. App. 400 977 Steadman v. Hayes, 80 Mo. 319 179 Table of Oases. ccxxxv PAGE Steadman v. Wilbui, 7 R. I. 481 369 Stearns v. Gage, 79 N. Y. 102 426, 715, 718 Stebbins v. Miller, 94 Mass. 591 916, 939, 1001 Stedman v. Bank of Monroe, 9 Am. B. R. 4 1122, 1135 Stedman v. Vickery, 42 Me. 132 307 Steel V. Brown, 1 Taunt, 381 638 Steele v. Benham, 84 N. Y. 634 528, 534 Steele v. Buel, 5 Am. B. R. 165. 1201 Steele v. De May, 102 Mich. 274 398 Steele v. Farber, 37 Mo. 71.. 416 Steele v. Miller (Pa.), 1 Atl. 434 527, 534, 538, 543, 544 Steele v. Moore, 54 Ind. 52..501, 637 Steele v. Parsons, 9 Mo. 823 . . 667 Steele v. Ward, 25 Iowa, 535 . . 580 Steeley v. Steeley, 23 Ky. L.Rep. 966 91, 94, 121 Steelwagon v. Jeffries, 44 Pa. St. 407 531 Steere v. Bigelow, 39 111. 264 . . 436 Steere v. Hoagland, 39 111. 264 231, 171, 172, 669, 673, 699, 789 Stehdman v. Huber, 21 Pa. St. 260 131, 674 Stein V. Burnett, 43 Mo. App. 477 705 Stein V. Gibbons, 16 La. 103 . . 199 Stein V. Hermann, 23 Wis. 132 318 Stein V. Levy, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 381 474 Steinam v. Gahwiler, (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 472.... 392, 395 Steinberg v. Buffum, 61 Neb. 778 581, 594,602, 908 ■Steiner v. Atlanta Woodenware Co., 127 Ala. 261 953 Steiner v. Berney, 130 Ala. 289 159 Steiner v. Lowery, 98 Ala. 208. 309 Steiner v. Parker, 108 Ala. 357 816 Steiner v. Scholze, 114 Ala. 88 441 Steiner Land, etc., Co. v. King, 118 Ala. 546.. 8 16, 845, 856, 869 Steininger v. Donalson, 94 Ga. 514 996 Steinkrans v. Korthj 44 Neb. 777 511, 961, 967 Steinna.eyre v. Steinmeyer, 55 S. C. 9 338, 646, 904, 973 Stelling V. G. W. Jones Lum- ber Co., 116 Fed'. 261 540, 542 Stenson v. Williams, 35 Ga. 170 98 .Stephens v. Adair, 82 Tex. 214 633, 640 Stephens v. Allen, (Civ. App.) (Tex.), 31 S. W. 717 250 Stephens v. Beal. 4 Ga. 319.. 798 Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. (U. S.) .528 118 Stephens v. Giflford, 137 Pa. St. 219 527, 546 Stephens v. Hallstead, 58 Cal. 193 1007 Stephens v. Harrow, 26 Iowa, 458 631, 634, 650 Stephens v. McArthur, 19 Can. Sup. Ct. 446 468 Stephens v. Olive, 2 Bro. Ch. (Eng.) 90 291, 328 Stephens v. Oppenheimer, 45 Ark. 492 907 Stephens v. Parvin (Colo.), 78 Pac. 688 799, 875 Stephens v. Perrine, 143 N. Y. 476 454, 1136 Stephens v. Reginstein, 89 Ala. 561 430, 448, 471 Stephens v. Sherman, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,369a 31 Stephens v. Whitehead, 75 Ga. 294 819, 868, 869 Stephenson v. Clark, 20 Vt. 624 533, 544, 990 Stephenson v. Cook, 64 Iowa, 265 898 Stephenson v. Donahue, 40 Ohio St. 184 184 Stephenson v. Felton, 106 N. C. 114 879, 963, 966 Steppaeher v. Saunders, 74 Mo. App. 475 534 Sterling v. Baldwin, 42 Vt. 306 542 Sterling v. Ripley, 3 Chandl. (Wis.) 166 392, 584, 523, 595 Sterling v. Wagner, 3 Wyo. 5. 959, 1032 Stern v. Butler, 123 Ala. 606 . . 56 Stem V. Louisville Trust Co., 7 Am. B. R. 305. . . .1077, 1151, 1157 Stern v. Mayer, 16 Am. B. R. 763 1151 Stern v. Mayer, 19 Mo. App. 511 49 Stern v. Sedden, 7 Ky. 178. ... 711 Stern Auction, etc., Co. v. Mason, 16 Mo. App. 473. .231, 992 Sterrett v. Buffalo Third Nat. Bank, 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 818 742 Sterry v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 261 . .* 219, 322, 325 CCXXXVl Table of Cases. PAGE Stetson V. Miller, 36 Ala. 642. 472, 499 Stetson V. O'SuUivan, 90 Mass. 321 141, 146 Steuben County Wine Co. v. Lee, 127 Mich. 698 314 Stevens v. Bank, 101 Mass. 109 1179 Stevens v. Bell, 6 Mass. 339 303, 472, 482, 487 Stevens v. Breen, 75^Wis. 595. 393, 463, 474, 491, 1001 Stevens v. Carson, 30 Neb. 544. 897, 910, 968 Stevens v. Cunningham, 181 N. Y. 454 106, 108 Stevens v. Curran, 28 Mont. 366 , 216, 791 Stevens v. Dillman, 86 111. 233 231, 344, 387 Stevens v. Fisher, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 181 524, 1010 Stevens v. Hauser, 39 N. Y. 392 1235 Stevens v. Hinckley, 43 Me. 440 251, 306, 307, 443, 580 Stevens v. Irwin, 15 Cal. 503 . . 536 Stevens v. Kirk, 37 Vt. 204... 746 Stevens v. Merrill, 41 N. H. 315 20 Stevens v. Meyers, 104 N. W. (N. D.) 529 571, 986, 1053 Stevens v. Morse, 47 N. H. 532 220 Stevens v. Newman, 68 111. App. 549 756 Stevens v. Pierce, 147 Mass. 510 258, 989 Stevens v. Robinson, 72 Me. 381 272, 339, 341, 569 Stevens v. Songer, 14 Ind. 342. 663 Stevens v. Works, 81 Ind. 445. 67, 737 Stevens Lumber Co. v. Kansas City Planing Mill Co., 59 Mo. App. 373 584 Stevenson v. Agry, 7 Ohio, 247 461 Stevenson v. Craig, 12 Neb. 464 402 Stevenson v. Milliken-Tomlin- son, 13 Am. B. R. 201 1165 Stevenson v. Nichols, 13 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 480 43 Stevenson v. Stevenson, 34 Hun (N. Y.), 157 20, 90 Stevenson v. White, 5 Allen (Mass.), 148 154, 157 Stewart v. Cabanne, 16 Mo. App. 517 627 Stewart v. Cockrell, 2 Lea (Tenn.), 369 ...» 623 PAGd Stewart v. Coder, 11 Pa. St. 90 67, 738 Stewart v. Dailey, 16 Ky. 212 635 Stewart v. Dunham, 115 V. S. 61 74, 77, 80, 457, 487 Stewart v. English, 6 Ind. 176 99, 459, 464, 579, 622, 892, 986 Stewart v. Fagan, 2 Woods (U. S.), 215 773 Stewart v. Fenner, 81 Pa. St. 177 934 Stewart v. Hargrove, 23 Ala. 429 - 1189 Stewart v. Hopkins, 30 Ohio St. 502 253 Stewart v. Iglehart, 7 Gill & J. (Md.) 132 217, 632, 644 Stewart v. Kearney, 6 Watts (Pa.), 453 209, 650 Stewart v. Lapsley, 7 La. Ann. 456 829 Stewart v. Mannington Exch. Bank, 55 N. J. Eq. 795 80 Stewart v. Mills County Nat. Bank, 76 Iowa, 571 254 Stewart v. Nelson, 79 Mo. 552. 550, 551 Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562 588 Stewart v. Petree, 55 N. Y. 621 334 Stewart v. Piatt, 101 U. S. 731 90, 145, 171, 638, 1112, 1118, 1158 Stewart v. Rogers, 25 Iowa, 395 278, 339 Stewart v. Stewart, 65 Mo. App. 663 157, 164 Stewart v. Stout, 38 W. Va. 478 108 Stewart v. Thomas, 35 Mo. 202 563 Stewart v. Thompson, 32 Cal. 260 835 Stewart v. Town, 4 Cow. (N. Y.) 599 295 Stewart v. Union Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 58 460, 976- Stewart v. Wilson, 42 Pa. St. 450 1051 Stewart v. Wooley, 2 Ohio Dec. 341 161 Stickney v. Borman, 2 Pa. St. 67 376, 710 Stigler V. Stigler, 77 Va. 163 . . 123, 124 Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. (Eng.) 481 336 Stileman v. Ashdown, Ambl. (Eng.) 13 188, 19ft Stiles V. Hill, 62 Tex. 429 428 Table of Cases. ccxxxvii Stiles V. Lightfoot, 26 Ala. 443 347, 906 Stiles V. Shumway, 16 Vt. 435 549 Still V. Buzzell, 60 Vt. 478 655 Stillman v. Stillman, 21 N. J. Eq. 126 75, 76, 78 Stillings V. Turner, 153 Mass. 534 69, 632, 661 Stillwell V. Savannah Grocery Co., 88 Ga. 100... 1044, 1048, 1049 Stillwell V. Stillwell, 47 N. J. Eq. 275 404, 636, 643, 1029 Stimson v. White, 20 Wis. 562 898 Stimson v. Wrigley, 86 N. Y. 332 198, 487, 543, 558 Stinde v. Behrens, 81 Mo. 254 164 Stinson v. Clark, 6 Allen (Mass.), 340 533, 541 Stinson v. Hawkins, 16 Fed. 850 226, 229, 606 Stinson v. Eacer, 13 Ohio Dec. 421 610 Stirling v. Wagner, 4 Wyo. 5 234, 247, 294, 356, 965 Stitch V. Herman, 15 Am. B. R. 466 1130 Stivers v. Home, 62 Mo. 473 . . 717 Stivens v. Summers, 68 Ohio St. 421 833, 836, 837 Stix V. Chaytor, 55 Ark. 116.. 36, 179, 187, 363, 520, 683 715, 716, 739, 753, 1035 St. Francis Mill Co. v. Sugg, 169 Mo. 130 97, 834 St. Georges' Church Soc. v. Branch, 120 Mo. 226 341 St. Germain v. Landry, 28 La. Ann. 652 833 St. John V. Camp, 17 Conn. 222 446 St. John V. Benedict, 6 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) Ill 650 St. John Woodworking Co. v. Smith, 82 App. Div. (N. Y.) 348 711, 712 St. John Wood-Working Co. v. Smith, 178 N. Y. 629 224. 243, 250, 252, 247, 272 780, 800, 1047, 1048 St. Joseph Times Printing, etc., Co., 79 Mo. App. 504 986 St. Louis Brewing Assoc, v. Steimke, 68 Mo. App. 52 223, 232, 255, 259, 685 St. Louis Coffin Co. v. Rubel- man, 15 Mo. App. 280 605 St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 69 Mo. 72 75, 77 PAGE St. Louis Nat. Bank v. Field, 154 Mo. 368 973 St. Michael's College v. Merrick, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 216.. 775 Stockbridge v. Cirockett, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 69 672 Stockbridge v. Fahnestock, 87 Md. 127 937, 938, 941, 1001 Stockbridge v. Franklin Bank, 86 Md. 189 429, 459 Stockdale v. Harris, 23 W. Va. 499 898 Stockett V. Holliday, 9 Md. 480 374, 972 Stock-Growers' Bank v. New- ton, 13 Colo. 245 252, 771 Stockley v. Horsey, 4 Houst. (Del.) 603 458,487, 489 Stockslager v. Mechanics' Loan, etc., Inst., 87 Md. 232 367, 899, 972 Stockton V. Craddick, 4 La. Ann. 282 726 Stockton V. Lippinoott, 37 N. J. Eq. 443 842, 845 Stockwell V. National Bank of Malone, 36 Hun (N. Y.), 583 154 Stockwell V. Silloway, 113 Mass. 384 924 Stockwell V. Stockwell, 72 N. H. 69 7, 241, 651 Stoddard v. Butler, 20 Wend. (N. Y.) 507. . . .224, 225, 231, 239 353, 433, 500, 518 Stoddard v. Howe, 74 Iowa, 670 39, 972 Stokes V. Amerman, 121 N. Y. 337 126, 776 Stokes V. Amerman, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 605 38, 363 Stokes V. Burnes, 132 Mo. 214 594, 980 Stokes V. Coffee, 71 Ky. 533.. 346, 509 Stokes V. Coffee, 8 Bush (Ky.), 533 119, 122, 128 Stokoe V. Cowan, 29 Beav. 637 20, 99, 101, 120, 122, 332 Stokes V. Jones, 21 Ala. 731.. 98, 382 Stokes V. Jones, 18 Ala. 734.. 78, 215, 325, 413, 426 Stokes V. Oliver, 76 Va. 72 378 Stoltz v. Vanatta, 32 Wkly. Lan. But. (Ohio) 100... 293, 942 Stone V. Anderson, 26 N. H. 506 760, 782, 813 CCXXXTlll Table of Cases. PAGE Stone V. Bartlett, 46 Me. 438. . 750 Stone V. Brown, 116 Ind. 78.. 402, 834 Stone V. Griebham, 2 Bulst. 217 79 Stone V. Kidder, 6 La. Ann. 552 598, 1016 Stone V. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co., 52 Ala. 589 123, 127 Stone V. Manning, 3 111. 530. . . 770 Stone V. Marshall, 52 N. C. 300 333 Stone V. Morris, 4 Am. B. E. 568 1199 Stone V. Myers, 9 Minn. 303 . . 38, 180, 182 Stone V. Newell, 54 N. J. Eq. 690 1051 Stone V. Peacock, 35 Me. 385.. 567 Stone V. Spencer, 77 Mo. 356.. 588 Stone V. Van Heythuysen, 18 Jur. 344 37 Stone V. Waggoner, 8 Ark. 204. 537 Stone V. Wescott, 18 E. I. 517 776 Stonebraker v. Hicks, 94 Va. 618 898, 1015 Stonebridge v. Perkins, 141 N. Y. 1 738 Stoneford v. Scannell, 8 Cal. 80 545 Stoner v. Commonwealth, 16 Pa. St. 387 632 Stores V. Snow, 1 Boot (Conn.), 181 631 Storey v. Agnew, 2 111. App. 353 458, 464 Storm V. Waddell, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 494 1013 Storrs V. City of Utica, 17 N. Y. 104 1169 Story V. Black, 5 Mont. 26 279 Story V. Windsor, 2 Atk. 630 . . 609 tstotesbury v. Kirtland, 35 Mo. App._ 148 152, 157 Stout V. Phillippi Mfg., etc., Co., 41 W. Va. 339 688, 711 Stout V. Price, 24 Ind. App. 360 418, 436, 437, 449, 1008 Stout V. Eappelhagen, 51 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 75.... 519, 534, 528 Stoutenbourgh v. Konkle, 15 N. J. Eq. 33 957 Stoutz V. Huger, 107 Ala. 248 36, 363, 833, 834, 909 Stovall V. Farmers', etc.. Bank 8 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 305.. 53, 55 Stovall T. Farmers', etc.. Bank, 16 Miss. 305 450, 696 PAGE Stove V. Marshall, 52 N. C. 300 72 Stover V. Herrington, 7 Ala. 142 226, 237, 317, 457, 579 Stow V. Miller, 16 Iowa, 460.. 402 Stowe V. Taft, 58 N. H. 445. . . . 544 Stowell V. Haslett, 5 Lans. (N. Y.) 168 578, 763 Stout V. Stout, 77 Ind. 537... 183, 210, 631, 678, 824, 851, 933 Strahorn-Hutton-Evans Com- mission Co. V. Quigg, 97 Fed. 735 544 Straight v. Eoberts, 126 Ind. 383 579 Stramann v. Scheeren, 7 Colo. App. 1 513 Strang v. Bradner, 114 U. S. 555 1081 Strange v. Langley, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 650 771, 847 Stratton v. Dialogue, 16 N. J. Eq. 70 90 Stratton v. Edwards, 171 Mass. 374 434 Stratton v. Edwards, 174 Mass. 374 282, 284, 339, 632 Stratton v. Hernon, 154 Mass. 310 759, 762, 1018 Stratton v. Morris, 89 Tenn. 497 469 Stratton v. Putney, 63 N. H. 577 251, 434, 441 Straus V. Head, 14 Ky. L. Eep. 740 364 Strauss v. Abrahams, 32 Fed. 310 457, 575 Strauss v. Kranert, 56 111. 254 237, 953 Strauss v. Parshall, 91 Mich. 475 366, 513 Strayer v. Long, 86 Va. 557 . . 358 972 Streams v. Gage, 79 N. Y. 102 .' 614 Streeper v. Eckart, 2 Whart. 302 240, 242, 527 Street v. Tuggle, 13 Ky. L. Eep. 539 541, 542 Strike v. McDonald, 2 Har. & G. (Md.) 191.. 688, 700, 701, 827 Strike's Case, 1 Bland. (Md.) 57 688, 864, 1026 Stroff V. SwaflFord, 81 Iowa, 695 436, 459, 509, 579 Strohm v. Hayes, 70 111. 41 . . . 603 Strong V. Burdiek, 1 Penntp. (Pa.) 498 226 Strong V. Carrier, 17 Conn. 319 431 Table of Cases. CCXXXIX PAGE strong V. Hines, 35 Miss. 201.. 389 Strong V. Lawrence, 58 Iowa, 55 299, 330, 382, 809, 832, 902 Strong V. Skinner, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 546. . . .145, 367, 429, 479, 507 Strong V. Strong, 18 Beav. 408. 19, 177, 201, 232, 355 Strong V. Taylor School Tp., 79 Ind. 208 815, 851 Stroud V. McDaniel, 5 Am. B. E. 695 1136 Strop V. Hughes (Mo. App.), 101 S. W. 146 260 Strouse v. Buker, 38 Pa. St. 190 154 Strut V. MeClerkin, 77 Ala. 580 666 Strutton V. Young, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 657 840 Stuart V. Neeley, 50 W. Va. 508 382 Stuart V. Smith, 21 S. W. 1026. 604 Stubblefield v. Gadd, 112 Iowa, 681 162, 838, 898, 1018 Stubendorf v. Hoffman, 23 Neb. 360 162, 832 Stuckwisch V. Holmes, 29 Ind. App. 512 853 Stucky V. Mason Sav. Bank, 15 Am. B. R. 966 . .s 1168 Studabaker v. Langard, 79 Ind. 420 722, 727 Studebaker Brod. Mfg. Co. v. Key, 99 Ga. 144 275, 1000 Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. v. Zollars, 12 S. D. 296 408, 509 Stuem V. Chalfant, 38 W. Va. 248 378 Stumbaugh v. Anderson, 46 Kan. 541 109, 380 Stumph V. Bniiier, 89 Ind. 556. 192, 348, 863 Stump V. Frary, 13 Ohio Civ. Ct. 619. . . '. 156 Sturgea v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 122.... 1069, 1070 Sturm V. CSalfant, 38 W. Va. 248 320 Sturdivant v. Davis, 31 N. C. 365 414, 418 Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 342 3, 12, 13 Sturges V. Vanderbilt, 73 N. Y. 384 772 Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Johns. (N. Y.) 337 412, 518 Stutson V. Brown, 7 Cow. (N. Y ) 732 305 Suber v. Chandler, 18 S. 6. 526. 838 Suber v. Chandler, 36 8. C. 344. PAGE- 148, 361, 675, 932 Succession of Baum, 11 Rob. (La.) 314 751, 834 Succession of Coyle, 32 La. Ann. 79 91, 575, 806 Succession of Dickson, 37 La. Ann. 795 954 Succession of Schultz^ 39 La. Ann. 505 1025 Suffel V. McCartney Nat. Bank, 16 Am. B. R. 259 1165 Suiter v. Turner, 10 Iowa, 517. , 520, 563 Sukeforth v. Lord^ 87 Cal. 399. 236, 313, 446, 572 Sullivan v. Ball, 55 S. C. 343 . . 292, 932 Sullivan v. Bonesteel, 79 N. Y. 631 667 Sullivan v. Iron & Silver Min. Co., 109 U. S. 550 866 Sullivan v. Miller, 106 N. Y. 635 772, 844 Sullivan v. Parkinson, 128 Mich. 527 360 Sullivan v. Thurmond, 45 S. W. (Tex.) 393 608 Summers v. Akers, 85 Mo. 213. 973 Summers v. Clark, 32 La. Ann. 670 955 Summers v. Hoover, 42 Ind. 153 140, 374 Summers v. Howland, 2 Baxt. (Tenn.) 407 76 Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749. 187, 351, 460, 473, 521, 567 Summers v. Taylor, 80 Ky. 429. 390, 622, 626 Summers v. Taylor, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 290 ,...590, 615 Sumner v. Dalton, 58 N. H. 295. 522, 530 Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black (U. S.), 532 12, 13, 17, 81 Sumner v. Murphy, 2 Hill (S. C), 488 633 Sumner v. Sawtelle, 8 Minn. 309 ; 37, 136, 168 Sumpter v. Arkansas Nat. Bank, 69 Ark. 224 273, 560, 561 Sunberg v. Baboock, 66 Iowa, 515 1005 Sunday Creek Coal Co. v. Bum- ham, 52 Neb. 364 594, 601 Sundheim v. Ridge Avenue Bank, 15 Am. B. R. 132.... 612, 1165 Super V. Chandler, 36 S. C. 344 142, ccxl Table of Cases. PAGE Surget V. Boyd, 57 Miss. 485 . . 241 Surget V. Byers, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 13,629 232, 354 Surlott V. Beddow, 19 Ky. 109. 663 Susong V. Williams, 48 Tenn. 625 668 Sutherland v. Davis, 42 Ind. 26 1234 Sutherland v. Danaher, 35 Mich. 422 438 Sutherlin v. March, 75 Va. 223. 233, 353, 678 Sutton V. Ballou, 64 Iowa, 617. 534 Sutton V. Ballou, 46 Iowa, 517. 551 Sutton V. Chapman, 58 Wis. 556 744, 748 Sutton V. Dana, 15 Colo. 98 272, 458 Sutton V. Gregory (Tex. Civ. App.), 45 S. W. 932 428 Sutton V. Guthrie, 188 Pa. St. 359 397, 512 Sutton V. Haaey, 58 Wis. 556.. 204, 685 Sutton V. Pettus, 4 Rich. (S. C), 163 215 Sutton V. Shearer, 1 Grant Gas. (Pa.) 207 535 Sutton V. Simon, 91 Tex. 638.. 607 Swanscott Maeh. Co. v. Perry, 119 Mass. 123 760, 761 Swan V. Dent, 2 Md. Ch. 111. . . 274, 805, 821 Swan Land, etc., Co. v. Frank, 148 U. S. 603 796 Swavze v. McCrossin, 21 Miss. 317 344 Swayne v. Euttan, 6 U. C. C. P. 399 45, 48 Swayze v. Swayze, 9 N. J. Bq. 273 781, 839 Swanky v. Hunt, 2 Nott. & M. (S. C.) 211.70, 177, 208, 748, 784 Swarts V. Banlc, 8 Am. B. R. 673 1077, 1161, 1163 Swartz V. Siegel, 8 Am. B. R. 220 1161, 1163 Swartsburg v. Dickerson, 12 Okla. 566 529 Swartz V. Hazlett, 8 Gal. 118. . 273, 274, 278, 341, 346 587, 592, 669 Swartz V. McClelland, 31 Neb. 646 -•- 405 Sweatman v. Spears, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 515 384 Sweeney v. Coe, 12 Colo. 485 .. . 525 PAGE Sweeney v. Cohen, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 94 914 Sweeney v. Conley, 71 Tex. 543. 306, 927 Sweeney v. Damron, 47 111. 450. 141, 146, 327 Sweeny v. Grape Sugar Co., 30 W. Va. 443 , 1035 Sweet v. Converse, 88 Mich. 1 . . 203 Sweet V. Dean, 43 111. App. 650 187, 348, 956 Sweet V. Scherber, 42 111. App. 237 458 Sweet V. Tinslar, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 271 650 Sweet V. Wright, 57 Iowa, 510. 588, 918, 949, 986 Sweeting v. Sweeting. 172 Pa. St. 161 ■ 975 Sweet's Petition, 20 R. I. 557 . . 355, 604 Sweetser v. Bates, 117 Mass. 466 916, 920, 935, 945 Sweetser v. Smith, 5 N. Y. Supp. 378 456, 881 Sweetzer v. Buchanan, 94 Ala. 574 1039 Sweetzer v. Mead, 5 Mich. 107. 938 Sweetzer v. Silber, 87 Wis. 102. 761 Swift V. Arents, 4 Cal. 390 758 Swift V. Goldridge, 10 Ohio, 230 143 Swift V. Hart, 35 Hun (N. Y.), 128 466 Swift V. Hart, 35 Hun (N. Y.), 120 297 Swift V. Holdridge, 10 Ohio, 230 681 Swift V. Thompson, 9 Conn. 63. 35 Swigert v. Bank of Kentucky, 56 Ky. 268 693 Swindersine v. Miscally, 1 Bai- ley Eq. (S. C.) 304 423 Swinford v. Rogers, 23 Cal. 233. 626, 680, 695 Swinford v. Teegarden, 159 Mo. 635 953 Switz V. Bruce, 16 Neb. 463 29, 72, 75, 595, 603 Swlz V. Mayer, 151 Ind. 422 1008 Swoflford V. Cornucopia Mines, 15 Am. B. R. 564 ,. . 1209 Swoflford Bros. Dry Goods Co. V. Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co., 85 Fed. 417 994 Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. V. Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co., 1 Ind. T. 314 924, 1005 Sykes v. City Sav. Bank, 115 Table of Cases. ccxli PA»E Mich. 321 368 Symns Grocer Co. v. Lee, 9 Kan. App. 574 318 .Symns Grocer Co. v. Smith, 6 Kan. App. 258 31'J Svracuse Chilled Flow Co. v. Wing, 85 N. Y. 421. .140, 142, 985 TaaflFe v. Josephine, 7 Cal. 352. 72, Tabb V. Hughes (Va.), 3 S. E. 148 Tabor v. Armstrong (Ky.), 99 S. W. 957 Tacka berry v. Gilmore, 57 Neb. 450 235, 236, 316, Taegue v. Llndsey, 106 Ala. 266 Taggart v. Phillips, 5 Del. Ch. 237 44, 172, Talbott V. Gillespie, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1065 Talbott V. Hooser, 75 Ky. 408.. Talbott V. Leatherbury, 92 M'd. 166 Talbott V. Randall, 3 N. M. 226 Taleott V. Arnold, 54 N. J. Eq. 570 113, 115, Taloott V. Crippen, 52 Mich. 633 Taleott V. Harder, 119 N. Y. 536 456, 500, Talbott V. Hooser, 12 Bush. (Ky.), 408 Taleott V. Levy, 29 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 3 Taloott V. Levy, 20 N. Y. Supp. 440 252, 285, Taleott V. Rose (Tex. Civ. App.), 64 S. W. 1009.. Taleott V. Thomas, 21 N. Y. Supp. 1064 Talkington v. Parish, 89 Ind. 202 Tallmadge v. Sill, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 34 Talman v. Smith, 39 Barb. (K. Y.) 390 892, Talton V. Liddell, 17 Q. B. 390. Tarns V. Bullitt, 35 Pa. St. 308. Tanaenbaum v. Rosswog, 6 N. Y. Supp. 579 Tanner v. Eckhart, 107 App. Div. (N. Y.) 79 ....310, 357, Tantum v. Green, 21 N. J. Eq. 364 100, 101, 581, Tantum v. Miller, 11 N. J. Eq. 551 635, 319 822 526 461 964 671 406 233 818 774 514 560 920 353 680 375 909 363 971 144 911 219 203 1046 400 613 640 PAGE Tapp V. Todd, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 382 361 Tappan v. Butler, 20 N. Y. Su- per. Ct. 480 363 Tappan v. Butler, 7 Bosw. (N. Y.) 480 38 Tappan v. Evans, 11 N. H. 311 99 760, 782, 796, 799, 845, 873', 874 Tappan v. Harbison, 43 Ark. 84 724 Tarback v. Marbury, 2 Vern. Ch. 510 423, 424 Tarbell v. Griggs, 3 Paige (N. Y.), 207 780, 781 Tarsney v. Turner, 48 Fed. 818. 370 Tate V. Clement, 178 Pa. St. 550 221 Tate V. Liggat, 2 Leigh (Va.), 84 186, 217, 774,. 1041 Tate v. McCormick, 23 Hun ( N. ^.), 218 519 Tatham v. Crawford, 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 365 349, 375 Tatum v. Hunter, 14 Ala. 557 71, 73, 331, 599 Tatum V. Roberts, 59 Minn. 52 818, 822 Tatum V. Tatum, 101 Va. 77.. 645 Tatum V. Tatum, 36 N. C. 113 182, 206 Taub V. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 8 Colo. App. 214 413, 433 Taylor's Appeal, 45 Pa. St. 71 45, 294, 718 Taylor Commission Co. v. Bell, 62 Ark. 26 949 Taylor v. Barnscombe, 74 Iowa, 534 588, 739, 782, 787, 820 Taylor v. Bowfcer, 111 U. S. 110 777 Taylor v. Branch Bank, 21 Ala. 581 703 Taylor v. Coeman, 1 Ch. Div. 636 . 120, 341 Taylor v. Commercial Bank, 4 U. C. O. P. 447 534 Taylor v. Cooley, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1365 513 Taylor v. Dawes, 13 Atl. (N. J.) 593 361, 378, 973 Taylor v. Deusterberg, 109 Ind. 165 140, 150, 160 Taylor v. Dwyer, 131 Ala. 91.. 311, 764, 842, 856 Taylor v. Eatman, 92 N. C. 601 279, 346 Taylor v. Eckford, 11 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 21 232 ccxlii Table of Cases, PAGE Taylor v. Ferguson, 87 Tex. 1 . . 165 Taylor v. GUlean, 23 Tex. 508 99, 771 Taylor v. Heriot, 4 Desauss. Eq. (S. C.) 227 36, 37, 370 Taylor v. Johnson, 113 Ind. 164 286, 1050 Taylor v. Jones, 2 Atk. 600.. 99, 102, 190 Taylor v. Knox, 2 La. 16 490 Taylor v. Lander, 61 Kan. 588 760, 838 Taylor v. Mallory, 96 Va. 18 903, 952 Taylor v. McMillan, 123 N. C. 390 652 Taylor v. Miles, 19 Or. 550... 279 Taylor v. Mills, 2 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 318 558 Taylor v. Missouri Glass Co., 6 Tex. Civ. App. 337 1101 Taylor v. Moore, 2 Rand. (Va.) 563 358, 359 Taylor v. Paul, 6 Pa. Super. Ct. 496 898 Taylor v. Robinson, 89 Mass. 253 760 Taylor v. Robinson; 84 Mass. 562 925 Taylor v. Smith, 68 111. App. 109 458 Taylor v. Taylor, 3 Am. B. R. 211 1145 Taylor v. Thurber, 68 111. App. 114 542 Taylor v. Walkins, 13 So. (Miss.) 811 316 Taylor v. Wands, 55 N. J. Eq. 491 114 Taylor v. Watkins, 13 So. (Miss.) 811 235, 973 Taylor v. Webb, 54 Miss. 36.. 820, 821, 822, 832 Taylor v. Weld, 5 Mass. 109.. 654 Taylor v. Wendling, 66 Iowa, 562 226, 317 Taylor v. Whittemore, 2 Rob. (La.) 99 ... 569 Taylor v. Wood (N. J. Ch.), 5 Atl. 818 229 Taylor v. Wood, 5 Atl. (N. J.) 818 606 Teabout v. Jaffray, 74 Iowa, 28. 1029 league v Bass, 131 Ala. 422 248, 519, 567, 578, 910 Teague v. Downs, 69 N. C. 280 147 Teague v. Lindsey, 106 Ala. 266 394, 407 PAGE Teasdale v. Atkinson, 2 Brev. (S. C.) 48 14, 15, 16 Teasdale Commission Co. v. Van Hardenberg, 55 Mo. App. 326 49 Teasdale v. Reaborne, 2 Bay (S. C), 546 328 Tebbs V. Lee, 76 Va. 744 231, 354, 376 Tedrowe v. Esher, 56 Ind. 443 563 Teed v. Valentine, 65 N. Y. 471 932 Tefit V. Stern, 73 Fed. 591 73, 608, 1037 Teitig V. Boesman, 12 Mont. 404 461, 503, 963 Telford v. Adams, 6 Watts (Pa.), 429 632, 65fr Teller v. Bishop, 8 Minn. 226.. 398 Telley v. Curtain, 54 Fed. 43 . . 787 Temple Grocer Co. v. Clabavigh, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 655 416 Temper v. Barton, 18 Ohio, 418 632 Tempel v. Dodge, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 42 582 Temple v. Smith, .13 Neb. 513. . 619 Templeton v. Mason, 107 Tenn. 625 760 Templeton v. Twilty, 88 Tenn. 595 863 Ten Eyck v. Craig, 62 N. Y. 420 689 Ten Eyck v. Whitbeck, 135 K. Y. 40 292 Tennant v. Gallow, 25 Ont. 56. . 681 Tennant, etc.. Shoe Co. v. Part- ridge, 82 Tex. 329 . . . .467, 1605 Ten Broeck v. Sloo, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 28 102 Tenbrook v. Jessup, 60 N. J. Eq. 234 100, 149 Tennant v. Battey, 18 Kan. 324 773, 783 Tennent-Stribling Shoe Co. v. Davie, 75 Miss. 447 580 Tennent-Stribling Shoe . Co. v. Ruty, 53 Mo. App. 196.. 611, 990 Tennessee Producer Marble Co. V. Grant, 14 Am. B. R. 288. . 1227 Tennis v. Barnes, 11 Colo App. 196 309 Terhune v. Sibbald, 55 N. J. Eq. 236 : 823 Terhune v. Skinner, 45 N. J. Eq. 344 57 Terrell v. Green, 11 Ala. 207. 223, 261 Terrell v. Imboden, 10 Leigh (Va.), 321 633, 709 Table of Cases. ccxliii FAOE Terrill v. Jennings, 58 Ky. 450 879 Xerry v. Belcher, 1 Bailey (S. C), 568 523 ■ Terry v. Pountaine, 83 Va. 451 963, 964 Terry v. O'Neal, 71 Tex. 592.. 282 Terry v. Wilson, 63 Mo. 493.. 149 Tevis V. Doe, 3 Ind. 129 7a, 753 Texarkana Nat. Bank v. Hall (Tex. Civ. App.), 30 S. W. 73 70, 177 Texas Drug Co. v. Baker, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 684 495 Texas & Pao. R. R. Co. v. John- son, 151 U. S. 81 1224 Thacher v. Jones, 31 Me. 528 267, 1057, 1058 Thacher v. Phinney, 89 Mass. 146 249, 265, 927, 988, 993 Thatcher v. Rockwell, 105 U. S. 467 , 1234 Thaeker v. Saunders, 45 N. C. 145 27U Thames v. Rembert, 63 Ala. 561 224, 721, 724, 929 Thayer v. Willet, 18 N. Y. Super. Ct. 344 208 The Distilled Spirits, 11 Wall. (U. S.) 356 1169 The Holloway Case, 27 Fed. 830 979 ihe Minneapolis Threshing Ma- chine Co. v. Jones, 89 Minn. 184 828 Theriot v. Michel, 28 La. Ann. 107 212 Theriot v. Michel, 12 La. Ann. 107 83 Thigpen v. Pitt, 54 N. C. 49 207, 214 Third Nat. Bank v. Cornes, 5 N. Y. Supp. 799 703 Third Nat. Bank v. Cornes, 102 Y. 737 1052 Third Nat. Bank v. Cramer, 78 Mo. App. 476 514, 893 Third Nat. Bank v. Divine Gro- cery Co., 97 Tenn. 603 469 Third Nat. Bank v. Keeffe, 30 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 400.. 57, 225 Thigpen v. Pitt, 54 N. C. 49. . . 769 Thomas v. Adelman, 14 Am. B. Rep. 510 ..1166, 1167 Thomas v. Seals, 154 Mass. 51 691 Thomas v. Beck, 39 Conn. 241 924 .Thomas v. DejgraflFenreid, 17 Ala. 602 347, 985 Thomas v. Fletcher, 18 Am. B. PAGE R. 623 1127 Thomas v. Goodwin, 12 Mass. 140 .. .270, 453, 460, 653, 681, 745 Thomas v. Hillhouse, 17 Iowa, 67 544 Thomas v. Jenks, 5 Rawle (Pa.) 221 72 Thomas 'v. Jeter, 1 Hiil (S. 0.) 380 588 Thomas v. Johnson, 137 Ind. 244 459, 471, 479 Thomas v. Lye, 37 111. App. 482 183, 195 Thomas v. Mackey, 3 Colo. 390 346, 852 Thomas v. Mason, 8 Gill (Md.), 1 755 Thomas v. McCormack, 39 Ky. 108 654 Thomas v. McEwen, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 131 874 Thomas v. McDonald, 102 Iowa, 564 961, 966 Thomas v. Mead, 8 Mart. N. S. (La.) 341 721 Thomas v. Mueller, 106 111. 36. 366 Thomason v. Neeley, 50 Miss. 310 67, 734 Thomas v. People, 19 Wend. (N. Y.) 480 1063, 1065 Thomas v. Soper, 5 Munf. (Va.) 28 518, 635 Thomas v. State, 92 Ala. 49 . 1061 Thomas v. Sullivan, 13 Nev. 242 1000 Thomas v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 459 641 Thomas v. iorrance, 1 Ch. Chamb. (U. C.) 46 818 Thomas v. Van Meter, 164 111. 304 619 Thomas v. Walker, 25 Tenn. 93 753 Thomas v. Whitaker, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 43 954 Thompson Mfg. Co. v. Smith, 67 N. H. 409 547 Thompson Nat. Bank v. Cbr- wine, 89 Fed. 774 179, 252 Thompson Nat. Bank v. Cor- wine, 95 Fed. 54 715, 718 Thompson v. Adams, 93 Pa. St. 55 117 Thompson v. Allen, 103 Pa. St. 44 328 Thompson v. Baker, 141 U. S. 648 66, 732, 740, 742 Thompson v. Baltimore, etc., R. Co., 28 Md. 396 542 ccxliv Table of Cases. PAGE Thompson v. Benner, 33 Neb. 193 997 Thompson v. Bickford, 19 Minn. 17.. 435, 443, 691, 696, 697 Thompson v. Blanchard, 4 N. Y. 303 519 Thompson v. Caton, 3 Wash. Ter. 31 775, 804 Thompson v. Chretien, 12 Mart. (La.) 250 521 Thompson v. Cohen, 127 Mo. 215 212, 557, 893, 980 Thompson v. Crane, T3 Fed. 327 205, 266, 343, 572, 953 Thompson v. Cundiff, 74 Ky. 567 120, 122, 124, 125, 126 Thompson v. Dodd, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 381 818 Thompson v. Doyle, 16 Can. L. T. (Occ. Notes) 903 Thompson v. Drake, 3 B. Mon. (Ky.) 565 603 Thompson v. Esty, 69 N. H. 55 522, 539 Thompson v. Fairbanks, 196 U. S. 516 1114, 1116, 1123, 1180 Thompson v. Fuller, 8 N. Y. Supp. 62 498, 499 Thompson y. Furr, 57 Miss. 478 6, 415, 434, 437, 440 602, 604, 714 Thompson v. Gordon, 12 La. 260 580 Thompson v. Hammond, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 497 295, 648 Thompson v. Hervey, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., sec. 506 .... 462 Thompson v. Hester, 55 Mass. 656 183 Thompson v. Hintgen, 11 Wis. 112 49 Thompson v. Johnson, 55 Minn. 515 74, 608, 613, 1024 Thompson v. Lee, 3 Watts & S. 479 581 Thompson v. Loenig, 13 Neb. 386 972 Thompson v. McConnell, 107 Fed. 33 164, 166, 907 Thompson v. McKean, 1 Ashm. (Pa.) 129 722 Thompson v. Moore, 36 Me. 47 69, 177 Thompson v. Mills, 39 Ind. 528 370, 400 Thompson v. Neely, 50 Mass. 310 739 PAGE Thompson v. Newland (Mich.), 108 N. W. 93 440 Thompson v. Parker, 83 Ind. 96 429 Thompson v. Pennell, 67 Me. 159 443 Thompson v. Perry, 2 Hill. Bq. (S. C.) 204 665 Thompson v. Richardson Drug Co., 33 Neb. 714 237, 316 Thompson v. Robinson, 89 Me. 46 201, 240 Thompson v. Rosenstein, 67 S. W. (Tex.) 439 315 Thompson v. Sanders, 29 Ky. 94 892 Thompson v. Thompson, 19 Me. 244 182 Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co., 87 Ala. 733 1049 Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co., 104 Ala. 140 896, 973 Thompson v. Van Vechten, 27 N. Y. 568 772, 778 Thompson v. Van Vechten, 5 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 458 48 Thompson v. Walker, 5 Fed. 419 33 Thompson v. Webster, 28 L. J. Ch. 700 8, 954 Thompson V. Wilhite, 81 111. 356 565 Thompson v. Williams, 100 Md. 195 222, 224, 227, 459, 471 510, 563, 904 Thompson v. Williamson, 67 N. J. Eq. 212 461, 714 Thompson v. Wilson, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 666 514 Thompson v. Zuckmayer (Iowa), 94 N. W. 476 393, 395, 459, 579, 593, 892 Thomas v. Butler, 16 Pa. Super. Ct. 268 195 Thomson v. Crane, 73 Fed. 327 159, 180, 182, 831 Thomson v. Dougherty, 12 Serg. 4 (Pa.) 448 .. 190,220, 340 352, 635, 1031 Thomson v. Shaokleford, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 121 589 Thornberry v. Baxter, 24 Ark. 76 817, 825 Thornburg v. Bowen, 37 W. Va. 538 633, 721 Thornburgh v. Hand, 7 Cal. 554 843 Thornburn v. Thompson, 192 Pa. St. 298 415, 435, 600 Thorndike v. Bath, 114 Mass. Table of Cases. ccxlv PAGE 166 541 Thornhill v. Bank of Louisiana, Fed. Cas. No. 13,992 1104 Thorn v. Morgan, 4 Mart. N. S. (La.) 292 969 Thome v. Crawford, 17 111. App. 395 29 Thorne v. First Nat. Bank, 37 Ohio St. 254 522 Thornton v. Cook, 97 Ala. 630 77, 554 Thornton v. Davenport, 2 111. 296 242, 526 Thornton v. Gaar, 87 Va. 315. . 825, 941, 1050 Thornton v. Hook, 36 Cal. 223 346, 912 Thornton v. Lane, 11 Ga. 459.. 271 Thornton v. Tandy, 39 Tex. 544 462, 491, 523 Thorp V. Jarrell, 66 Ind. 52 28 Thorpe v. Leibrecht, 56 N. J. Eq. 499 200, 240, 770 Thorpe v. Thorpe, 12 S. C. 154 462, 466, 491, 510, 925 Thrasher v. Bentley, 1 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 39 1071 Threlkel v. Scott, 34 Pac. (Cal.) 851 346, 365, 375, 586, 858, 859 Thrissel v. Page, 77 Mass. 394 883 Throckmorton v. Chapman, 65 Conn. 441 397 Throckmorton v. Eider, 42 Iowa, 84 913, 980 Thurber v. Blanck, 50 N. Y. 80 739, 742, 785 Thurber v. LeRoque, 105 N. C. 301 683 Thurman v. Jenkins, 58 Tenn. 426 301 Thurman v. Jenkins, 61 Tenn. (2 Baxt.) 426 227 Thurmond v. Eeese, 3 Ga. 449 731, 761, 797, 843 Thweatt v. McCollough, 84 Ala. 517 636 Thyson v. Foley, 1 App. Cas. (D. C.) 182 36, 363 Tibbals v. Jacobs, 31 Conn. 428 426, 563, 922, 944 Tickner v. Wailes, 39 So. (Ala.) 305 663 Tickner v. Wiswall, 9 Ala. 305 71 Ticknor v. McClelland, 84 111. 471 542, 543, 565, 566 Ticonic Bank v. Harvey, 16 PAGE Iowa, 141 843 Tidball v. Shenandoah Nat. Bank, 100 Va. 741 872 Tiernay v. Claflin, 15 R. I. 220 215, 703 Tierney v. Corbett, 2 Mackey, 264 (D. C.) 209 Tiffany v. Boatmen's Sav. Bank, 18 Wall. (U. S.) 375 1158, 1199 Tiffany v. Lucas, 15 Wall. (U. S.) 410 1,082, 1131 Tifft V. Barton, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 171 518, 941 Tifft V. Walker, 10 N. H. 150. . 441 Tilford V. Burnham, 37 Ky. 109 1032, 1035 Tillinghast v. Champlin, 4 R. I- 173 257, 623 Tilman v. Heller (Tex.), 14 S. W. 271 . . .256, 271, 297, 581, 705 706, 905, 907, 909 Tillou V. Britton, 9 N. J. L. 120 461, 463 Tilton V. Sanborn, 59 N. H. 290 154 Tilaon v. Terwilliger, 56 N. Y. 273 519, 534, 535, 999 Timms v. Timms, 54 W. Va. 414 564, 582, 696 Tinker v. Cobb, 39 Vt. 483 997 Tinsley v. Corbett, 27 Tex. Civ. App. 633 960, 965 Tinsley v. Tinsley, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 295 641 Tipton V. Adair, 172 Mo. 156.. 114 Tisch V. Utz, 142 Pa. St. 186.. 883 Tisdale v. Rider, 104 N. Y. Supp. 77 292 Tissier v. Wales (Ala.), 39 So. 924 415, 663, 815, 871 Titus v. Johnson, 50 Tex. 224 . . 940 Tobey v. Leonard, 2 Wall. (U. S.) 423 878 Toffey v. Williams, 5 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 294 508, 510 Tobie, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Wal- dron, 75 Me. 472 200, 243 Tobin V. Allen, 53 Miss. 563 . . 32 Toby V. Reed, 9 Conn. 216 526 Todd V. Hartly, 59 Ky. 206 .. . 346 Todd V. Larkin, 38 La. Ann. 762 963 Todd V. Monell, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 362 137, 299, 426 Todd V. Nelson, 109 N. Y. 316 189, 352, 909 Tognini v. Kyle, 15 Nev. 464.. ccxlvi Table of Cases. PAGE 954, 959, 1000, 1005 Tognini v. Kyle, 17 Nev. 209 . . 525, 550, 998 Tolbert v. Horton, 31 Minn. 518 754, 774 Tolerton, etc., Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 63 Neb. 674 915 ToUes V. Wood, 99 N. Y. 616. . 134 Tolman v. Ward, 86 Me. 305.. 322, 580 Tomlinson v. Matthews, 98 111. 178 513 Tomlinson v. Roberta, 25 Conn. 477 34 Tompkins v. Catawba Mills, 82 Fed. 782 773 Tompkins v. Hunter, 149 N. Y. 117 456, 488 Tompkins v. Levy, 87 Ala. 263 125, 126, 821, 824 Tompkins v. Nichols, 53 Ala. 197 393, 562, 890, 891, 957 Tompkins v. Parcell, 12 Hun (N. Y.), 662 781 Tompkins v. Sprout, 55 Cal. 36 24, 712 Tompkins v. Wheeler, 16 Pet. (U. S.) 106 457, 489 Toney v. Goodley, 57 Mo. App. 235 552 Toney v. McGehee, 38 Ark. 419. 191, 194, 350 Tong V. Maivin, 15 Mich. 60 . . . 858 Tonkin v. Ennis, 1 Bq. Cas. Abr. (Eng.) 334 336 Toof V. Martin, 13 Wall. (U. S.) 40 1084, 1091, 1142 Toole V. Darden, 41 N. C. 394. 192 Tootle V. Cadwell, 30 Kan. 125. 339 Tootle V. Ooldwell, 30 Kan. 125 459 Tootle V. Dunn, 6 Neb. 93 588 Toop V. Smith, 181 N. Y. 283. . 672 Topp V. Todd, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 382 148 Topping V. Lynch, 2 Rob. (N. Y.) 484 528, 534, 997 Toronto Bank v. Irwin, 28 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 397 232, 355 Toronto Bank v. MoDougall, 15 U. C. C. P. 475 468 Torrance v. Winfield Nat. Bank, 11 Am. B. R. 185 1163 Torrey v. Cameron, 73 Tex. 583 314, 372., 514 Torrey Cedar Co. v. Eul, 95 Wis. 615 300 Torrey v. Dickinson, 111 111- PAGE , App. 524 140 Torrey v. Dickinson, 213 111. 36 406 Torrey v. Dickinson, 213 111. 36 966 Torreyson v. Turnbaugh, 105 Mo. App. 439 211, 213 Totten, V. Brady, 54 Md. 170 . . 459, 904, 907 Totten V. Douglass, 15 Grant Ch. (Oaoa.) 126 332 Toulmin v. Buchanan, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 67 322 Tounstine v. Ware, 39 La. Ann. 939 823 Towar v. Barrington, Brightley N. P. (Pa.) 253 581 Tower Mfg. Co. v. Thompson, 90 Ala. 129 816 Towle V. Davenport, 16 N. B. R. 478 1234 Towle V. Hoit, 14 N. H. 61 . . . 23, 434 Towle V. Janvrin, 61 N. H. 605. 760, 855 Town of Lyndon v. Belden, 14 Vt. 423 299, 535, 537 Towne v. Rice, 59 N. H. 412 .. . 522 535 Towns V. Smith, 115 Ind. 480. .' 797, 806, 936, 969 Townsend v. Bumpua, 29 App. Div. (N. Y.) 122 426 Townsend v. Little, 109 U. S. 504 732 Townaend v. Maynard, 45 Pa. St. 198 87, 343 Townsend v. Miller, 7 La. Ann. 632 : . . 1035 Townsend v. Tuttle, 28 N. J. Eq. 449 198 Townsend v. Westoott, 2 Brev. 340 340 Townsend v. Wilson, 114 Ky. 504 280, 347 Townshend v. Windhaai, 2 Ves. (Eng.) 1 217, 337, 350 Trabue v. Henderson, 180 Mo. 616 91 Tracy v. Cover, 28 Ohio St. 61. 153 Tracy v. Ginsberg, 189 Mass. 260 1190 Tracy v. Kelley, 52 Ind. 535 .. . 39 Traders' Bank v. Campbell, 14 WalL (U. S.) 87 1090, 1171, 1172, 1223, 1233 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Chipman, Table of Cases. ccxlvii PAGE id 276 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Clare, 76 Tex. 47 305, 306, 618 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Day, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 569 1003 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Day, 87 Tex. 101 523 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Fry, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 403 1006 Traders' Nat. Bank v. Steere, 165 Mass. 387 460, 507 Trager v. Peiblemanj 95 Ala. 60 , 242 Traip v. Gould, 15 Me. 82 758 Train v. Kendall, 137 Mass. 366 460 Trapnell v. CJonklyn, 37 W. Va. 242 108, 111, 112, 114 Trask v. Bowers^ 4 N. H. 309 . . 414, 434, S30 Trask v. Green, 9 Mioh. 358 .. . 67, 70, 734, 753, 758, 804 Travers v. Ramsey, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 24,152. 531 Traverse v. Tate, 82 Cal. 170.. 951 Traylor v. Townsend, 61 Tex. 144 613 Treacey v. Liggett, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 441 275 Treadway v. Turner, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 949 39., 171, 797, 803, 897 Treadwell v. Brown, 44 N. H. 551 866, 1040 Treadvi^ell v. McEwen, 123 111. 253 ...979, 1051 Tredwell v. Graham, 88 N. C. 208. . 410, 581, 895, 908 Treat v. Barber, 7 Conn. 275 . . 673 Treat v. Curtis, 124 Mass. 348. 937 Treat v. Wooden, 14 Am. B. R. 736 1209 Trefethen v. Lynam, 90 Me. 376. 36, 104, 130, 397, 900 Tregaskie v. Judge Detroit Super. Ct., 47 Mich. 509 1047 Trego V. Skinner, 42 Md. 426 . . 36, 136, 811, 824, 870 Tremaine v. Mortimer, 128 N. Y. 1 454, 772 Tremper v. Barton, 18 Ohio, 418 634 Trent v. Edmonds, 32 Ind. App. 432 585, 741, 742, 849 Trentman v. Swartzell, 85 Ind. 443 579 Tresch v. Wirtz, 34 N. J. Eq. 124 106, 111, 114 Treseder v. Burgor, 130 Wis. 201 1128 PACK Trester v. Pike, 43 Neb. 779. . . 279 Treusoh v. Ottenburg, 54 Fed. 867...... ..744, 919, 923, 943, 1003 Trezevaat v. Terrill, 96 Tenn. 528 184, 192, 349 Trice v. Rose, 79 Ga. 75 225, 261, 914, 1010 Trieber v. Andrews, 31 Ark. 163 583, 593 Trim v. Wagner, Fed. Gas. No. 14,174 1122 Trimble v. Rateliff, 48 Ky. 511. 378 Trimble v. Turner, 21 Miss. 348 1027 Triplett v. Graham^ 58 Iowa, 135 ....339, 975 Triplett v. Witherspoon, 70 N. C. 589 220 Tripp V. Childs, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 85 103 Trippe v. Ward, 2 Ga. 304.... 766 Trompen v. Yates, 66 Neb. 525. 318 Trott V. Warren, 11 Me. 227.. 721 Trotter v. Howard, 8 N. C. 320. 522 Trotter v. Watson, 25 Tenn. 509 588 Trough's Estate, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 214. 128 Trounatine v. Irving, 91 Ga. 92 561, 999 Troustine v. Lask, 4 Baxt. (Tenn.) 162 73, 605, 608 Trowbridge v. Bullard, 81 Mich. 451 750, 774 Trowbridge v. Sickler, 54 Wis. 306 987 Trowell v. Shenton, L. R. (Eng.) 8 327 Troxall v. Applegarth, 24 Md. 163 530 Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Norman, 107 Ala. 667 227, 537, 918 Troy V. Bickford, 24 Waah. 159. 953 Troy V. Morse, 22 Wash. 280 . . 69, 417, 476 Troy V. Smith, 33 Ala. 469 ... . 394 True V. Cohgdon, 44 N. H. 48. 627 Truesdale v. Bourke, 145 N. Y. 612 962, 980, 996 Truesdale v. Bourke, 29 App. Div. (N. Y.) 95 585 Truesdale v. Sarles, 104 N. Y. 164 329, 569, 1018 Truitt v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 364. 419, 428 Truitt V. Crook, 129 Ala. 377 . . 309 Truitt V. Curd, 13 Ky. L. Rep. lis 3d Truitt V. Truitt, 37 Ind. 514. . . 1010 Trumbull v. Hewitt, 62 Conn. ccxlviii Table of Cases. PAOE 448 290, 341, 363 Trumbull v. Hewitt, 65 Conn. 60 624, 938, 945 Trunick v. Smith., 63 Pa. St. 18 529 Trustees of Wadswortheille Poor School V. Pryson, 34 S. C. 401 328 Tryon v. Flournoy, 80 Ala. 221. 440 Tubb V. Williams, 26 Tenn. 355. 173, 739, 770, 1024 Turbeville v. Gibson, 52 Tenn. 565 301, 691 Tuck V. Olds, 29 Fed. 738 32 Tucker v. Andrews, 13 Me. 124. 585 Tucker v. Clisby, 29 Mass. 22.. 746 Tucker v. Denico, 26 E. I. 560. 738, 741, 769 Tucker v. Drake, 11 Allen (Mass.), 145 159, 168 Tucker v. Pennington (Civ. App.), 45 S. W. (Tex.) 313.. 189 Tucker v. Tucker, 29 Mo. 350.. 811 Tucker v. Young, Manitoba T. Wood, 186 582 Tuckey v. Lovell, 8 Ida. 731... 116 Tuekwood v. Hanthom, 67 Wis. 326 990 Tudor V. DeLong, 18 Mont. 499. 304 Tuealey v. Robinson, 103 Mass. 558 152 Tufts V. Bunker, 55 Me. 178.. 918 Tufts y. DuBignon, 61 Ga. 322. 631, 642 Tully V. Harloe, 35 Gai. 302. . . 301, 317, 985, 993 Tumlin v. Crawford, 61 Ga. 128 9 Tunison v. Chamblin, 88 111. 378 187, 348, 901 Tunnell v. Jefferson, 5 Har. (Del.) 206 303, 482 Tunnell v. Larson, 39 Minn. 268 534, 918 Tunno v. Trezevant, 2 Desauss. (S. C.) 264 322 Tupper V. Thompson, 26 Minn. 385 884 Turgeon v. Shannon, 20 Quebec Super. Ot. C. S. (Can.) 135.. 323 Turner Hardware Co. v. Rey- nolds, 47 S. W. (I. T.) 307.. 598 Turner-Looker Co. v. Garvey, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1205 36, 131, 753 Turner v. Adams, 46 Mo. 95 . . . 774, 783, 797, 844 Turner v. Campbell, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 77 640 PAGE Turner v. Coolidge, 43 Mass. 350 539 Turner v. Fisher, 13 Am. B. R. 243 1166 Turner v. Gottwals, 15 App. Cas. (D. C.) 43.... 403, 897, 1053 Turner v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 2 Wash. 192 463, 474, 488 Turner v. McFee, 61 Ala. 468.. 311, 457 Turner v. Mills, 11 U. C. C. P. 366 534 Turner v. Short (Ky.), 4 S. W. 347 773 Turner v. Smith, 26 Graut Oh. (U. C.) 198 816- Turner v. Vaughan, 33 Ark. 454 1021 Turner v. Yoimker, 76 Iowa, 258 954 Turnipseed v. Kentucky Wagon Co., 97 Ga. 258 1048, 1049 Turnley v. Hooper, 3 Smale & G. 349. 142 Tuteur v. Chase, 66 Miss. 476. 615, 617, 980 Tuthill V. Goss, 89 Hun (N. Y.), 609 121, 126, 809 Tuthill V. Myrus, 57 App. Div. (N. Y.) 37 1017 Tuthill V. Skidmore, 124 N. Y. 148 969 Tuttle V. Hayes, 107 N. Y. Supp. 22 524 Tuttle V. Merchants' Nat. Bank, 19 Mont. 11 541 Tuttle V. Robinson, 78 111. 332. 635 Tuttle V. Turner, 28 Tex. 759 . . 588, 627 Tuxworth V. Moore, 26 Mass. 347 544 Twyne's Case, 1 Smith Lead. Cas. 1. . . 14, 16, 19, 67 Twyne'a Case, supra 246 Twyne's Case, 3 Rep. 80 223, 240, 245, 246, 247, 248 414, 435, 600, 627 Tyberandt v. Raucke, 96 111. 71 966 l^ler V. Budd, 96 Iowa, 29 367 lyier V. Carlton, 7 Me. 175... 383 Tyler v. Davis (Ind. App.), 75 N. E. 3 886 Tyler v. HambUn, 58 Tenn. 152. 197 819 I^ler V. Peatt, 30 Mich. 63 . . . .' 774 Tyler v. Tyler, 126 111. 525 ... . 202, 435, 436, 439, 453, 650 Tyler v. Wilkerson, 20 Ind. 473. 813- l5'iier v. Somerville, Smith Table of Cases. ccxlix PAGE (Ind.), 149 382 lyner v. Somerville, 1 Ind. 175. 410, 587 U Uhl V. Beatty (N. J. C!h.), 3 Atl. 524 461, 490 Uhl V. Dillon, 10 Md. 50O 774 Uhler V. Maulfair, 23 Pa. St. 481. . .462, 464, 471,477, 490, 492 Uhlfelder v. Levy, 9 Cal. 607. . 811 TJhre v. Melum, 17 III. App. 182 339, 848 XJhrig V. Hlorstman, 8 Bush (Ky.),172 105 Ullman v. Crenshaw, 16 S. W. 1012 . . 613 Ullman v. Diincan, 78 Wis. 213 775 Ulmer v. Hills, 8 Me. 326.... 251, 443, 521 Ullman v. Lock'hart, 41 So. (Fla.) 452 335 Ullman v. Myriek, 93 Ala. 532 519, 537 Ullman v. Thomas, 126 Mich. 61 366 Ullrich V. Ullrich, 68 Conn. 580 848 Ulrieh v. Duson, 36 La. Ann. 989 768 Unangst v. Goodyear India Rub- ber Glove Mfg. Co., 141 Pa. St. 127 596 Underwood v. Sutcliflfe, 77 N. Y. 58 752 793 Unger v. Price, 9 Md. 552 .' 358 Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223... 472, 488 Union Bank v. Toomer, 2 Hill. Eq. (S. C.) 27 584 Union Canal Co. v. Woodside, 11 Pa. bt. 176 1235 Union Cen. L. Ins. Co. v. Eck- ert, 5 Ohio Dec. 528 125, 177 Union Nat. Bank v. Lane, 177 111. 171 669 Union Nat. Bank v. Warner, 12 Hun (N. Y.), 306 587, 620, 695, 1013 Union Pac. R. Co. v. Smersh, 22 Neb. 751 156 Union Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 168 111. 256 473 Union Square Nat. Bank v. Sim- mons, 42 Atl. (N. J.) 489. . . 958 Union l"rust Co. v. D^isher, 25 Fed'. 178 105, 362 Union Trust Co. v. Wilson, 198 U. S. 530 1124 United States v. American Bell PAGE Teleph. Co., 128 U. S. 315.. 868 United States v. Anistad, 15 Pet. (U. S.) 594 3 United States v. Church of Jesus Christ, etc., 5 Utah, 538 824 United States v. Coffin, 33 Fed. 337 . . 311 United States v. Eisenbeis, 88 Fed. 4 740' United States v. Griswold, 8 Fed. 496 32, 317, 328, 690 United States v. Griswold, 8 Fed. 556 983 United States v. Hooe, 3 Cranch (U.S.), 73 5 United States v. Ingate, 48 Fed. 251 185, 775, 846 United States Bank v. Lee, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 107 359 United States v. Lotridge, 1 Mc- Lean (U. S.), 246 801 United States v. Stiner, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,404 350 United States v. United States Bank, 8 Rob. (La.) 262 4, 12, 459, 575 United States Bank v. House- man, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 526. 252, 909 United States Bank v. Huth, 43 Ky. 423 78, 199, 562 U. S. Mortgage Co. v. Marquam, 41 Or. 391 637, 640 U. S. Nat. Bank v. Westervelt, 55 Neb. 424 312 United States Trust Co. v. Sedg- wick, 97 U. S. 304 284, 680, 689, 1024 Unitype Co. v. Long (C. C. A.), 16 Am. B. R. 282 1193 Unmack v. Douglass, 75 Conn. 633 579, 1126, 1131 Updegrail v. Rowland, 52 Pa. St. 317 340 Updegrajff v. Theaker, 57 Mo. App. 45 178, 279 Updike V. Titus, 13 N. J. Eq. 151 386 Upper Canada Bank v. Beatty, 9 Grant Ch. (Can.) 321 258 Upper Canada Bank v. Shick- luna, 10 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 157 60, lOO, 101, 102 Upson V. Mt. Morris Bank, 14 Am. B. R. (N. Y.) 6.... 618, 1166 Upson V. Raiford, 29 Ala. 188. . gi9 Upton V. Craig, 57 111. 257.. 238, 637 ccl Table of Cases. Upton V. Dennis, 133 Mieh. 238 Uidangen &. Greenberg Bros. v. Doner 122 Iowa, 533 8, 231,' 354, 579, 590, 612, 617, Usiher v. Hazeltine, 5 Me. 471. . Vaccaro v. Bank, 4 Am. B. E.. 474 . ■ 1074, Vail V. Craig, 13 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 448 984, Vail V. Hammond, 60 Conn. 374 118, Valentine v. Hurd, 21 Fed. 749 31, Valentine v. Richardt, 126 N. Y. 272 , Vallance v. Miners L. Ins. Co., 42 Pa. St. 441 429, Vailey Distilling Co. v. Atkins, 50 Ark. 289 ....520, 905, 941, Van Beck v. Shuman, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 472 Van Bibber v. Mathis, 52 Tex. 406 340, 341, 344, Van Blarcom v. Isaac, 92 Wis. 541. Van Brunt v. Pike, 4 Gill (Md.), 270 Van Buskirk v. Warren, 4 Abb. Dee. (N. Y.) 457 Van Campen v. Ingram (N. J. Ch.), 12 Atl. 537 Vance v. Boynton, 8 Cal. 554. . Vance v. Campbell, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 448 18, Vance v. Phillips, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 433 297, Vance v. Smith, 49 Tenn. 343. 239, Vance Shoe Co. v. Haught, 41 W. Va. 275 679, 686, 724, 856, 858, 861, Vandall v. Vandall, 13 Iowa, 247 Vandercook v. Gere, 69 Iowa, 467 Vanderveere v. Gaston, 25 N. J. L. 615 Vanderveer v. Stryker, 8 N. J. Eq. 175 Vandervort v. Fouse, 52 W. Va. 214 131,952, 954, 976, Vandeventer v. Goss, 116 Mo. App. 316 266, 279, 340, 361, 889, Vandever v. Freeman, 20 Tex. PAGE PAGE 840 .333 814 Van Dewater v. Gear, 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 201 772, 883 620 Vandine v. Eherman, 26 La. 284 Ann. 388 818 Van Dusen v. Hinz, 108 Wis. 178 561 Van Duzeu v. Pea«ock, 11 Neb. 1100 245 374 Van Epps v. Van Epps, 9 Paige, 1007 237 689 Vanfleet v. Phillips, 11 Iowa, 845 558 49 Van Heusen v. Eadcliff, 17 N. 159 Y. 580 68, 733 Van Hoesen v. Teaehout, 88 866 Iowa, 459 363 Van Hook v. Walton, 28 Tex. 986 59 448, 523, 564 Van Kirk v. Slate Co., 15 Am. 962 B. R. 239 1191 Vanmeter v. Estill, 78 Ky. 456 49 526, 559 Vann v. Hargett, 22 N. C. 31 . .. 870 987 Van Ness v. McLeod, 3 Ida. 439 744, 747 1023 Van Norman v. Jackson Circuit Judge, 45 Mieh. 204 742 542 Van Patten v. Thompson, 73 Iowa, 103 317 519 Van Patten & Marks v. Leon- ard, 55 Iowa, 529 175 57 Van Pelt v. Littler, 10 Cal. 394 535 550 Van Raalte v. Harrington, 101 Mo. 602 615, 967, 994 796 Van Rensselaer v. Van Rens- selaer, 113 N. Y. 207 1024 391 Van Riswick v. Spalding, 117 U. S. 370 51 269 Vansickle v. Shenk, 150 Ind. 413 760,762,852,919, 93T Vansickle v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 1023 105 Fed. 16.. 248, 319, 320, 369, 381, 499, 508, 512, 515, 578, 939 957 Van Slyck v. Woodruff, 118 App. Div. (N. Y.) 47 . . .. 977 963 Vanston v. Davidson, 41 111. App. 646 384 47 Van Vliet v. Halsey, 37 Kan. 116 569, 860, 867 874 Van Weel v. Winston, 115 U. S. 228 844 977 Van Winkle v. McKee, 7 Mo. 435 632, 747 Van Wy v. Clark, 50 Ind. 259. 637 894 Van Wyck v. Baker, 16 Hun (N. Y. ) , 168 .. . 330, 578, 690, 703, 809 Table of Cases. ccli PAOE Van Wyck v. Seward, 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 375 182, 197, 266, 1084, 1138 Van Wyck v. Seward, 6 Paige, 62 249, 264, 268, 278, 338 Van Wyle v. Baker, 10 Hun (N. Y.), 39 1013 Van Vleet v. Stratton, 91 Tenn. 473 104 Vanzant v. Davies, 6 Ohio St. 52 37, 192 Varnum v. Behn, 175 N. Y. 522 1017, 1023 Varnum v. Bolton Shoe Co., 84 N. Y. Supp. 967 690 Varwig v. Cleveland, etc. K. Co., 54 Ohio St. 455 218 Vashon v. Barrett, 99 Va. 344 833 837 Vason V. Bell, 53 Ga. 416 .' 322 Vasser v. Henderson, 40 Miss. 619 627, 739 76i, 774, 794, 796, 845 Vattier v. Hinde, 32 U. S. 252 411, 510 Vaughan v. Thompson, 17 111. 78 151 Vaughn v. Owens, 21 111. App, 249 566 Veazie v. Holines, 40 Me. 69. . . 536 Veazie v. Somerby, 86 Mass. 280 548 Venable v. Bank of U. S., 27 U. S. 107 818,961, 965 Vennard v. McConnell, 93 Mass. 555 276 Verdier v. Foster, 2 Kich. Eq. (S. C.) 227 1040. Vermont Sav. Bank v. Elliott, 53 Mich. 256 160 Verner v. Downs, 13 S. C. 449 . . 796 Verner v. Verner, 64 Miss. 184 395, 891, 907 Vernon v. Morton, 38 Ky. 247. 520, 553 Verplank v. Sterry, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 536 322, 325, 350 Versailles Bank v. Guthrey, 127 Mo. 189 152 Verselius v. Verselius, 9 Blatchf. (U. S.) 189.... 820, 1039 Vertner v. Humphreys, 22 Miss. 130 328, 274, 328, 350 A^estal V. AUen, 94 Ind. 268.. 821, 833 Vial V. Mathewson, 34 Hun (N. Y.), 70 -. 383 Vick V. Flowers, 5 N. C. 321 . . 447, 651 page: Vick V. Kegs, 3 N. C. 287 522 Viokers v. Block, 31 La. Ann. 672 67 Vickers v. Buck Stove, etc., Co., 60 Kan. 598 618 Vickers v. Woodruff, 78 Iowa, 400 996 Vicksburg, etc., E. Co. v. Phil- lips, 64 Miss. 108 759, 761 Vietor v. Glover, 17 Wash. 37 . . 463, 471 Vietor v. Levy, 148 N. Y. 739.. 456, 487, 599, 686 Vietor v. Lewis, 1 Am. B. E. 667 1230 Victor V. Swisky, 200 111. 257. 367, 397, 508, 512, 514 Victoria Paper Mills v. New York, etc., Co., 28 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 123 718, 719 Victor Sewing Mach. Co. v. Jacobs, 46 Mich. 494 138 Viers v. Detroit Paper Package Co., 119 Mich. 192 572 Vilas Nat. Bank v. Newton, 25 App. Div. 62. . .418, 599, 614, 927 Vincent v. State, 74 Ala. 274. . 370 Vincent v. Suoqualmie Mill Co., 7 Wash. 566 32, 33 Vining v. Gilbreth, 39 Me. 496 543 Vinton v. Felts, 71 111. App. 630 151 Violett V. Violett, 32 Ky. 323. 580 Viquesney v. Allen, 131 Fed. 21 185, 776, 1212, 1219 Virden v. Dwyer, 78 Miss. 763 898, 966 Virginia Bd. of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 521 773, 776 Visher v. Webster, 13 Cal. 58 . . 549 Vitoneno v. Corea, 92 Cal. 69.,. 652 Vodrie v. Tynan (Tex. Civ. App.), 57 S. W. 680.... 836, 838 Vogedes v. Beakes, 38 App. Div. 380 985 Vogle V. Lathrop, Fed. Cas. No. 16,985 1169 Vogler V. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577 92, 162 Vogt V. Ticknor, 48 N. H. 242. 832, 941 VoUkommer v. Cody, 177 N. Y. 124 854, 1009 Volusia County Bank v. Ber- tola, 44 Fla. 734 520 Volusia County Bajak v. Bige- low (Fla.), 33 So. 704.. 914, 916 cclii Table of Cases. PAGE Voorhees v. Blanton, 83 Fed. 234 U6, 191, 232, 334 457, 698, el. Ch. 209 458, 469 Whaun v. Atkinson, 84 Ala. 592 513 Whayne v. Morgan, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 254 823 Wheatley v. Chamberlain Bank- ing House (Neb.), 101 N. W. 1135 160 Wheaton v. Neville, 19 Cal. 41 458, 464, 488, 489, 492, 501, 570, 593 Wheby v. Moir, 102 Va. 875.. 582, 979 Whedbee v. Stewart, 40 Md. 414 572 Whedon v. Champlin, 59 Barb. (N. Y.) 61 683 Wheelden v. Wilson, 44 Me. 11 32, 344, 571 PAQK Wheeler v. Brady, 4 Thomp. (N. Y.) & C. 547 244 Wheeler v. Caryl Ambl. ( Eng. ) 121 ! 324 Wheeler v. Kirkland 23 N. J. Eq. 13 83 Wheeler v. Koust, 46 Wis. 398. 1000 Wheeler v. Laseh, 106 N. W. (Mich.) 689 970 Wheeler v. Nichols, 32 Me. 233 544 Wheeler v. Selden, 63 Vt. 429. . 529 Wheeler v. Single, 62 Wis. 380 269 Wheeler v. Stone, 4 Gill (Md.) 38 . 459 Wheeler v. Taylor, 41 N. C. 225 771 Wheeler v. Train, 20 Mass. 255 521, 539 Wheeler v. Wallace, 53 Mich. 364 69i 632, 660, 674 Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Bjel- land, 97 Iowa, b37 160 Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Has- brouck, 68 Iowa, 554 1017 Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Mona- han, 63 Wis. 198 349, 376 Wheelock v. Lee, 64 N. Y. 242. 1198 Wheelock v. Wood, 93 Pa. St. 298 334 Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 537 325, 818 Whelpley v. Stoughton, 119 Mich. 314 892 Whetmore v. Murdock, 29 Fed'. Cas. No. 17,509 392 Whitaker v. Garnett, 66 Ky. 402 971 Whitaker v. Sumner, 37 Mass. 399 312 Whitaker v. Whitaker, 157 Mo. 342 632, 639 Whitcher v. Shattuek, 85 Mass. 319 945 White V. Barcow, 14 Ohio St. 339 681 White V. Benjamin, 150 N. Y. 258 396, 512, 941 White V. Benjamin, 3 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 490 252 White V. Bettis, 56 Tenn. 645 . . 192 White V. Brocaw, 14 Ohio St. 339 634, 640, 653 White V. Gates, 37 Ky. 357 214, 810, 1021 White V. Cole, 24 Wend. 116.. . 539, 540 White V. Gaines, 29 La. Ann. 769 736 White V. Gibson, 113 Mo. App. Table of Cases. cclix PAGE 568 223, 231, 247, 533 White V. Graves, 30 Ky. 523 434, 445 White V. Gunn, 205 Pa. St. 229 527 986 990 White V. Hildreth, 32 Vt. 265. .' 131 White V. Magarahan, 87 Ga. 217 407 White V. Megill, 18 Atl. (N. J.) 355 251, 355, 444 White V. Miller, 46 Vt. 65. .527, 990 White V. Million, 102 Mo. App. 437 408, 594, 615, 709, 718, 986, 989 White V. Pease, 15 Utah, 170. . 552 White V. Perry, 14 W. Va. 86..9, 980 White V. Russell, 79 111. 155 . . 641, 789 White V. Sansom, 3 Atk. 410. . 142 336 White V. Seldon, 4 Nev. 280. . .' 90 White V. Slaughter, 5 La. Ann. 136 390 White V. Schloerb, 178 U. S. 542 1215 White V. Sterzing, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 553 583 White V. Stevens, 7 U. C. Q. B. 340 463, 501 White V. Thompson, 9 Am. B. R. 653 1226 White V. Trotter, 14 8m. & M. (Miss.) 30 27, 53, 812, 955 White V. White, 35 N. C. 265 77, 135, 138 White V. Wise, 134 Cal. 613 1009 White V. Wilson, 102 Mo. App. 437 665 White's Banli v. Farthing, 10 St. Rep. 830 343, 346, 585, 920, 985 White's Bank v. Farthing, 101 N. Y. 344 815, 816 White Sewing Mach. Co. v. At- kinson, 75 Tex. 330.. 99, 760, 1028 Whitehead v. Woodruff, 74 Ky. 209 459 Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458. . . . 182, 205, 265, 343, 986, 998 Whitehouse v. Nelson (Wash.), 86 Pae. 174 175 Whitescarver v. Bonney, 9 Iowa, 480 179 Whitesel v. Hiney, 62 Ind. 168. 290 Whiteleiy v. Seroggin, 95 111. App. 530 . . 958, 963 Whitfield v. Stiles, 57 Mich. 410 460, 473, 906, 929 Whiting V. Barrett, 7 Lans. (N. FAOE Y.) 106 151, 155 Whiting V. Beckwith, 31 Conn. 596 106 Whiting V. Earle, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 201 110 Whiting V. Hogland, 127 Wis. 135 979 Whiting V. Johnson, 11 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 328 78, 238, 318 Whiting V. Laurason, 7 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 603 783 Whiting V. Prentice, 12 Rob. 141 272, 580 Whiting V. Ralph, 75 Conn. 41 187, 347 Whiting Mfg. Co. v. Gephart, 6 Wash. 615 525 Whitley, etc., Co. v. Roach, 8 Am. B. R. 505 1153 Whitman v. O'Brien, 29 Pa. Super. Ct. 208 . .600, 607 Whitmore v. Woodward, 28 Me. 392 13, 135, 187, 192, 817 Whitney v. Brunette, 3 Wis. 621 523 Whitney v. Davis, 148 N. Y. 256 772, 776, 783 Whitney v. Freeland, 26 Minn. 481 69, 177 Whitney v. Leominster Sav. Bank, 141 Mass. 85 451 Whitney v. Levon, 34 Neb. 443 235 237 Whitney v. Lynde, 16 Vt. 579 544, 545 Whitney v. Rose, 43 Mich. 27. 894 Whitney v. Stark, 8 Cal. 514. . 524 Whitney v. Stearns, 52 Mass. 319 768 Whitney v. Wenman, 198 U. S. 539 1215, 1217 Whitson v.-Griffis, 39 Kan. 211 392 415 'Whitt V. Kendall, 11 Ky. l! Rep. 116 164 Whittier v. Varney, 10 N. H. 291 948 Whittington v. Jennings, 3 L. J. Ch. (Eng.) 157 183 Whittle V. Bailes, 65 Mich. 640 920, 925 Whittlesey v. Delaney, 73 N. Y. 571 860 Whittlesey v. McMahon, 10 Conn. 137 36 Whittredge v. Edmunds, 63 N. H. 248 228, 238, 317 cclx Table of Cases. Whyte V. Denike, 53 App. Div. (N. Y.) 320 327, Wick V. Dawson, 42 W. Va. 43 280, 346, Wick V. Hickey (Iowa), 103 N. W. 469 Wick V. Kunzeman, 30 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 457 Wickes V. Clark, 8 Paige (N. Y.), 161 Wickes v. Clark, 3 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 58 140, 142, 265, Wickham v. Miller, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 320 Wickler v. People, 68 111. App. 282 458, Wickliflfes v. Lyon, 28 Ky. 84. Widdall V. Garsed, 125 Pa. St. 358 Widgery v. Haskell, 5 Mass. 144 460, 894, Wier V. Day, 57 Iowa, 84. .200, Wiggins V. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 145 22, Wiggins V. Tumlin, 96 Ga. 753 Wiggington v. Winter, 28 Ky. L. Kep. 79..255, 589, 627, 897, Wightman v. Hart, 37 111. 123 Wilbur V. Fradenburgh, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 474 278, 290, 309, 311, Wilbur V. Nichols, 61 Vt. 432. . Wilcher v. Thompson (Miss.), 12 So. 828 Wilcox V. Fitch, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 472 19, 198, Wilcox V. Hammond, 128 Mich. 516 Wilcox V. Hawley, 31 N. Y. 648 Wilcox V. Lundberg, 30 Minn. 93 430, Wilcox V. Payne, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 607 Wilcoxen v. Annesley, 23 Ind. 285 431, 448, 459, 476, 506, Wilcoxon V. Burton, 27 Cal. 228 44, 48, 238, Wilcoxson v. Darr, 139 Mo. 660 857, 879, Wilcoxen v. Morgan, 2 Colo. 473 191, 347, 711, Wilder v. Fondey, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 100 52, Wilder v. Watts, 15 Am. B. R. 57 1092, Wilder v. Winne, 6 Cow. (N. PAGE 585 376 893 257 147 327 589 465 632 905 642 1041 480 952 395 966 284 160 1058 902 1202 448 802 477 507 317 959 921 53 1124 PAGE Y.) 284 43, 54, 79, 456, 465 471, 500, 1054, 1055 Wilds V. Bogan, 55 Ind. 331.. 363 Wiley V. Carter, 77 Iowa, 751. 644 Wiley V. Knight, 27 Ala. 336 . . 603, 690 Wiley V. Lashlee, 8 Humph. (Teun.) 717 523 Wilhelmi v. Leonard, 13 Iowa, 330 988 Wilhite V. Daniels, 67 Pa. (Kan.) 452 315 Wilkerson v. Moffett-West Drug Co. (Miss.), 21 So. 564 917 Wilkes V. Ferris, 5 Johns. (N. Y.) 335 456 Wilkinson v. Buster, 115 Ala. 578 964 Wilkinson v. Goodin, 71 Mo. App. 394 856, 857 Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 1 Head (Tenn.) , 305 141 Wilkinson v. Yale, 6 McLean (U. S.), 16 781 Wilks V. Vaughan (Ark.), 83 S. W. 913. .151, 159, 162, 832, 896 Willard v. Masterson, 160 111. 443 67, 734 Willett V. Frodich, 28 Ky. L. Eep. 798 862 Willett V. Malli, 65 Iowa, 675. 931 William v. Newberry, 41 Ala. 168 587 William v. Rapelje, 8 U. O. C. P. 186 534 William Ottman & Co. v. Cooper, 81 Hun (N. Y.), 530 428 Williams v. Andrews, 185 111. 98 458, 464 Williams v. Avent, 40 N. C. 47. 1038 Williams v. Banks, 11 Md. 198 187, 195, 265, 267 279, 281, 283, 340 Williams v. Barnett, 52 Tex. 130 297 Williams v. Bizzell, 11 Ark. 716 182, 205 Williams v. Borgwardt, 119 Cal. 80 722 Williams v. Brown (Mich.), 100 N. W. 786 521 Williams v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 682 44, 456, 465, 474, 804 Williams v. Clink, 90 Mich. 297 657 Williams v. Davis, 69 Pa. St. 21 6, 191, 268, 352, 577 Table of Oases. cclxi PAGE Williams v. Desenberg, 41 Mich. 156 227 Williams v. Harris, 4 S. D. 22 367, 398, 399 Williams v. Harris, 95 Ga. 453 . 1044 Williams v. Hawthorn, 14 La. Ann. 615 816 Williams v. Higgins, 69 Ala. 517 639, 648 Williams v. Hughes, 136 N. C. 58 281, 282 Williams v. Jones, 2 Ala. 314 . . 240, 457, 499, 501 Williams v. Kelsey, 6 Ga. 365. 992 Williams v. Kemper, 99 Minn. 301 193 Williams v. Kemper, etc.. Dry Goods Co., 4 Okla. 145 86, 87, 88 Williams v. Kemper (Minn.), 109 N. W. 242 413, 420, 854 Williams v. Kirk, 68 Mo. App. 457 253, 560 Williams v. Lerch, 56 Cal. 330 544 Williams v. Lord, 75 Va. 390 . . 161, 463 Williams v. Love, 23 Tenn. 62 233, 646 Williams v. Lowe, 4 Humph. (Tenn.) 62 70 Williams v. Michenor, 11 N. J. Eq. 520 741, 742, 753, 761 782, 818, 1044 Williams v. Neel, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 338 870 Williams v. Osborne, 95 Ind. 347 341 Williams v. Perry, 3 Tex. Civ. Cas., sec. 209 462 Williams v. Porter, 41 Wis. 422 523, 911 Williams v. Eawlins, 33 Ga. 117 23 Williams v. Robbins, 15 Gray (Mass.), 590 95 Williams v. Robbins, 81 Mass. 590 292, 925 Williams v. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 Md. Ch. 418 330, 691 Williams v. Simms, 70 Fed. 40 457, 960, 970 Williams v. Snebly, 92 Md. 9. 701 Williams v. Snyder, 94 N. W. (Iowa) 845 373 Williams v. Spragins, 102 Ala. 424 818, 824, 856, 858 Williams v. Stowell (Kan. App.), 48 Pac. 894 237 PAGE Williams v. Stowell, 5 Kan. App. 880 315, 316, 317 Williams v. - Thompson, 30 Mass. 298 376 Williams v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270 90, 134, 137 Williams v. Tipton, 5 Humphr. 66 (Tenn.) 206 Williams v. Tipton, 24 Tenn. 66 774 Williams v. Tye, 19 K!y. L. Rep. 818 2?ff, 408 Williams v. Walton, 16 Tenn. 387 560 Williams v. White, 7 Kan. App. 664 998 Williams v. Williams, 2 Ohio Dec. 467 358 Williams v. Williams, 180 111. 361 659 Williamson v. Beardsley, 137 Fed. 467 855 Williamson v. Blackburn, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 857 332 Williamson v. Brown, 15 N. Y. 354 616, 623 Williamson v. Furbush, 31 Ark. 539 789, 790 Williamson v. Goodwyn, 9 Gratt. (Va.) 503 231, 680 Williamson v. Russell, 39 Conn. 406 722 Williamson v. Waeheuheim, 58 Iowa, 277. .588, 612, 622, 670, 705 Williamson v. Wilkinson, 81 Miss. 503 152, 154 Williamson v. Williams, 79 Tenn. 355 172, 680, 895 Williford v. Conner, 12 N. C. 379 735 Willington v. Small, 57 Mass. 145 756 Willis V. Gathman, 53 Miss. 721 330, 716 Willis V. Heath, 18 S. W. (Tex.) 801 385 Willis V. Hudson, 72 Tex. 598. 197 Willis V. Moore, Clark Ch. (N. Y.) 150 771 Willis V. Murphy, 28 S. W. (Tex.) 362 608 Willis V. Pounds, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 512 165 Willis V. Roberts, 18 Colo. App. 149 525 Willis V. Scott, 33 La. Ann. 1026 85, 178 Willis V. Thompson, 93 Ind. 62 821, 859, 861 cclxii Table of Cases. PAGE Willis V. Whittsitt, 67 Tex. 673 249, 262, 1001 Willis V. Willis, 79 App. Div. (N. Y.) 9 368, 519, 562, 563, 974 Willis V. Yates, 12 S. W. (Tex.) 232 603 Willis & Bro. v. Murphy (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 362 74 Willison V. Desenberg, 41 Mich. 156, 2 N. W. 201 317 Willows Bank v. Small, 144 Cal. 709 920 Wilmerding v. Jarmulowsky, 28 App. Div. (N. Y.) 629 907 Wilmerding v. Jarmulowsky, 85 Hun (N. Y.), 285 614 Wilson V. Ayer, 7 Me. 207 . . 91, 146 Wilson V. Beadle, 39 Tenn. 510 742 Wilson V. Berger, 5 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 822. . . .494, 495, 496, 497 Wilson V. Boone, 136 Ind. 142 852, 861 Wilson V. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 334 67, 195, 264, 270 274, 279, 343, 738 Wilson V. Butler, 3 Munf. (Va.) 659 558 Wilson V. Calveit, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 489 166, 167 Wilson V. Carrico, 50 W. Va. 336 613 Wilson V. Cheshire, 1 MoCord Eq. (S. C.) 233 418 Wilson V. Clark, 1 Ind. App. 182 579, 946 Wilson V. Cunningham, 24 Utah, 167 893, 955 Wilson V. Curtis, 13 La. Ann. 601 1036 Wilson V. Demander, 71 Tex. 603 . 209, 641, 765 Wilson V. Deerwaldt, 100 111. App. 396 848 Wilson V. Edwards, 32 Pa. Super. Ct. 295 175 Wilson V. Eifler, 47 Tenn. 31 576, 597, 583, 586 Wilson V. Fawkner, 38 III. App. 438 703 Wilson V. Fuller, 9 Kan. 176. . 580, 722 Wilson V. Harris, 19 Mont. 69. 968, 970 Wilson V. Hill, 17 Nev. 401... 525 Vi^ilson V. Hillhouse, 14 Iowa, 199 918 PAGE Wilson V. Hooper, 12 Vt. 653. . 549 Wilson V. Horr, 15 Iowa, 489 593, 690 Wilson V. Howser, 12 Pa. St. 109 280, 290, 343 Wilson V. Hunter, 30 Ind. 466 616 Wilson V. Jones, 76 Fed. 484. 319, 380, 457, 492, 620 Wilson V. Jordan, 30 Fed. Gas. No. 17,814 376 Wilson V. Kohlheim, 46 Miss. 346 339, 377, 986 Wilson V. Lexington Bank, 72 N. C. 621 864 Wilson V. Loomis, 55 111. 352. 112, 115 Wilson V. Lott, 5 Fla. 305 . .224, 394 Wilson V. Marion, 147 N. Y. 589 614 Wilson V. Martin-Wilson Auto- matic Fire Alarm Co., 149 Mass. 24 118 Wilson V. McMillan, 62 Ga. 16 110, 381 Wilson V. Prewett, 3 Woods (U. S.) 631 924 Wilson V. Prewett, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,828 583 Wilson V. Robertson, 21 N. Y. 587 573 Wilson V. Russell, 13 Md. 494. 226, 301 Wilson V. Silkman, 97 Pa. St. 509 397, 894, 898, 899 Wilson V. Snelling, 3 Bush (Ky.), 322 42 Wilson V. Spear, 68 Vt. 145 .. . 336, 340, 582, 586, 817, 824, 1008 Wilson V. Stevens, 129 Ala. 630 186, 347 Wilson V. Stoddard, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,838 258 Wilson V. Sullivan, 17 Utah, 341 856 Wilson V. Taylor, 49 Kan. 774 160, 163 Wilson V. The City Bank, 17 Wall. (U. S.) 473 1072, 1095, 1157 Wilson V. Trawick, 10 Tex. 428 70, 636 Wilson V. Vanden, 99 Tenn. 224 181 Wilson V. Watts, 9 Md. 356 .. . 7 Wilson V. Welsh, 41 Fed. 570.. 617, 980 Wilson V. Wilson, 8 U. C. C. P. 525 215 Table of Cases. cclxiii FAOB Wilson V. Wilson, 113 Ind. 415 509 Wilson Bros. v. Nelson, 183 U. S 191 1095 Wiltae V. Flaek, 115 Iowa, 51. . 330 Wilt V. Franklin, 1 Birni. (Pa.) 502 13, 462, 552, 553 Wimberly v. Montgomery Fer- tilizer Co., 132 Ala. 107 403, 871, 896, 963, 965 Wimbish v. Xailbois, Plowd. 38a 16 Wimpfheimer v. Perrine> 50 Atl. (N. J.) 356 203 Winans v. Graves, 43 N. J. Eq. 263 .^. 203 Winborne v. Lassiter, 89 N. C. 1 75, 78 Winch V. James, 68 Pa. St. 297 402 Winchester v. Charter, 94 Mass. 606 977 Winchester v. Charter, 97 Mass. 140 ,. . . 270 Winchester v. Charter, 102 Mass. 272 571, 986, 1006 Winchester v. Citandall, Clarke, 371 ,.. 722 Winchester v. Gadd, 72 N. O. 115. , 153 Winchester v. Held, 53 N. C. 377 109, 379 Windhaus v. Bootz, 25 Pae. (Cal.) 404 203, 278,.. 283 801, 969 Windmiller v. Chapman, 38 111. App. 276 703, 704 Windmueller v. Van Home, 44 111. App. 143 550 Winebrinner v. Weisiger, 19 Ky. 32 390 Winegerd v. Fallon, 95 Pa. St. 184 367 Wineland v. Coonee, 5 Mo. 296. 721 Winfield v. Adams, 34 Mich. 437 938 Winfield Nat. Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 629 509, 513 Winfield Nat. Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 634 298 Winfield Nat. Bank v. Johnson, 8 Kan. App. 830 1000 Wing V. Miller, 40 Kan. 511 .. . 958 Wing V. Peabody, 57 Vt. 19 . . . 544 Wing V. Roswald, 74 Ala. 346 . . 105, 106, 146, 149, 371 Wins V. Weeks, 88 Me. 115 1055, 1059 Winkley v. Hill, 9 N. H. 31 . . . 446 Winn V. Barnett, 31 Miss. 653. FAOE 85., 189, 193, 641, 790 Winnebrehner v. Edgerton, 30 Barb. (N. Y.) 185 49 Winner v. Hoyt, 66 Wis. 227.. 8, 915 Winslow V. Clark, 47 N. Y. 261 1171 Winslow V. Dousman, 18 Wis. 456 764, 811, 823 Winslow V. Gilbreth, 50 Mo. 90 898 Winslow V. Leland, 128 111. 304 781 Winslow V. Putnam, 130 Mich. 359 973 Winslow V. Stewart, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 368 726 Winsmith v. Winsmith, 15 S. C. 611 435, 436 Winstead v. Hulme, 32 Kan. 568 333 Winter v. Mannen, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 949 220, 221 Winter v. Railway Co., Fed. Cas. No. 17,890 1092 Winter v. Ritchie, 57 Kan. 212. 135, 160, 164, 165 Winton v. Freeman, 102 Pa. St. 366 643 Wintringham v. Wintringihami 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 296 185 Wintz V. Webbj 14 N. C. 27 733 Wisconsin Granite Co. v. Ger- rity, 144 111. 77 274, 794 Wisoons-in Granite Co. v. Ray, 144 111. 77 362 Wise y. Jefferies, 51 Fed. 641 . . 741, 810, 883 Wise V. Pfaff, 98 Md. 576 958 Wise V. Rider, 34 N. Y. Supp. 782 74, 81 Wise V. Rider, 88 Hun (N. Y.), 620 77 Wise V. Tripp, 13 Me. 9 . . . 608, 716 Wise V. Wilds, 47 Iowa, 586. . . - 509, 612 Wise V. Wimer, 23 Mo. 237 581 Wiseman v. McAlpin, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 660 580, 613 Wisner v. Farnham, 2 Mich. 472 296 Wisner v. Osborne, 64 N. J. Eq. 614 97, 110 Wiswall V. Potts, 57 N. C. 184. 304 Wiswall V. Ticknor, 6 Ala. 178. 31, 32 Wiswell V. Jarvis, 9 Fed. 84. . . 283, 327, 338, 375 Witham v. Blood, 124 Iowa, 695 861 Withrow V. Fowler, Fed. Cas. 17,919 1159 Withrow V. Warner, 56 N. J. Eq. 795... 330, 331, 691, 971, 1016 cclxiv Table of Cases. PAGE Witmer v. Port Treverton Church, 17 Pa. Co. Ct. 38 . . . 1042 Witz V. Lockridge, 39 W. Va. 463 647, 778, 1035 Woerell v. Jacob. 3 Meriv. (Eng.) 256 291 Wofford V. Farmer (Tex. Civ. App.), 40 S. W. 739 907 Woloott V. Ashenfelter, 5 N. M. 442 774 Woloott V. Hamilton, 61 Vt. 79. 132, 557, 674 Wolcott V. Rickey, 22 Iowa, 171 110 Wdeott V. Tweddle, 133 Mich. 389 713 Wolf V. Anderson, 118 N.C.890. 999 Wolf V. Arthur, 118 N. C. 890. 581, 595, 613 Wolf V. Hunter, 11 111. App. 32. 535 Wolf V. Kohr, 133 Pa. St. 13 . . 925 Wolf V. Van Metre, 23 Iowa, 397 215, 220 Wolfe V. Beecher Mfg. Co., 47 Conn. 231 645 Wolfe V. McGugin, 37 W. Va. 552 275, 469, 476 Wolff V. Wolff, 47 La. Ann. 548 947 Wolfley V. Rising, 8 Kan. 297. 520 Wolford V. Pamham, 47 Minn. 95.... 38, 272, 273, 364, 570, 682 684, 889 Wolfsberger v. Mort, 104 Mo. App. 257 103, 114, 969 Wollenberg v. Minard, 37 Or. 621 763 Wolters V. Rossi, 126 Cal. 644. 341 Wood V: Augustine, 61 Mo. 46. 207 Wood V. Castlebury, 34 S. W. 653 595 Wood V. Carpenter, 101 U. S. 135 864, 865 Wood V. Carr (Ky. Ct. App.), 10 Am. B. R. 577 1144 Wood V. Chambers, 20 Tex. 247. 1^3, 161, 1002 Wood V. Clark, 121 111. 359. .. . 458, 482, 489, 490, 908 Wood V. Dixie, 7 Q. B. 892 443, 463, 466, 495, 501 Wood V. Elliott, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 952 . . . 617 Wood V. Fisk,' 45 Or. 276 207 Wood V. Franks, 67 Cal. 32 458, 473, 993 Wood V. Genet, 8 Wend. (N. Y.) 9 325 Wood V. Goffs' Curatir, 70 Ky. 59 ,..691, 695 Wood V. Harmison, 41 W. Va. 376 234, 355, 376, Wood V. Harrison, 41 W. Va. 376 Wood V. Hollister, 3 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 14 Wood V. Hunt, 38 Barb. (N. Y.) 302 585, 620, 692, 693, 1012, 1038 Wood V. Irwin, 16 Grant Ch. 398 589 Wood V. Keith, 60 Ark. 425 .. . 593, 604 Wood V. Loomis, 21 111. App. 604 534 Wood V. Mann, 1 Sumn. (U. S.) 578 876 Wood V. Mitchell, 17 N. Y. Supp. 782 500, Wood V. Mitchell, 63 Hun (N. Y.), 629 Wood V. Mitchell, 53 Hun (N. Y.),451 Wood V. Moore, 84 Ala. 253.. Wood V. O'Hanlon, 26 Neb. 527 . Wood V. Porter, 179 Mo. 56.460, Wood V. Potts, 140 Ala. 425. . . 210, 337, 807, Wood V. Rabe, 96 N. Y. 414. . . Wood V. Reesor, 22 Ont. App. 57 84, Wood V. Riley, 121 Ala. 100 Wood V. Robinson, 22 N. Y. 564 136, 312, 682, 714, 752, Wood V. Savage, Walk. (Mich.) 471 Wood V. Scott, 55 Iowa, 114. . 228, 238, 316, Wood V. Timmerman, 29 S. C. 175 Wood V. United States, 16 Am. B. R. 21 1161 Wood' & Huston Bank v. Read, 131 Mo. 553 325 Woodard v. Martin, 106 Mo. 324 964 Wooda;rd v. Mkstin, 106 Mo. 324 50, 51, 67, 79, 83, 737, 738, 829, 1014 Woodbury v. Nevada Southern R. Co., 120 Oal. 463 814, 1018 Woodbury v. Sparrell Print, 187 Mass. 426 192, 198, 848 Wooden v. Wooden, 72 Mich. 347 Woodhill V. Whittle, 63 Mich. 575 386, Woodman v. Bodfish, 25 Me. 317 69, 898 365 813 697 502 241 44 457 39 472 808 644 214 373 767 327 318 162 339 968 177 Table of Cases. cclx\'^ PAGE Woodman v. Clay, 59 N. H. 53 946, 951 Woodrow V. Sargent, 5 Ohio Dec. 209 328, 683 Woodruff V. Bowles, 104 N. C. 197.. 327, 333, 346, 376, 581, 897 Woodruff V. Wilkinson 73 Ga. 115 914 Woods V. Allen, 109 Iowa, 484 367, 902, 968 Woods V. Berry, 7 Mont. 195.. 1051 Woods V. Bugbey, 29 Cal. 466. . 540 Woods V. Hull, 81 Pa. St. 451. . 544 Woods V. Morrell, 1 Johns. Ck. (N. Y.) 103 875 Woods V. Van Brunt, 6 App. Div. (N. Y.) 220... 599, 626, 696 Woodson V. Carson, 135 Mo. 521 210, 213, 333, 607, 1037 Woodson V. Pool, 19 Mo. 340 . . 264, 342, 375, 359 Woodward v. Braynard, 6 Mart. (O. S.) 572 303 Woodward v. Kelly, 85 Ala. 368 299 Woodward v. Solomon, 7 6a. 246 796 Woodward v. Wyman, 53 Vt. 645 299 Woodworth v. Byerly, 43 Iowa, 106 528 Woodworth v. Hodgson, 56 Hun (N. Y.), 236 990 Woodworth v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 8 149, 361, 512, 900, 988 Woodworth T. Woodworth, 21 Barb. (N. Y.) 343 558 Woody V. Dean, 24 S. C. 499 . . ' 337, 586 Wooland v. Kimberlin, 45 Ky. 608 459 Wooley V. Pry, 30 111. 158 227, 238, 317, 992 Woolridse v. Boardman, 115 Cal 74 920,936, 969 Wooldridge v. Gage, 68 111. 157 179 WoonsocKet Rubber Co. v. Fal- ley, 30 Fed. 808 465 Wooster v. Devote, 6 Mackey (D. C), 362 281 Wooten v. Clark, 23 Miss. 75 . . 23, 413, 425, 563 Wooten V. Robins, 128 Ala. 373 211, 212 Wooten V. Steele, 109 Ala. 563 266, 337, 570, 585, 805, 848, 904 Wooters v. Osborn, 77 Ind. 513 271, 276, 286, 346 PAGE Wordall v. Smith, 1 Campb. 332 517, 530 Work V. Coverdale, 47 Kan. 307 610, 706 Worland v. Kimberlin, 45 Ky. 608 594 Worland v. Outten, 3 Dana (Ky.),477 67 Worland v. Outten, 33 Ky. 477 198, 737 Worman v. Kramer, 73 Pa. St. 530, 544 Worman v. Wolfersberger, 19 Pa. St. 59 462, 474, 475 Worrell v. Vickers, 30 La. Ann. 202 314, 909 Worseley v. DeMattos, 1 Burr. 467 (Eng.) 255, 1150 Worth V. Northam, 26 N. C. 102 636 Worthington v. Bullitt, 6 Md. 172 233, 264, 265, 353, 586 Worthington v. Jones, 23 Vt. 546 383 Worthington v. Kogan (Ala.), 26 So. 299 508 Worthing v. Shipley, 5 Gill. (Md.) 449 265, 273, 339, 377 Worthy v. Brady, 91 N. C. 265 274, 346, 383, 569, 994 Worthy v. Caddell, 76 N. C. 82 54, 218, 908 Wortman v. Price, 47 111. 22.. 115 Wrad V. Trotter, 19 Ky. 1 594 Wray v. Davenport, 79 Va. 19. 523 Wright V. Bosworth, 7 N. H. 560 746 Wright V. Brandis, 1 Ind. 336. 243 Wright V. Campbell, 27 Ark. 637 344, 773, 789 Wright V. Cornelius, 10 Mo. 174 ■ 820 Wright V. Crockett, 7 Mo. 126. 956 Wright V. Craig, 40 Or. 191 .. . 691, 897, 966 Wright V. Douglass, 2 N. Y. 373 955 Wright V. Douglass, 3 Barb. (N. Y.) 554 ..179, 736, 752 Wright V. Eldred, 2 Aik. (Vt.) 401 1054, 1056 Wright V. Fergus Falls Nat. Bank, 48 Minn. 120 475 Wright V. Grover, 27 111. 426 . . 535 Wright V. Hancock, 3 Munf. (Va.) 521 604 Wright V. Henderson, 1 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 304 858 cclxvi Table of Cases. Wright V. His Creditors, 12 La. 308 Wright V. Hogan, 11 La. Ann. 563 Wright V. Howell, 35 Iowa, 288 Wright V. Jones, 105 Ind. 17 . . Wright V. Mack, 95 Ind. 332 . . 41, 43, Wright V. Mahaffey, 76 Iowa, 96 442, Wright V. McCormick, 67 Mo. 426 528, Wright V. Nipple, 92 Ind. 310. 182, 585, Wright V. Nostrand, 94 N. Y. 31 Wright V. Petrie, 1 Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.) 282.. 60, 99, 101, Wright V. Sampter, 18 Am. B. R. 355 1127, 1131, 1132, Wright V. Shelton (Miss.), Sm. & M. Ch. 399 Wright V. Skinner, 14 Am. B. R. 500 Wright V. Smith, 66 Ala. 514. . Wright V. Solomon (Tex. Civ. App.), 43 S. W. 58 915, 919, 938, Wright V. Stanard, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,094 232, 330, 354, Wright V. Wheeler, 14 Iowa, 8. Wright v. Wright, 12 Ky. 8. . . Wright V. Wright, 59 Barb. (N. y.) 505 Wrightman v. Hart, 37 111. 123 W. W. Kendall Boot, etc., Co. V. Bain, 46 Mo. App. 581 Wyatt V. Brooks, 42 Hun (N. Y.), 502 Wyatt V. Stewart, 34 Ala. 716. 519, Wyatt V. Wyatt, 81 Miss. 219. Wyer's Syndics v. Sweet, 2 Mart. N. S. (La.) 588 Wylie V. Basil, 4 Md. Ch. 327. 148, Wylie y. Kelly, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 594 Wylie V. Posey, 71 Tex. 34... 378, Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 139 220, 232, 355, 413, Wyman v. Fox, 59 Me. 100 67, 737, 739, Wyman v. Gay, 90 Me. 36 PAGE PAGE- 119, 154, 157 272 Wyman v. Jensen, 26 Mont. 227 842, 847, 849- 211 Wyman v. Richardson, 62 Me. 720 293 737, 804 147 Wynne v. Mason, 72 Miss. 424 351, 356, 397, 459, 497, 910 50 Y Yale V. Bond, 45 La. Ann. 997. 444 520, 910 Yank v. Bordeaux, 23 Mont. 555 205 525, 550 Yankee v. Sweeney, 85 Ky. 55. 954 346, 377, 796, 807 Yardley v. Sibbs, 84 Fed. 531 . . 921 436, 608 Yardley v. Torr, 67 Fed. 857.. 801 182, 342, 717 Yates V. lisher, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 1130 721 38, 364- 1166 Yates v. Joyce, 11 Johns. (N. Y.) 136 750 824 Yates v. Law, 86 Va. 117 188, 192, 899, 929 1205 Yates County Nat. Bank v. Car- 949 penter, 119 N. Y. 550 155 Ybarra v. Lorenzana, 53 Cal. .197 654 946 Yeatman v. Savings Inst., 95 U. S. 764 1112 Yeend v. Weeks, 104 Ala. 331 359 182, 191, 266, 665 890 904, 933, 960, 968 654 Yerbe v. Martin, 38 S. W. (Tex.) 541 621 322 Yetzer v. Yetzer, 112 Iowa, 162 271 828, 953 Yocum V. Bullit, 6 Mart. N. S. 461 (La.) 324 823 Yocum V. Kehler, 1 Walk. (Pa.) 881 84 45, 635 Yoder v. Reynolds, 28 Mont. 557 183 646, 721, 722, 930 636 Yoder v. Standiford, 7 T. B. Mon. (Ky.) 478 41, 53 285 York v. Merritt, 80 N. C. 285. . 646 York V. Merritt, 77 N. C. 213 361 651, 655, 656 York V. Rockwood, 132 Ind. 358 551 585, 852 York County Bank v. Carter, 1002 38 Pa. St. 446. .270, 462, 465, 471 476, 477, 490, 491 443 York Mfg. Co. v. Cassell, 15 Am. B. R. 632.... 1114, 1117, 1193 763 Yost V. Hudiburg, 70 Tenn. 627 879, 885- Table of Cases. cclxvii PAGE Youd V. German Savings, etc., Soc. (Cal. App.), 86 Pac. 991 192 Youmans v. Boomhower, 3 Thomp. & C. (N. Y.) 21... 151, 155 Young V. Clapp, 147 111. 176.. 458, 469, 474, 484, 582, 600 Young V. Dumas, 39 Ala. 60 . . 394, 451, 457 Young V. Evans, 118 Iowa, 144 525 Young V. Harris, 4 Dak. 367 . . 727, 998, 1003 Young V. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374 6, 16, 136, 182, 189, 248 266, 412, 414, 418, 422, 423, 585 Young V. Hurst (Tenn. Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 365 900 Young V. Kellar, 94 Mo. 581 . . 609 Young V. Keller, 16 Mo. App. 550 271 Young V. Lathrop, 67 N. C. 63 . 723, 728 Young V. Lemieux, 79 Conn. 434 175 Young V. Pate, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 164 72, 192, 523 Young V. Stallings, 44 Ky. 307 459, 465, 466, 471, 509 Young V. Upson, 115 Fed. 192 547, 1162 Young V. Ward, 115 111. 264,. 571 Young V. Ward, 24 Ont. App. 147 214 Young V. White, 25 Miss. 146. 322, 586, 902 Young V. Willis, 83 Va. 291 .. . 414, 435 Younger v. Massey, 39 S. C. 115 76, 973 Younger v. Eitchie, 116 N. C. 782 166 Youngs V. Public School Trus- tees, 31 N. J. Eq. 290 102, 103, 274 Youngs V. Sexton Nat. Bank, 59 111. App. 152 979 Z Zacharia v. Swanson, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 1 1008 Zacharie v. Kirk, 14 La. Ann. 433 520 Zacharius v. Paint, etc., Co., 11 Pa. Dist. 171 1069 Zadik V. Schafer, 77 Tex. 501 . . 55, 964, 965 Zahm V. Fry, Fed. Cas. No. 18.198 1163 PAGE Zahm V. Smith, 18 Atl. (Md.) 865 968 Zartman v. First Nat. Bank, 109 App. Div. (N. Y.) 406.. 413 Zartman v. National Bank, 16 Am. B. R. 152 1123, 1135 Zeigler v. Maddox, 26 Mo. 575 414, 420, 434 Zeliff V. Schuster, 31 Mo. App. 493 977 Zelineker v. Brigham, 74 Ala. 598 904 Zell V. Guano Co. v. Heatherly, 38 W. Va. 409 333, 857 Zell Guano Co. v. Heatherly, 45 W. Va. 311 85 Zerbe v. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 488 915, 916, 917, 940 Zick v. Guebert, 142 111. 154.. 619 Ziegler v. Carter, 94 Ala. 291. 599 Ziegler v. Handrick, 106 Pa. St. 87 530, 537 Ziekel v. Douglass, 88 Mo. 382 . 1050 Zieverink v. Kemper, 10 Ohio Dec. 455 968 Zimmer v. Miller, 64 Md. 296 245, 569, 571, 626, 894, 976 Zimmerman v. Bannon, 101 Wis. 407 189, 321, 600 Zimmerman v. Fitch, 28 La. Ann. 454 '.774, 819, 853 Zimmerman v. McMasters, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 456.... 967 Zimmerman v. Lamb, 7 Minn. 421 180 Zimmerman v. Willard, 114 111. 364 866 Zimmerman v. Schoenfeldt, 3 Hun (N. Y.), 692 216 Zinn v. Brinkerhoff, 48 N. J. Eq. 513 193 Zinn V. Law, 32 W. Va. 447. . . 368 Ziques v. Rivas, 16 La. Ann. 81 569 Zoeller v. Riley, 100 N. Y. 102. 722 ZoU V. Soper, 75 Mo. 460 759, 761, 771 Zugalla V. International Merc. Agency, 12 Am. B. R. 67 1101, 1102 Zuver V. Clark, 104 Pa. St. 222 83, 211 Zweig V. Horican Iron, etc., Co., 17 Wis. 362 801 X. Xigues V. Rivas, 16 La. Ann. 402 468 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES CHAPTER I. FKAUDTJLElirT CONVEYANCES GeNEEAIXY. Section 1. No positive definition of fraud. 2. What constitutes a fraudulent conveyance. 3. Tests as to fraudulent conveyances. 4. Characteristics of fraud. 5. Circumstances establishing fraud. 6. Origin of written law against fraudulent conveyances. 7. Early English statutes avoiding fraudulent conveyances. 8. Statute of 13 Elizabeth for the protection of creditors. 9. Statutes in the United States. 10. Statutes merely declaratory of the common law. 11. Statute of 27 Elizabeth in favor of subsequent purchasers. 12. Construction or interpretation of statutes. 13. Effect of subsequent statutory provisions. 14. Twyne's Case. 15. Prevalence of fraudulent transfers. 16. History and comparative legislation. Section 1. No positive definition of fraud. — ^Philosophy teaches with great force the fact that complete definitions can be given only of things abstract and thicoretical, such as concepts in geometry, or physics, or formal logic. Definitions in law are al- ways extremely difficult, and the greatest jurists of all times, the ancient Romans, have laid down the rule that " all definitions are dangerous (omnis definitio periculosa) ." The difficulty of defining what is fraud, or what is a fraudulent conveyance, be- comes more apparent when we consider that the questions are not pure questions of law, but of fact or of mixed law and fact, and requiring for their determination inferences of facts not 2 Feaudulent Conveyances. found.* The danger of defining fraud or a fraudulent convey- ance, by laying down any definite rule as to the precise nature of it, or by formulating rules by the application of which the presence of fraud may be detected, lies in the fact that the craft of men is likely to find ways of committing fraud which might escape the limits of such a rule or definition, and hence, it is part of the equity doctrine of fraud not to define it.'' Evidently there can be no fraud in law or in fact without a breach of some legal or equitable duty.® Fraud has, therefore, been said to include all acts,- omissions or concealments Iwhich involvie a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence justly re^ posed and are injurious to another, or by which an undue or unconscientious advantage is taken of another.* The unlawful appropriation of another's property, with knowledge, by design, and without criminal intent," or the intention to prevent creditors from recovering their just debts by an act which withdraws the property of a debtor from their reach," alike constitute actual or positive fraud, or fraud in fact. There may be legal or con- structive fraud, or fraud in law, -where no actual fraudulent in- tent is proved, but in such cases the law presumes fraud, because it is a necessary consequence of some established act. In, other words, fraud in law exists only when the acts upon which it is based carry in themselves inevitable evidence of it, independently of the motive of the actor. This principle is illustrated where an insolvent debtor makes a gift of his property.'' But a credi- tor cannot complain that a debtor is giving away hisi property 1. Jewell V. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 3. Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 8 Sup. Ct. 193, 31 L. Ed'. 190; Smith 692, 704, 49 N. E. 65. V. Craft, 123 U. S. 436. See Ques- 4. Bouv. L. Diet., vol. 1, p. 613; tions for jury; questions of law and Bunn v. Alil, 29 Pa. St. 390. fact, chap. XVIII, §§ 4-10, infra. 5. Bouv. U Diet., vol. I, p. 612. 2. Bouv. L. Diet., vol. 1, p. 613. 6. McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. St. Fraud is " so subtle in its nature, 356, 3 Am. Rep. 588. and so protean in its disguises, as to 7. Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. render it almost impossible to give a 692, 704, 49 N. E. 65. See Fraudulent definition which fraud would not find intent and knowledge, ehap. XIII; means to evade." Shoemaker v. preferences, ehap. XI, infra. Fraud in Cake, 83 Va. 5. law consists in acts which, though not Fraudulent Conveyances Geneeauct. 3 unless he can show that the' gift produces insolvency, and is made to defraud creditors.* Whenever fraud occurs it vitiates the transaction tainted by it.® Fraud is an extrinsic, collateral act, which vitiates the most solemn proceedings of courts of justice. Lord Coke says it avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or tem- poral.*" "Fraud," said Justice Story, "will vitiate any, even the most solemn transactions; and an asserted title to property, founded upon it, is utterly void."** It is the judgment of, law on facts and intents.*^ Its existence is often a presumption of law from admitted or established facts, irrespective of motive, and too strong to be rebutted.** The rule is universal, whatever fraud creates, justice will destroy.** § 2. What constitutes a fraudulent conveyance. — A fraudu- lent conveyance has been defined to be a conveyance, the object, tendency, or effect of which is to defraud another, or the intent of which is to avoid some duty or debt due by or incumbent on the party making it.*" To constitute a disposition of his property by a debtor with intent to defraud his creditors three things must concur : first, the thing disposed of must be of value, out of which the creditor could have realized all or a portion of his claim; second, it must be transferred or disposed of by the debtor; and fraudulently intended, yet as their 20 How. St. Tr. 544, 2 Smith. Lead. tendency .is to defraud creditors if Cas. 687. they vest the property of the debtor 11. United States v. Anistad, 16 in his grantee, are void for legal Pet. (U. S.) 594. fraud, which is deemed tantamount 12. Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 to actual fraud, full evidence of Johns. (N. Y.) 342; Pettibone v. fraud, and fraudulent in themselves, Stevens, 15 Conn. 26; Morgan v. the policy of the law making the acta Elam, 4 Yerg. (Tenn.) 438; Otley v. illegal. McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. Manning, 9 East, 64. St. 352, 3 Am. Rep. 588. 1.3. Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 8. Rogers v. Dimon, 106 111. App. 265. 201. See Financial condition of !*■ Vreeland v. New Jersey Stone grantor, chap. VII; effect of want of Co., 29 N. J. Eq. 190. consideration, chap. VIII, infra. 15-2 Kent, Comm. 440; 4 id. 462; Bouv. L. Diet., vol. 1, p. 615; 1 ». Fenner v. Dickey, 1 Fhppin, 36. g^^^^ ^^ gg 349^ 352. McKibbin v. 10. Rex V. Duchess of Kingston, Martin, 64 Pa. St. 352. 4 Feaudttlent Conveyances. third, this mustl be done with intent to defraud.** Or, as it haa beem stated in another form, to constitute a fraudulent conveyance within the meaning of the statute, there must, as a rule, exist a creditor to be defrauded, a debtor intending to defraud, and a conveyance of property which is appropriable by law to the pay- ment of the debt due.^'^ A conveyance to be fraudulent must be devised of malice, fraud, covin, collusion, or guile. ^^ Any instru- ment is fraudulent which is a mere trick or sham contrivance, or which originates in bad motives or intentions, that is made and re- received for the purpose of warding off other creditors.** Whether the contract be oral or in writing; whether executed by the par- ties with all the solemnities of deeds by seal and acknowledgment ; whether in form of the judgment of a court, stamped with judicial sanction, or carried out by the device of a corporation organized with all the forms and requisites demanded by the statute in that regard, if it be contaminated with the vice of fraud, the law dei- clares it to be a nullity. Deeds, obligations, contracts, judg- ments, and even corporate bodies may be the instruments through which parties may obtain^ the most unrighteous advantages. All such devices and instruments have been resorted to to cover up fraud, but whenever the law is invoked all such instruments are declared nullities; they are a perfect dead letter; the law looks upon them as if they had never been executed. They can never be justified or sanictified by any new shape or cover, by forms or recitals, by covenants or sanctions which the ingenuity, or skill, or genius of the rogue may devise.^" A fraudulent transfer, how- ever perfect in form, is void as to creditors.^* The use of sheriff's deeds and other legal instruments to effect a fraudulent oomvey- 16. Hoyt v. Godfrey, 88 N. Y. 669, 17. O'Connor v. Ward, 60 Miss. where a debtor cancelled upon his 1036. books, without consideration, an old 18. United States v. United States account against one who was in- Bank, 8 Rob. (La.) 262. solvent, the transaction did not 19. Hughes v. Cory, 20 Iowa, 405. amount to a disposition of property 20. Booth v. Bunco, 33 N. Y. 139, with intent to defraud creditors; 156, 88 Am. Dec. 372. Florence Sewing Maeh. Co. v. Zeigler, 21. Skowhegan Bank v. Cutler, 49 68 Ala. 224. Me. 318. Fraudulent Conveyances Geneeallt. 5 ance of property by a debtor is no bar to its avoidance.^^ The transfer of property for a valuable consideration may be made the cover for fraudulent practices. Exchanges by which one kind of property is converted into another more easily concealed or transported; the incumibranoe of visible and unavailable prop- erty, and the retention of that which is convertible, or even the reverse of this, and other cases, where the aggregate value of the debtor's property is not diminished, but an apparent obstacle to a creditor's proceeding is created, are among the methods by which frauds may be perpetrated by an insolvent debtor. Such trans- actions are in fact fraudulent and condemned by the statute.** Where there is an actual intent to defraud, no form in which the transax^tion is put can shield the property so transferred from the claims of creditors, even/ though a full and adequate considera- tion be received for the same.^* § 3. Tests as to fraudulent conveyances. — The tests as to whether a conveyance is fraudulent and void as to creditors or not in every case, except in the case of voluntary conveyances in certain jurisdictions, are whether the conveyance was a bona fide transaction, or whether it was a trick and contrivance to defeat creditors,^^ whether it hinders creditors in enforcing their debts and deprives them of a right which would be legally effective, had the conveyance or device not been resorted to,^^ or whether it se- sures or reserves to the grantor, some benefit or advantage incon- sistent with its avowed purpose, or an unusual indulgence, at the ecspense of creditors, or by which creditors are prevented from 22. Watson v. Bonflls, 116 Fed. also Consideration, chap. XIII, § 30, 157, 53 C. C. A. 535. See also Col- infra. lusive and fraudulent legal proceed- 25. United States v. Hooe, 3 ings, chap. II, § 9, infra. Cranch, 73; Cadogan v. Kennett, 2 23. Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. Cowp. 432; 2 Story Eq. Jur. § 353. 226, 4 N. E. 531 ; Pettit v. Shepherd, See also Fraudulent intent and 5 Paige (N. Y.) 493, 501, 28 Am. knowledge, chap. XIII; Retention of Dec. 437. possession or apparent title, chap. 24. Greenwald v. Wales, 174 N. Y. XII; Reservations and trusts for 140, 144; Billings v. Russell, supra; grantor, chap. X. Starin v. Kelly, 88 N. Y. 421. See 26. Salzenstein v. Hettrick, 105 6 FeADDXJLENT CoWVEYAIfCES. compelliing an immediate appropriation of the debtor's property to the payment of his debts.*^ Whether a conveyance is fraudu- lent or not as against creditors depends on whether it was made on good consideration and bona fide. It is not enough that it be on good consideration or bona fide; it must be both. If de- fective in either respect, although valid between the parties and their representatives, it is voidable as to creditors.*® In order that a transaction may be attacked as fraudulent as to creditors, how- ever, prejudice to the rights of creditors must result therefrom.^* Fraud is always a question of fact with reference to the intent of \ the grantor and every case depends upon its circumstances. The . vital question is always the good faith of the transaction. There : is no other test.*" § 4. Characteristics of fraud. — Fraud has various characteris- tics. It may be passive as well as active.** Fraud does not con- sist in mere intention, but in intention carried out by hurtful acts.** 111. App. 99; Wagner v. Smith, 81 Tenri. 569. 27. N. Y. — Young v. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374. Go.— Mitchell v. Stetson, 64 Ga. 442 ; Edwards v. Stinson, 59 Ga. 443. Me.— Graves v. Blondell, 70 Me. 190. Minn. — Henry v. Hinman, 25 Minn. 199. Miss. — ^Thompson v. Furr, 57 Miss. 478. Mo. — ^Monarch Rubber Co. v. Bunn, 78 Mo. App. 55. Pa.— Bentz v. Hockey, 69 Pa. St. 71. Eng. — Alton v. Harrison, L. R. 4, Ch. 622, 38 L. J. Ch. 669, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 282, 17 Wkly. Rfip. 1034; Natha v. Maganchand, 27 Indian Law Rep. 327, the test of good faith in such cases is whether the transfer is a mere cloak for retaining a bene- fit to the grantor. 28. Blennerhassett v. Sherman, 105 U. S. 100, 26 L. Ed. 1080; Basey V. Daniel, Smith (Ind.), 252; Glenn V. Randall, 2 Md. Ch. 220; Smith v. Muirhead, 34 N. J. Eq. 4; Randall v. Vroom, 30 N. J. Eq. 353; Sayre v. Fredericks, 16 N. J. Eq. 205; 1 Story Eq. Jur., § 353. See also Ef- fect of consideration where there is fraudulent intent, chap. XIII, § 30, infra. 29. Shand v. Hanley, 71 N. Y. 319; Scott V. Thomas, 104 Va. 330, 51 S. E. 829. See also Prejudice to the rights of creditors, chap. Ill, § 9, infra, and cases there cited. 30. Lloyd v. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479, 485, 23 L. Ed. 363. See FraudWent intent and knowledge, chap. XIII, infra. 31. Holt V. Creamer, 34 N. J. Eq. 181. 32. Williams v. Davis, 69 Pa. St. Fbaudolent Conveyances Geneeally. 1 It may be any kind of artifice employed by one person to deceive amotber by word or act/* conduct tbat operates prejudicially on tbe rigbts of otbers,** or withdraws tbe property of a debtor from tbe reacb of bis creditors.*" It must be directed by tbe debtor against bis creditors or purchasers.*® Fraud may be mani- festly indicated by tbe circumstances,*'' and may be established by circumstances as against the denial of the parties interested.** Intent or intention is an operation or emotion of the mind, and can usually be shown only by acts or declarations, and, as acts speak louder than words, if a party does an act which must de- fraud another, his declaration that be did not by the act intend to defraud is weighed down by the evidence of bis own act.** Slight circumstances, or circumstances of an equivocal tendency, or circumstances of mere suspicion, leading to no certain results, are not sufficient to establish f ra.ud ; but they must be, when taken to- getbei- and aggregated, when interlinked and put in, proper rela- tion' to each other, inconsistent with an honest intent.^" The law will not deduce fraud from any number of acts, each of whidi ia lawful and innocent in, itself, but one who seeks to attacli a fraudu- lent character to such acts must go further and show that they were in fact done with a fraudulent intent and for a fraudulent purpose.*^ Suspicion of fraud is not sufficient to impart notice of it, and knowledge of facts sufficient to excite the suspicions of a 21. See Accomplishment of purpose, 39. Babeock v. Eckleir, 24 N. Y. chap. XIII, § 3, infra. 632. 33. Coke Litt. 357b. 40 j-^g^gj. ^ McAlester, 114 Fed. 34. Bunn v. Ahl, 29 Pa. St. 390. j^g gg q q ^ jq^. 35. McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. St. 356. 41. Warren v. Union Bank, 157 N. 36. Metz V. Blackburn, 9 Wyo. Y. 259, 51 N. E. 1036, 68 Am. St. 481, 65 Pac. 857. See Fraud directed Rep. 777, 43 L. R. A. 256; Warner v. against debtor, chap. II, § 216, Blakeman, 4 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.) 535; infra. Goff v. Alexander, 20 Misc. Rep. (N". 37. Stockwell v. Stockwell, 72 N. Y.) 498, 45 N. Y. Supp. 737; Kemp- H. 69, 54 Atl. 701. See Circum- ner v. Churchill, 8 Wall. (U. S.) stantial evidence, chap. XVII, § 44, 362, 19 L. Ed. 461; Foster v. Mc- infra. Alester, supra; Engraham v. Pate, 38. Ham v. Gilmore, 7 Misc. Rep. 51 Ga. 537; Wilson v. Watts, 9 Md. (N. Y.) 596, 28 N. Y. Supp. 126. 356. 8 Feaudulent Conveyances. prudent man, or to lead a person of ordinary perception to sus- pect fraud, does not amount to actual notice of it.*^ The question whether fraud exists in^a transactkaii may be a question of law, or of fact, or one of both law and fact.** Where the facts have been ascertained by the trial court, the conclusion to be drawn from the facts so found, including the determination of the ex- istence of constructive fraud and of a valuable consideration, is a question of law.** § 5. Circumstances establishing fraud. — In investigations of alleged fraudulent conveyances muoh more latitude is allowed than in other cases and the field of circumstances investigated ought to be very wide. The intent is seldom disclosed on the face of the transaction, but is generally concealed under legal forms, and can seldom be proved by direct evidence.*'' The vermiculations of fraud are chiefly traceable by covered tracks and studious con- cealments.*® It must in most cases be established by inference from a variety of facts, and all the surrounding circumstances may properly be examined.*'' Even negative evidence may some- 42. Urdangen & Grecnberg Bros. 47. U. S. — Humes v. Scruggs, 94 V. Doner, 122 Iowa, 533, 98 N. W. U. S. 22, 24 L. Ed. 51 ; Knowlton v. 317. See Mere suspicion, chap. XIII, Mish, 8 Sawy. (U. S.) 627. § 19, infra. Colo. — ^Eversman v. Clements, 6 43. Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. Colo. App. 224, 40 Pac. 575. 426, 8 Sup. Ct. 193, 31 L. Ed. 190; Me.— Spear v. Spear (1903), 54 Foster v. Woodfin, 11 Ired'. (N. C.) Atl. 1106. 339; Estwick v. Caillaud, 5 T. R. Md. — Atkinson v. Phillips, 1 Md. 420. See Questions of law and fact, Ch. 507. chap. XVIII, § 4, infra. Pa.— McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. 44. Clarke v. Black, 78 Conn. 467, St. 356. 62 Atl. 757. TFis.— Winner v. Hoyt, 66 Wis. 45. Beuerlein v. O'Leary, 149 N. 227, 28 N. W. 380, 57 Am. Rep. 257. Y. 33, 43 N. E. 417, revg. 28 N. Y. Eng. — In re Holland (1902), 2 Ch. Supp. 1133; Engraham v. Pate, 51 360, 71 L. J. Ch. 518, 86 L. T. Rep. Ga. 537. See Admissibility and rele- N. S. 542, 9 Manson, 259, 50 Wkly. vancy of evidence, chap. XVII, § 16, Rep. 575; Thompson v. Webster, 28 infra. L. ' J. Ch. 700, 7 Wldy. Rep. 648, 46. Bliss V. Coucli, 46. Kan. 400, affd. 4 Drew, 628, 5 Jur. N. S. 668, 26 Pac. 706. 28 L. J. Ch. 700, 7 Wkly. Rep. 596. Fbaudulent CoNVEYAiircES Generally. & times have a positive value in oases of fraud.** Every case de- pends upon its circumstainces and is to he carefully scrutinized.** It is upon these and like considerations that courts have held tliat "the case of fraud is among the few exceptions to the general rule, that other offenses of the accused are not relevant to estahlish the main charge.'"*** Fraud implies a fraudulent intent, and is an inference or conclusion of fact drawn from the facts or circum- stances of the particular transaction. The circumstances to show fraud, and the circumstances to rebut it, are argumemits on the question of fraud, and a conclusion on the question of fraud is a conclusion of fact arrived at by weighing those arguments.'* The evidence of fraud is almost always circimistantial. Never--. Iheless, though circumstantial, it produces conviction in the mind often of more force than direct testimony.'* And if the facts and circumstances surrounding the case, and distinctly proven, are such as would lead a reasonable man to the conclusion that fraud in fact existed, this is all the proof that the law requires.'^ The general subject of evidence pertaining to fraudulent conveyances will be considered in a later chapter.'* § 6. Origin of written law against fraudulent conveyances. — Certain provisions in Magna Charta, the Great Charter of English liberties, so called, but which was really a compact between the king and his barons, and almost exclusively for the benefit of the latter, though confirming the ancient liberties of Englishmen in some few particulars, are sometimes referred to as one of the original sources of written law against covinous alienations of 48. Sonnentheil v. Christian App. Dec. (N. Y.) 535; Newman v. Moerlein Brewing Co., 172 U. S. 401, Cordell, 43 Barb. (N. Y.) 456; 19 Sup. a. 233, 43 L. Ed. 492. Kempner v. Churchill, 8 Wall. (U. 49. Lloyd v. Fulton, 91 U. S. 485. S.) 369; Tumlin v. Crawford, 61 Ga. 50. Beuerlein v. O'Leary, supra; 128; Harnett v. Dund'ass, 4 Pa. St. Gary v. Hotailing, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 181. 311, 37 Am. Dec. 311. 53. White v. Perry, 14 W. Va. 51 Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 86; Lockhard v. Beekley, 10 W. Va. 623. 87. 52. Warner v. Blakeman, 4 Abb. 54. See chap. XVII, infra. 10 Fkaudulent Conveyances. property. They provided that no freeman should give or sell away his lands so that no residue would remain to the lord of the fee, out of which the service pertaining to the fee might be en- forced, and that a gift of lands in mortmain should be void and lands so given go to the lord of the fee.'^ § 7. Early English statutes avoiding fraudulent conveyances. The famous statute of 13 Elizabeth (1570), perpetuated by the statute of 29 Elizabeth (1587), was preceded by earlier legisla- tion by the parliament of England against fraudulent transfers, enacted to more clearly formulate the common law with a view to suppress voluntary conveyances and secret trusts made by debtors who escaped arrest for debt, or avoided service of process by fleeing to sanctuaries or 'holy ground. The statute of Edward I,°* the statute of Richard II,®'' and the statute of Edward III,"* 55. Magna Charta, chapters 32 and 36, June 19, 1215. 56. St. 13 Edward I, chap. 1, enacted in 1290. 57. St. 2 Eichard II, chap. 3, enacted in 1379. This statute reads as follows. " item, in case of debt, where the debtors make feigned gifts and feoffments of their goods and lands to their friends and others, and after withdraw themselves, and flee into places of holy church privi- leged, and there hold them a long time, and take the profit of their said lands and goods so given by fraud and collusion, whereby their creditors have been long and yet be delayed of their debts and recovery, wrongfully and against good faith and reason; it is ordained' and estab- lished, that after that the said creditors have thereof brought their writs of debt, and thereupon a capias awarded, and the sheriff shall make his return that he hath not taken the said persons because of such places privileged in which they be or shall be entered, then . . . another writ shall be granted . . . that proclamation be made openly at the gate of the place so privileged, where such persons be entered, by five weeks continually, every week once, that the same persons be at a certain day, . . . before the King's jus- tices, and ... if the said persons called come not . . . judgment shall be given against them upon the principal for their default. . . . Execution shall be made of their goods aoad lands, being out of the place privileged, as well, that is to say, of those lands and goods so given by collusion, as of any other out of the same franchise, after that such collusion or fraud be dlily found in the same manner as that ought to have been, if no devise had been thereof made, notwithstanding the same devise." 58. St. 50 Edward III, chap. 6, enacted in 1376. Fraudulent Cona'eyances Generally, 11 contained provisions aimed at fraudulent debtors. The latter act read as follows: "Divers people ... do give their tene- ments and chattels to their friends, by collusion to have the profits at their will, and after do flee to the franchise of Westminster, of St. Martin-le-Grand of London, or other such privileged places, and there do live a great time with an high countenance of an- other man's goods and profits of the said tenements and chattels, till the said creditors shall be bound to take a small parcel of their debt, and release the remnant, it is ordained and assented, that if it be found that such gifts be so made by collusion, that the said creditors shall have execution of the said tenements and chat- tels as if no such gift had been made." By the statute of Henry VII "all deeds of gift of goods and chattels made or to be made of trust to the use of the person or persons that made the same deed of gift," are declared "void and of none effect."'® These early statutes show that fraud, which was greatly abhorred by the common law, was so much practiced by debtors upon creditors as to call forth frequent legislation in those early times, and that fraudulent conveyances by debtors are not an outgrowth of modem civilization, although more prevalent in more recent times and at the present day. § 8. Statute of 13 Elizabeth for the protection of creditors. — The most important of the English statutes against fraudulent conveyances is the justly celebrated act of 13 Elizabeth,®" perpetu- ated by the statute of 29 Elizabeth.*^ This statute was passed for the protection of creditors. By its provisions all conveyances and dispositions of property, real or personal, mad© with the intention of defrauding creditors, are declared null and void as against creditors.®^ The leading object of the statute was to prevent those 59. St. 3 Hen. VII, chap. 4, The statute declares that "all and enacted in 1487. every Feoffment, Gift, Grant, Aliena- 60. St. 13 Eliz., chap. 5, enacted tion. Bargain and Conveyance of in 1570. Land's, Tenements, Hereditaments, 61. St. 29 Eliz., chap. 5, enacted Goods and Chattels, or of any of in 1587. them, or of any Lease, Rent, Common 62. Drake v. Rice, 130 Mass. 410. or other Profit or Charge out of the 12 Feaudulent Conveyances. collusive transfers of the legal OTvnership which place the property of a man indebted out of the reach of his bona fide creditors, and leave to him the beneficial enjoyment of that which ought in con- science to be open, to their legal remedies.®* ,§ 9. Statutes in the United States.— The statute of 13 Eliza- beth, c. 5, against fraudulent conveyainces has been universally adopted in American law as the basis of our jurisprudence on that subject,^* and either re-enacted in terms, or nearly so, or with some change of language, by the legislatures of practically all the states, or recognized as an exposition of the principles of the common law and, although not re-enacted, adopted as and held to be a part of the common law in force here.*' In Iowa, for ex- ample, although the statutes of 13 Elizabeth and 27 Elizabeth same Lands, Tenements, Heredita- ments, Goods and Chattels, or any of them, by Writing or otherwise, and all and every Bond, Suit, Judg- ment and Execution, at any Time had or made sithence the Beginning of the Queen's Majesty's Reign that now is, or at any Time hereafter to be had or made, to or for any In- tent or Purpose before declared and expressed, shall be from henceforth deemed and taken (only as against that Person or Persons, his or their Heirs, Successors, Executors, Admin- istrators and Assigns, and every of them, whose Actions, Suits, Debts, Accounts, Damages, Penalties, For- feitures, Heriots, Mortuaries and Reliefs, by such guileful, covinous or fraudulent Devices and Practices, as is aforesaid, are, shall or might be in any ways disturbed, hindered, de- layed or defrauded) to be clearly and utterly void, frustrate and of none Effect; any Pretence, Colour, feigned Consideration, expressing of Use, or any other Matter or Thing to the contrary notwithstanding." 63'. Robertson Fraud. Conv., p. 354. 64. Story Eq. Jur., § 353. 65. N. r.— Hall v. Tuttle, 8 Wend. 375- Sands v. Hildreth, 14 Johns. 493; Jackson v. Henry, 10 Johns. 185; Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Johns. 337. 17. /S.— Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670, 685, 10 Sup. Ct. 354, 33 L. Ed. 696; Clement v. Nicholson, 6 Wall. 299i 18 L. Ed. 786; Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black, 532, 17 L. Ed. 355; Cath- cart V. Robinson, 5 Pet. 264, 8 L. Ed. 120; Hamilton v. Russell, 1 Cranch, 309, 2 L. Ed. 118; McClellan v. Pyeatt, 66 Fed. 843, 14 C. C. A. 140. Ala. — ^Anderson v. Anderson, 64 Ala. 403. D. C. — ^Kansas City Packing Co. v. Hoover, 1 App. Cas. 268. Oa. — Westmoreland v. Powell, 59 Ga. 256; Peek v. Land, 2 Ga. 1, 46 Am. Dec. 368. 7W.— Ewing v. Runkle, 20 III. 448. Ky.— Doyle v. Sleeper, 31 Ky. (1 Dana) 531. La. — ^United States v. United States Bank, 8 Rob. 262, 402. Feaudulent Conveyances Generally. 13 liad never ibeen legislatively re-enacted, it was said by Judge Dillon: "But amtedating as these statutes do the settlement of this country, and being mainly, if not wholly, declaratory of the common law, which, sets a face of flint against frauds in every shape, they constitute the basis of American jurisprudence on these subjects, .and are, in this state, part of the unwritten law."'° § 10. Statutes merely declaratory of the common law. — That the famous statutes of Elizabeth and other early statutes were merely declaratory of rules and principles which, eixisted and were applied at common law before these statutes against fraudu- lent ooDiveyances were enacted, and by which all conveyances made in fraud of creditors were regarded as voidable at the instance and suit of such creditors, is generally conceded." It was said Me. — Butler v. Moore, 73 Me. 151, 40 Am. Rep. 348; Whitmore v. Woodward, 28 Me. 392; Howe v. Ward, 4 Me. 195. Md. — Crooks v. Brydon, 93 Md. 640, 49 Atl. 921. Miss. — Carlisle v. Tindall, 49 Miss. 229, 234. t}. jff.— Kobinson v. Holt, 39 N. H. 557, 75 Am. Dec. 233. ]V. J. — ^Mulford V. Peterson, 35 N. J. L. 127. 2V. C— Moore v. Hinnant, 89 N. C. 455 ; Cowing v. Rich, 23 N. 0. 553. Pa.— Heath v. Page, 63 Pa. St. 108, 3 Am. Rep. 533; Clark v. Douglass, 62 Pa. St. 408; McCulloch v. Hutch- inson, 7 Watts, 434, 32 Am. Dec. 776; Wilt V. Franklin, 1 Binn. 502, 2 Am. Dec. 474. Va.— Davis v. Turner, 4 Gratt. 422. Wash. — Bates v. Drake, 28 Wash. 447, 68 Pae. 961; Wagner v. Law, 3 Wash. 500, 28 Pac. 1109, 29 Pac. 927, 28 Am. St. Rep. 56, 15 L. R. A. 784. 66. Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205. 67. 'N. y. — Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 124; Heroy v. Kerr, 2 Keyes, 582, 2 Abb. Dec. 359; Nellis v. Clark, 20 Wend. 24; Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Johns. 337, 6 Am. Dec. 281. Com- pare Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 692, 49 N. E. 65. J7. S.— Baker v. Humphrey, 101 U. S. 494, 25 L. Ed. 1065; Clements v. Nicholson, 6 Wall. 299, 18 L. Ed. 786; Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black, 532, 17 L. Ed. 355; Hamilton v. Russel, 1 Cranch, 309, 2 L. Ed. 118; Meeker V. Wilson, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,392, 1 Gall. 419. AZa.— Anderson v. Anderson, 64 Ala. 403; Adams v. Broughton, 13 Ala. 731; Anderson v. Hooks, 9 Ala. 704; Cato V. Easley, 2 Stew. 214; Killough V. Steele, 1 Stew. & P. 262. Conn. — Fox v. Hillis, 1 Conn. 295. Ga. — Peck v. Land, 2 Ga. 1, 46 Am. Dec. 368. 7JZ.— Ewing V. Runkle, 20 HI. 448, 461. Iowa. — Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 209. Kan. — Diefendorf v. Oliver, 8 Kan. 365. 14 Fbaudulent Conveyances. by Lord Maasfield, in an early English case, that "the principles and rules of the common law, as now universally known and understood, are so strong against fraud in every shape, that the common law would have attained every end proposed by the statutes of 13 Elizabeth, c. 5, and 27 Elizabeth, c. 4."** And Chanceillor Kent early asserted the American view that the "statute of Elizabeth" was "only in affirmance of the principles of the common law."*' The right of a creditor to subject prop- erty of his debtor, fraudulently conveyed, was said in a later Ameri- can case to be "founded on that principle of the common law which enjoins integrity as a virtue paramount to generosity."™ The statutes against fraudulent conveyances are, therefore, meirely declaratory of principles which the courts would enforce inde- pendently of their enactment, and are to be construed in the light of those principles." § 11. Statute of 27 Elizabeth in favor of subsequent pur- chasers. — .The statute of 27 Elizabeth was enacted in favor of purchasers, and renders void as against subsequent purchasers of the same land all conveyances, etc., made with the intention of defeating them, or containing a power of revocation.'^ This Ky. — Doyle v. Sleeper, 1 Dana, Va. — Davis v. Turner, 4 Gratt. 531; Lillard v. McGee, 4 Bibb. 166. 422. Mass. — In re Jordan, 9 Mete. 292. Eng. — ^Notes to Twyne's Case, 3 Minn. — Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Coke, 80a, 1 Smith Lead. Cas. 1, con- Minn. 326; Piper v. Johnston, 12 tinned in 18 Am. L. Reg. N. S. 137. Minn. 60. 68. Cadogan v. Kennett, 2 Cowp. N. ff.— Robinson v. Holt, 39 N. H. 432. See Starin v. Kelly, 88 N. Y. 557, 75 Am. Dec. 233. 421; Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. (U. y. C— O'Daniel v. Crawford, 15 N. S.) 299. C. 197. 69. Sands v. Codwise, 4 Johns. OAto.— Brice v. Myers, 5 Ohio, 121. (N. Y.) 596, 4 Am. Dec. 313. Pa. — Clark v. Douglass 62 Pa. St. 70. Planters', etc., Bank v. 408, 416; McCulloch v. Hutchinson, Walker, 7 Ala. 926, 946. 7 Watts, 434, 32 Am. Dec. 776. 71. Seymour v. Wilson, 19 N. Y. 8. C— Hudnal v. Wilder, 4 Mc- 417. Cord, 294, 17 Am. Deo. 744; Teas- 72. St. 27 Eliz., chap. 4, provided dale V. Atkinson, 2 Brcv. 48; Foot- in substance, in section 2, that every man v. Pend'ergrass, 3 Rich. Eq. 33. conveyance, grant, charge, lease. Feaudulent CoNVEYAiircES Geneeallt. 15 statute "which, like the statute of 13 Elizabeth, has been held to be merelj declaratory of the cominon law, has been either substan- tially re-enacted in the United States, or recognized as a part of the common law.'' This statute and some of the statutes in the United States based upon it are in terms limited to conveyances estate, encumbrance and limitation of use or uses of, in, or out of any lands, tenements, or other heredita- ments whatsoever, had or made for the intent and of purpose to defraud and deceive such person or persons, bodies politic or corporate, as shall in fee simple, fee tail, for life, lives, or years, the same lands, tenements and hereditaments, or any part or parcel thereof, so formerly conveyed, granted, leased, charged, encumbered, or limited in use, or to defraud and deceive such as shall purchase any rent, profit or commodity in or out of the same, or any part thereof, shall be deemed and taken only as against that person and persons, bodies politic and corporate, his and their heirs, successors, executors, ad- ministrators and assigns, and against all and every other person and per- sons lawfully having or claiming by, from or under them, or any of them, which have purchased or shall here- after so purchase for money or other good consideration, the same lands, tenements or hereditaments, or any part or parcel thereof, or any rent, profit or commodity in or out of the same, to be utterly void, frustrate, and of none effect ; any pretense, color, feigned consideration, or expressing of any use or uses to the contraiy notwithstanding. Section 4 excepts conveyances, etc., had or made upon or for good' consideration and hona fide. Section 5 avoids conveyances con- taining a power of revocation. Sec- tion 6 provides that the act shall not avoid any lawful mortgage made iOTia fide and upon good considera- tion. By 56 and 57 Vict., chap. 21, an act to amend the law relating to voluntary conveyances, such convey- ances if iotui fide are not to be avoided under 27 Eliz., chap. 4, sav- ing transactions completed before the passing of the act. 7a. N. r.— Jackson v. Henry, 10 Johns. 185, 6 Am. Dec. 328. U. S. — Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. 280, 8 L. Ed. 120. Ala.— Sevrall v. Glidden, 1 Ala. 52; Killough V. Steele, 1 Stew. & P. 262. Pla. — Gibson v. Love, 4 Fla. 217. Oa. — ^Harper v. Scott, 12 Ga. 125; Fleming v. Townsend, 6 Ga. 103, 50 Am. Dec. 318. Ind. — ^Anderson v. Etter, 102 Ind. 115, 26 N. E. 218; Pence v. Groan, 51 Ind. 336. /otco. — Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205. Md.— Cooke v. Kell, 13 Md. 469; Baltimore v. Williams, 6 Md. 235. 2V. J. — Mulford v. Peterson, 35 N. J. L. 127; Boice v. Conover, 54 N. J. Eq. 531, 35 Atl. 402. N. C. — Garrison v. Brice, 48 N. C. 85; Hiatt v. Wade, 30 N. C. 340. S. C— Hudnal v. Wilder, 4 Me- Cord, 294, 17 Am. Dec. 744; Teas- dale V. Atkinson, 2 Brev. 48; Foot- man V. Pendergrass, 3 Rich. Eq. 33. Eng. — Cadogan v. Kennett, 2 Cowp. 432. See also Subsequent pur- chaser, chap. V, i 22, infra. 16 Feauddlent Conveyances. of real property, and Ihave beeia held in maay jurisdictions not to ejrtend to transfers of personal property.'* Other cases have held that, since the statute is dedaratory of the oommon law, and the oommon law applies to personal property, it may be interpreted as defining the nature and effect of fraudulemit con- veyances generally, notwithstanding it in terms applies only to land.'^ § 12. Construction or interpretation of statutes The stat^ utes of 13 Elizabeth and other statutes, protecting creditors and others from fraudulent conveyances, are to be construed equitably and liberally, and have always had a liberal interpretation by the courts, for the prevention of frauds and in favor of the class of persons designed to be protected from such frauds. The term " creditor " has not received a restricted or limited interpretation." It was said in Twyne's ease that " because fraud and deceit abound in these days more than in former times ... all statutes made against fraud should be liberally and beneficially expounded to suppress the fraud." " The law, which " loves honesty and fair 74. Ala. — Sewall v. Glidden, 1 Ala. — Anderson v. Anderson, 64 Ala. 52. Ala. 403. Md.—Bohn v. Headley, 7 Harr. & Cow.— Allen v. Rundle, 50 Conn. J- ^^'^^ 9, 47 Am. Rep. 599. N. ^.-Boice V. Conover, supra. Fla.-Gihson v. Love, 4 Fla. 217. N. (7.-Garrison v. Brioe, 48 N. C. Ga.— Peck v. Land; 2 Ga. 1. 46 85; Hiatt v. Wade, 30 N. C. 340, j^ -^^ ggg growing grass is real property and „„,,,, within 27 Eli., and similar statutes. Jf;-^Zt\ ^ -^ w - 8. O.-Teasdale v. Atkinson, 2 ^* f^\!^^' Z^'^T ^T'T^^^^' V. Scotten, 59 Md. 72 j Cooke v. Cooke, 43 Md. 522. Brev. 48. Enq. — Jones v. Croucher, 1 Sim. & ,,- t, • ^ „ , St. 3k 1 Eng. Ch. 315, 57 Eng. Be- ^1^5^^"""^' " ' '"75. ofbson V. Love, 4 Fla. 217; Ohio.-Brice v. Myers, 5 Ohio, 121. Harper v. Scott, 12 Ga. 125; Mem- Enff.—Gooch's Case, 5 Coke, 60a; ing V. Townsend, 6 Ga. 103, 50 Am. Wimbish v. Tailbois, Plowd. 38a. Dec. 318; Avery v. Wilson, 47 S. C. See also, as to liberal construction 78, 25 S. E. 286; Hudnal v. Wilder, °^ the term "creditor," chap. V, supra. »»/''■<»• 76. N. Y. — ^Young v. Heermans, 77. 3 Coke, 80a, 82a, 1 Smith 66 N. Y. 374, 383. Lead. Cas. 1. Fraudulent Conveyances Generally. 11 dealing," construes liberally statutes to suppress frauds, so far as th,ey annul the tTansaotion.'^ The statutes on this subject are liberally expounded for the protection of creditors, and to meet the schemes and devices by which a fair exterior may be given to that -which is in reality collusive.'^ In the federal courts, the con- struction placed upon the statute by the highest courts of the state are considered as controlling.*" A statutory provision on the sub- ject of fraudulent conveyances, v^here it establishes a rule of prop- erty and not merely a rule of procedure or evidence, will not operate retrospectively so as to apply to conveyances made before its enactment.*^ But statutes which merely affect the remedy may be given a retrospective effect.*^ § 13. Effect of subsequent statutory provisions. — The effect of a later statute upon a prior statute concerning fraudulent con- veyances depends upon the intention of the legislature, and, as a rule, wheo-e the statutes are not inconsistent and both may stand, a repeal is not to be implied. For example, the provisions of tihe Georgia Code as to fraudulent conveyances are amendatory, and not in repeal, of the statute of 13 Elizabeth.*' The provision of the JSTew York statute (3 E. S. 7th ed. 2329) that every con- veyance or assignment, made with the inteat to hinder, delay, or 78. Cadogan v. Kennett, 2 Cowp. 79. McCulIoch v. Hutchinson, 7 432. "Statutes against frauds are Watts (Pa.), 434, 32 Am. Dee. 776. to be liberally and beneficially ex- 80. Peters v. Bain, 133 U. S. 670, pounded. This may seem a contra- 10 Sup. Ct. 354, 33 L. Ed. 696; Jaf- diction to the rule that penal stat- fray v. McGehee, 107 U. S. 361, 2 utes are to be construed strictly; Sup. Ct. 367, 27 L. Ed. 495; Lloyd v. most statutes against frauds being Fulton, 91 U. S. 479, 23 L. Ed. 363; in their consequences penal. But Allen v. Massey, 17 Wall. (U. S.) this difference is here to be taken; 351, 21 L. Ed. 542; Sumner v. Hicks, where the statute acts upon the of- 2 Black (U. S.), 532, 17 L. Ed. 355. fender and inflicts a penalty, as a pil- 81. McClellan v. Pyeatt, 66 Fed. lory or a fine, it is then to be taken 843, 14 C. C. A. 140; Cook v. strictly; hut when the statute ants Coekins, 117 Cal. 140, 48 Pac. 1095. upon the offense, by setting aside the 82. Stanton v. Keyes, 14 Ohio St. fraudulent transaction, here it is to 443. be construed liberally." 1 Bl. Com. 83. Westmoreland v. Powell, 59 88. Ga. 256. 2 18 FeAUDULBNT CoifVEYAIfCBS. defraud creditors, is void, is still in force and opei-ation, notwith- standing the act of 1858 and the various acts relating to voluntary assigmments for the benefit of oreditors, and an assignment made with such fraudulent intent may be set aside at the suit of judgment creditors.** The liimr York act of April 29, 1833, relating to the filing of chattel mortgages, did not repeal the statute concerning fraudulent conveyances. It only added another to the grounds on which a mortgage of personal property will be declared void.*^ But where the provisions of the two statutes are inconsistent, or where it appears that the legislature intended the later statute to cover the whole subject^ there is .an' implied re- peal.** § 14. Twyne's case. — .The leading case under the statute of 13 Elizabeth is Twyne's case, a decision promulgated in 1601, thirty years after the enactment of the statute. Its interpreta- tion of the statute and dear exposition of the rules govei'ning fraudulent conveyances have gained for it equal prominence with the statute itself, and it is relied upon as an authority and pre- cedent, and is perhaps as widely cited as any decision extant. It and the statute which it expounds are regarded as distinctive landmarks in the laiw. The conveyance or transfer of his prop- erty by the debtoir in this case was adjudged to be fraudulent within the statute, and the signs and marks were stated by the court to be: (1) That the gift was general, without exception of the donor's apparel, or of anything of necessity; (2) the donor continued in possession and used the goods as his own, and by means thereof traded with others, and defrauded and deceived 84. Loos V. Wilkinson, 110 N. " whether his debt be or be not due, Y. 195, 18 N. E. 99, 1 L. R. A. or be or be not in judgment," was 259. repealed by Gen. St., chap. 44, § 1, 85. Otis V. Sill, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) defining fraud as to creditors, and 102. by Civ. Code, §§ 194, 439, allowing 86. Vance v. Campbell, 3 Ky. L. attachment of property fraudulently Eep. 448, the act of 1838, authoriz- conveyed, either on the giving of a ing a suit in equity by a, creditor to bond or without bond on return of set aside a. fraudulent conveyance, Tmlla bona. Feaudulent Conveyances Generally. 19 them; (3) it was made in secret; (4) it was made pending the writ; (5) there was a trust between the parties, for the donor possessed all amid used them as his proper goods, and fraud is always apparelled and clad with a trust, and a trust is the cover of fraud; and (6) the deed expressed that the gift was made honestly, truly, and bona fide; et clausula inconsueta semper in- ducunt suspicionem?'' Although the leading doctrine of this case has been practically superseded in England by the statute provid- ing that a voluntary conveyance if made in good faith shall not be avoided,'* the principles of the case are of very general appli- cation in the United States and hold a prominent place in our jur- isprudence.*' The principles of this celebrated decision have since been extended, as will appear in subsequent chapters, so as to avoid fraudulent coniveyances in certain cases as to subsequent creditors,'" contingent subsequent creditors,'^ creditors suing the deibtor for tort,'^ as for assault and battery,'' libel and slander,'* or the misapplication of trust funds.'^ The doctrines of this case have also been enlarged so as to apply to fraudulent transfers of 87. Twyue's Case, 3 Coke, 80a, 1 (N. Y.) 71; Pennington v. Seal, 49 Smith Lead. Cas. 1, 18 Am. L. Reg. Miss. 525; Hoffman v. Junk, 51 Wis. N. S. 137. See also Davis v. 614. See also Contingent obliga- Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. tions, chap. V, § 2, infra. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Blennerhassett V. Sherman, 105 U. S. 100, 26 L. Ed. ®2. Fox v. Hills, 1 Conn. 295; 1080; Peck v. Land, 2 Ga. 1, 46 Am. '^''^^^^^^ V- Brown, 6 111. 397; Weir Dec. 368. Compare Billings v. Rus- ^- ^''^' ^^ ^"^^ 8^; Gebhart v. Mer- sell, 101 N. Y. 226, 4 N. E. 531; ^^'^^' ^^ ^^- ^^S; Post v. Stiger, 29 Kidd v. Rawlinson, 2 B. & P. 59, 3 ^^ ^- ^"I- ^58 5 Langford v. Fly, 26 Esp. 52, 5 Rev. Rep. 540. See also ^^""•. f ^^ ^''^ ''^^° ^orts, chap. V, Badges of Fraud, chap. VI, infra. ^ ^' '"''""• 88. St. 56 and 57 Vict., chap. 21. 9'3. Ford v. Johnston, 7 Hun (N. 89. Davis V. Schwartz, supra. J"'' ^63; Slater v. Sherman, 68 Ky. See also Effect of want of considera- tion, chap. VIII, §§ 32-35, infra. 94. Wilcox v. Fitch, 20 Johns. 90. Laughton v. Harden, 68 Me. (N. Y.) 472; Jackson v. Myers, 18 212; Day v. Cooley, 118 Mass. 527. Jo^^^ns. (N. Y.) 425; Cooke v. Cooke, See also Subsequent creditors, chap. *3 ^^- ^22. V, § 3, infra. 95. Strong v. Strong, 18 Beav. 91. Jackson v. Seward, 5 Cow. 408, 52 Eng. Reprint, 161. 20 FEAUDULEiirT Conveyances. intangible rights and choses in action," such, as corporate stock," annuities,'* life insurance policies,*' and insurance premiums,* legacies,^ an equity of redemption,^ and alimony granted to a wife under a judgment for divorce.* The principal badges and evi- dences of fraud were indicated in this case, however, and the controlling principles and rules in the determination of the various phases of fraudulent conveyances are in great measure derived from this source. ;§ 15. Prevalence of fraudulent transfers. — The prevalence of fraudulent conveyances early led, as we have seen, to statutory enactments on the subject, in the effort to discourage and pre- vent fraudulent debtors from seeking to cover up their property from their creditors. But the tendency of legislation for the last century has almost uniformly been in favor of the poor but hon- est debtor, and the object of nearly every law upon the subject has been to discourage and discountenance, or entirely prevent, the efforts of unfeeling creditors to oppress and punish him for his poverty.^ The Debtors Act of 1869, in England, and the general abolition of imiprisonment for contract debts in the different states of our own country were humane reforms in the law, in- spired by the desire to relieve honest, but imfortunate, debtors from the painful consequences formerly incident to insolvency. But the disgrace and horrdrs of the debtor's prison being fe- 96. Greenwood v. Brodhead, 8 99. Aetna Nat. Bank v. Manhat- Barb. (N. Y.) 597; Drake v. Rice, tan Life Ins. C!o., 24 Fed. 769; Bur- 130 Mass. 419. See Choses in action, ton v. Farinholt, 86 N. C. 260; chap. IV, § 7, infra. Stokoe v. Cowan, 29 Beav. 637. See 97. Hadden v. Spader, 20 Johns. Life insurance, chap. IV, § 20, infra. (N. Y.) 554; Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 1. Aetna Nat. Bank v. United Johns. Ch.' (N. Y.) 450; Weed v. States Life Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 770. Pierce, 9 Cow. ^(N. Y.) 723; Edmes- 2. Bigelow v. Ayrault, 46 Barb, ton V. Lyde, I'Paige (N. Y.) 641; (N. Y.) 143. Scott V. Indianapolis Wagon Works, 3. Sims v. Gaines, 64 Ala. 397. 48 Ind. 75; Beekwith v. Burrough, 4. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 34 Hun 14 E. L 366. (W. Y.) 157. 98. Noreutt v. Dodd, 1 Cr. & Ph. 5. Stevens v. Merrill, 41 N. H. 100, 41 Eng. Reprint, 428. 315. Feaudulent Conveyances Genekallt. 21 moved hj this radical change in remedies, and the persomal lib- erty of the debtor being no longer endangered, the most effective preventive of frauduleiat conveyances by dishonest and unscrupu- lous insolvents vp;as removed, with the resultant effect that fraudu- lent conveyances have increased in both England and the United States, amid the ability of creditors to enforce payment of their just obligations from this class of debtors has proportionately di- minished. The ingenuity of fraudulent debtors in devising schemes for colorable or covinous transfers of their property and in evading by cunning and intricate devices the payment of their just debts is remarkable, and seems to justify the observation of Balzac, some sixty years ago, that under any system of la.w the dis- honest debtor -will always on the whole come out ahead of the creditor. The perplexing problem of modem jurisprudence as to how to remedy this condition, and to neutralize or avoid, in favor of honest creditors, these fraudulent schemes and devices of the unscrupulous debtor, is to some extent further complicated by the fact that on both sides stands an unscrupulous class whose dishonesty makes misery for the honest. Money lenders and in- stallment sharks take advantage of the law^ to harrow and torture the ignorant, the poor, and the friendless on the one hand, and dishonest debtors seek to swindle honest creditors on the other and evade paymemt of their just obligations. The statutes permitting arrest and imprisonment in civil actions for debts fraudulently contracted are a constant menace to the innocent, and are the oc- casion for wrongs more serious, because committed under the guise of legal process, than those which they were designed tO' prevent and pumish. They are an outgrowth of the ancient prac- tice of obtaining private vengeance by the punishment of fraudu- lent debtors. The policy of coercion by imprisonment for debt proved to be a failure because it could not be resorted to in order to reach debtors who could pay but refused to pay, Avith- out involving those who were unable to pay, and who by being kept in jail were deprived of the means of making a livelihood, and became a burden to the community. The sound and true policy of the law should be to provide the most effective means 22 Feaudulent Conveyances. for the discovery and subjection to the just demands of creditors of assets which have been fraudulently conveyed or transferred, by liberal provisions for attachment of property and by effective bankrupt laws. The question is one which concerns every man, debtor as well as creditor, because any man, in any walk of life, is liable to the misfortunes which arise from hard times, errors of judgment, bad ventures, sickness, the failure of others, and other causes. On the other hand the honest and confiding creditor is too often made the victim of unscrupulous and dis- honest debtors who, either not having the skill and ability to acquire property honestly or lacking the inclination or disposi- tion, seek to enrich themselves at the expense of their creditors. Creditors have an equitable interest for the payment of their claims, iai their debtor's property, or the means he has of satisfy- ing their demands, which the law recognizes and enforces, imder certain circumstances,® and their rights to a thorough and search- ing investigation as to transfers or dispositions of the debtor's property, at least to the extent of their demands, should be mani- festly facilitated. § 16. History and comparative legislation The usual inci- dent of property of every kind owned or possessed by persons sui juris is the right and power of alienatiora. As u rule, every man may in theory of law do what he pleases with that which is his own, and a debtor has the absolute power of disposing of his property and is not deprived of the control of it by mere insol- vency. His debts are only personal obligations, and so long as he acts in good faith and in a manneir not prohibited by law, he may deal with it as he sees fit.' For centuries the tendency of the law has been in favor of the removal of old restraints on the alienation of property and the disallowance of neiw ones, and legislatures and courts have co-operated to this end. Almost the sole remaining re- straint upon the power of alienation of land is that which exists 6. Seymour v. Wilson, 19 N. T. 692, 704, 49 N. E. 65; Wiggins t. 418. Armstrong, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 7. Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 145. Eewludulent Conveyances Geneeallt. 33 under the dbamperty laws providing that every grant of lands shall be absolutely void if at the time of the delivery such lands shall be in the actual possession of a person claiming under a title adverse to that of the grantor. These statutes "were orig- iinially introduced partly upon the theory that it would be dangear- ous to permit the transfer of disputed or 'fighting titles,' lest powerful and influential persons might purchase and use such titles as a means of oppressing poor people." Such statutes are the relic of an ancient policy which has been treated with but little favor by either legislatures or courts im modern times, and are being steadily abolished, circumvented, or ignored as imprac- ticable and unnecessary in this country, where no aristocracy, nor any privileged class, elevated above the mass of the people, has ever existed, and will doubtless eventually be wholly superseded.' But from time immemorial there has existed in. our jurisprudence a clear restraint upon a debtor's right and power of alienation of his property, where it is attem,pted to be exercised for the pur- pose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding his creditors, or de- feating their lawful right to subject his property by legal process to the satisfaction of their lawful demands. The property of a debtor, by the laws of all commercial countries, belongs to his creditors. The application of the debtor's property is rigidly directed to the payment of his debts. He cannot transport it to another country, transfer it to his friend, or conceal it from his creditor.' The debtor must devote all his property absolutely to the payment of his debts ; reserve no control to himself ;*" pro- vide for no benefit to himself," other than what may result from the payment of his debts ; impose no condition upon the right of a. Dawley v. Brown, 79 N. Y. 10. Eiggs v. Murray, 2 Johns. Ch. 390; Matter of Department of Parks, (N. Y.) 565; Means v. Dowd, 128 73 N. Y. 560; Crary v. Goodman, 22 U. S. 281; West v. Snodgrass, 17 >r. Y. 177; Sedgwick v. Stanton, 14 Ala. 554; Fisher v. Henderson, 8 N. N. Y. 295; Humbert v. Trinity B. E. 175; Donovan v. Dunning, 69 Church, 24 Wend. (N.Y.) 611; Wil- Mo. 436. Hams V. Rawlins, 33 Ga. 117; Mc- 11. Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. (U. Mahan v. Bowe, 114 Mass. 145. S.) 79; Wooten v. Clark, 23 Miss. 9. Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343. 75; Towle v. Hoit, 14 N. H. 61. 24 Feaudulent Conveyances. tihe creditors to participiate in the fund; authorize no delay on the part of the trustee.'* The claims of the creditors rest upon legal obligations which are paramount to the demands of affec- tion or generosity. The debtor must be just before he is gener- ous. He must pay before he gives." His property must not be dfiverted frdm the payment of his debts to the injury of his creditors." Creditors are a favored class," and the protection and preservation of their rights has been and is a fundamental policy of. all enlightened nations." This fundamental principle governing the policy of all civilized nations became an established principle or rule of the common law, and was subsequently writ- ten in the statute law of England and this country. This policy of the law in favor of the creditor class existed in ancient times, as well as modem, and the debtor class was treated with greater severity under ancient laws. But while the application of the debtor's property has under the laws of all countries been rigidly applied to the payment of his debts, no country, unless both bar- barous and heathen, has ever authorized the sale of the person of a debtor for the satisfaction of his debt." Under the laws of the ancient Roman republic, the insolvent debtor might be put to death, or sold into foreign slavery, or his creditors might dis- member and pro-rate his body, as well as his estate. Rome, under the Emperors, however, granted a discharge to the honest insolvent.*' Even in England as late as 1663, an imprisoned 12. Oliver Lee & Co.'s Bank v. 16. 1 Story Eq. Jur., § 350. Taloott, 19 N. Y. 148. 17. Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343. 13. Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343; 18. "The cruelty of the Twelve Wait V. Day, 4 Den. (N. Y.) 439; Tables of the Boman laws against in- Potter V. Graeie, 58 Ala. 303; Sher- solvent debtors still remains to be man v. Barrett, 1 McMul. (S. C.) 147. told; and I shall dare to prefer the 14. Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. literal sense of antiquity to the (U. S.) 312; Tompkins v. Sprout, 55 specious refinements of modern criti- cal. 36; Hunters v. Waite, 3 Gratt. eism. After the judicial proof or (Va.) 26; Lockhard v. Beckley, 10 confession of the debt, thirty days W. Va. 96. of grace were allowed before a 15. Fouche v. Brower, 74 Ga. 251; Roman was delivered into the power Gable v. Columbus Cigar Co., 140 of his fellow-citizen. In this private Ind. 563, 566, 38 N. E. 474. prison, twelve ounces of rice were his. Feauddlent Conveyances Genebally. 25 debtor might be allowed to die ia prison if his friends failed to provide for his necessities.'* The savagery of the early Latins, though much softened, still survives in the continental insolvent and bankruptcy systems of to-day. In France, not only must a bankrupt in effect pay his debts in full, but imprisonment for debt, except in cases of misfortune, and the penalty of penal servitude for a number of years for fraudulent banlcruptcy still exists, and these restraints on the liberty of the dishonest trader are characteristic of all European laws. They are a survival of the time when inability to pay a: debt was a crime. England stands midway between these systems and our own. Fraudulent bankruptcy is a crime,^* but, except as against certain well defined statutory objections, a discharge may generally be obtained what- ever the rate per cent.^' daily food; he might be bound with at chain of fifteen pounds weight; and his misery was thrice exposed in the market-place, to solicit the compas- sion of his friends and countrymen. At the expiration of sixty days, the debt was discharged by the loss of liberty or life; the insolvent debtor was either put to death, or sold in foreign slavery beyond the Tiber; but if several creditors were alike ob- stinate and unrelenting, they might legally dismember his body, and satiate their revenge by this horrid partition. The advocates for this savage law have insisted, that it must strongly operate in deterring idleness and fraud from contracting debts which they were unable to dis- charge; but experience would dissi- pate this salutary terror, by prov- ing, that no creditor could be found to exact this unprofitable penalty of life or limb. As the manners of Rome were insensibly polished, the criminal code of the decemvirs was abolished by the humanity of ac- cusers, witnesses, and judges; and impunity became the consequence of immoderate rigor. The Porcian and Valerian laws prohibited the magis- trates from inflicting on a free citi- zen any capital, or even corporal punishment; and the obsolete stat- utes of blood were artfully, and per- haps truly, ascribed to the spirit, not of patrician, but of regal tyranny.'' Milman's Gibbon's Rome, vol. Ill, pp. 183-184. 19. Manby v. Scott, 1 Mod. 132, Hyde J., " If a man be taken in exe- cution, and lie in prison for debt, neither the plaintiff at whose suit he is arrested, nor the shenflF who took him, is bound to find him meat, drink, or clothes; but he must live on his own, or on the charity of others; and if no man will relieve him, let him die in the name of Grod, says the law; and so say I." 20. Debtors Act of 1869, part II. 21. Act of 1890, § 8; Collier Bankr. (5th ed.) 168. 26 FEAtTDULENT CONVEYANCES. CHAPTER II. I^ATUEE AND FoBM OF TbANSFEK . Section 1. Nature and form of transfer generally. 2. Particular forms of fraudulent conveyances. 3. Transfers as security. 4. Conditional sales. 5. Purchase of property through or in name of third person. 6. Purchase of property by husband in name of wife. 7. Purchase of personal property by husband in name of wife. 8. Payments of liens — ^Loans — Improvements on lands of another. 9. Collusive and fraudulent legal proceedings. 10. Collusive judgments. 11. Confession of judgment. 12. Statutory requirements as to confessions of judgment. 13. Foreclosure of mortgages and deeds of trust. 14. Execution and other judicial sales. 15. Collusive attachment. 16. Fraudulent organization of corporation. 17. Waste or loss through debtor's negligence. 18. Payment of debt before it is due. 19. Cancellation or release of debt or claim. 20. Rescission of contracts and neglect or failure to take aonveyaBce. 21. Conducting business in the name of another. 22. Keeping mortgage in force after payment. 23. Keeping judgment open after payment. 24. Keeping certificate of execution sale in force. 25. Antedated note. 26. Fraud directed against debtor. Section 1. Nature and form of transfer generally. — ^Ai convey- ance by a debtor of his property, whether directly or indirectly made, and whatever its form, is void as against the grantor's credi- tors, if made with the intent and purpose to defraud them. The nature and form of the transfer are of small importance. "Where fraud appears courts will ignore all matters of form and expose and punish the corrupt act.' It is a principle as old as the law of 1. Ind. — Buck v. Voreis, 89 Ind. by attachment or other judicial pro- 116. ceeding, will be revoked, if there is La. — Haas v. Haas, 35 La. Ann. fraud or collusion. 885, a conveyance of property, though Md. — Sohaferman t. O'Brien, 28 ITatceb and Form of Teansfee. 27 morals, and which has been engrafted into the law of equity and justice, that good faith is the basis of all dealing, and that every description of contract, and every transfer or conveyance of property, by what means soever it be done, is vitiated by fraud. Deeds, obligations, contracts, judgments, corporate bodies, and all devices and instruments resorted to to cover up fraud, are, whenever the law is invoked, declared nullities and are looked upon as if they had never been executed.^ It does not alter the character of a fraudulent arrangement, or enable it to defy jus- tice, that it was accomplished through the agency of a valid judg- ment regularly enforced. That often may be made an effective agency in accomplishing beyond its own legitimate purpose a further result of fraud and dishonesty, and may even be selected as the suitable means by reason of its inherent character.* The use of sheriff's deeds and other legal instruments to effect a fraudulent conveyance of property by a debtor is no bar to its avoidance by creditors.* In some instances the term "convey- ance," as used in. statutes against fraudulent conveyances, is ex- pressly defined as including " every instrument in waiting, ex- cept a last will and testament, whatsoever may be its form and by whatever name it may be known in law, by which any estate or interest in lands is created, aliened, assigned, or surrendered."' Md. 565, 92 Am. Dec. 708, however 3. Decker v. Decker, 108 N. Y. 128, solemn the instrument in its for- 15 N. E. 307; Hardt v. Schwab, 72 malities, if it had its origin in fraud Hum (N. Y.), 109, 25 N. Y. Supp. it is a nullity, so far as the creditors 402, a creditor having a just claim of the grantor are concerned. against a failing debtor must not Miss—White V. Trotter, 14 Sm. & "«« '* /""^ «'«' P^'P^f^ "^ P''^'='°f ^^^ M. 30, 50 Am. Dec. 112. property of the debtor beyond the reach of other creditors, and for the 2. Booth V. Bunce, 33 N. Y. 139, benefit of the failing debtor. 88 Am. Dec. 372. See also Skow- 4. Watson v. Bonflls, 116 Fed. 157, began Bank v. Cutler, 49 Me. 315; 53 C. C. A. 535; Lee v. Cole, 44 N. J. Forsyth v. Matthews, 14 Pa. St. 100, Eq. 323, 15 Atl. 531 ; Metropolitan 53 Am. Dec. 522, that a transfer of Bank v. Durant, 22 N. J. Eq. 35. See personal property was evidenced by also Execution and other judicial an elaborate instrument in writing sales, chap. II, § 14, infra. is a circumstance of slight import- 5. Mill Annot. St. Colo. 1891, § ance. 2036; Mich. Comp. Laws, 1897, § 28 FuAtrDULENT CONVEYANCES. § 2. Particular forms of fraudulent conveyances. — The forms in which conveyances or transfers of a debtor's property may be made in fraud of his creditors are many and various and em- brace absolute conveyances or transfers of real property,' and of personal property/ whether made with or without an adequate 9538; Minn. St. 1894, § 4226; Wis. St., 1898, § ,2326. 6. /nd.— Thorp v. Jarrell, 66 Ind. 52, a voluntary deed placed on record by the grantor, but never delivered to the grantee, nor accepted by him. La. — Emswiller v. Burham, 6 La. Ann. 710, a transfer by a totally in- solvent debtor of all his real and per- sonal property is out of the usual course of business, and is indicative of fraud. Afd.— Birely v. Staley, 5 Gill & .T. 432, 25 Am. Dec. 303, a deed otherwise void cannot be sustained on account of a secret oral contract that the property should be held in trust by the grantee and sold for the benefit of grantor's creditors; Duvall v. Wat- ers, 1 Bland, 569, 18 Am. Dee. 350, a loose and irregular description of the property is indicative of fraud. Miss. — ^Roach v. Deering, 9 Sm. & M. 316, where a sale under a, mort- gage with power of sale was held merely colorable. N. J. — McKeague v. Armstrong, 50 N. J. Eq. 309, 24 Atl. 398, convey- ance by father to son in consideration of the assumption of the father's debts. OWo.— Piatt V. St. Clair, 6 Ohio, 227, Wright, 261, sale by an admin- istrator to a trustee for the benefit of his heirs. Or.— Morrell v. Miller, 28 Or. 354, 43 Pae. 490, deed by debtor to his attorney held to be valid only as se- curity to the amount of the attor- ney's fees. Pa. — ^American Academy of Music V. Smith, 54 Pa. St. 130, a, convey- ance to avoid payment of ground rent; Hays v. Heidelberg, 9 Pa. St. 203, sale on execution to administra- tor of judgment debtor to hold in trust for creditor while the value of the property increases. Conveyance beld to be valid. — Blish v. Collins, 68 Mich. 542, 36 N. W. 731, deeds executed in good faith for a valuable consideration and recorded prior to an attachment; Samuel v. Kittenger, 6 Wash. 261, 33 Pac. 509, conveyance to grantee in good faith in trust for the equitable owners of the property. 7. y. Y. — Downing v. Kelly, 49> Barb. 547, a failing debtor has no right to interpose a legal title be- tween his property and his debts, to compel his creditors to take notes drawn on time in payment of their debts. 77. sf.^Kempner v. Churchill, 75 U. S. 362, 19 L. Ed. 461, property sold much below cost within a month after it was bought and before it was paid for hastily removed; Smith v. New York L. Ins. Co., 57 Fed. 133, where $5,000 in money was included in the bill of sale; Judson v. Courier Co., 15 Fed. 541, transfer made outside of the usual course of business; Nisbet V. Quinn, 7 Fed. 760, sales of nearly two-thirds of his stock made to three persons by a retail merchant within a few days. AJo.— -Rodenberg v. H. B. Claflin Co., 104 Ala. 560, 16 So. 448; H. B. Natuee and Foem of Teansfee. 29 and valuable considexatioin,* and wiiether or not the instrument of conveyance be duly acknowledged and recorded.' Tbe conveyance Claflin Co.v. Rodenberg, 101 Ala. 213, 13 So. 272, where more goods were de- livered to the purchaser than were mentioned in the bill of sale the entire sale is vitiated. 111. — Grieb v. Caraker, 69 111. App. 236; Thome v. Crawford, 17 111. App. 395, transfer by debtor to certain creditors of all his available assets valued at three times the amount (rf their claims. Me. — Kichardson v. Kimball, 28 N. E. 463, vessel transferred without bill of sale or other written evidence. Md. — Duvall v. Waters, 1 Bland. 569, 18 Am. Dec. 350. A bill of sale is invalid by statute unless indorsed with an affidavit as to consideration and bona fides thereof. Denton v. Griffith, 17 Md. 301. Mass. — Bliss v. Crosier, 159 Mass. 498, 34 N. E. 1075, transfers not ac- cording to the usual course of busi- ness ; Killam v. Pierce, 153 Mass. 502, 27 N. E. 520, sale of stock of goods, taking notes in payment which were not yet due. Mo. — Crane v. Timberlake, 81 Mo. 431, sale by an execution debtor to an antecedent creditor of certain sheep which were never separated from other sheep. Nel. — Switz V. Bruce, 16 Neb. 463, 20 N. W. 639, preference to creditor. Pa. — Forsyth v. Matthews, 14 Pa. St. 100, 53 Am. Dec. 522. 17*.— Read v. Moody, 60 Vt. 668, 15 Atl. 345, transaction not in the usual course of business. Va. — Briscoe v. Clark, 1 Rand. 213, conveyance of grantor's entire prop- erty, reserving life estate to himself and wife. Payment or satisfaction of lia- bilities.— Where plaintiflf sold his merchandise, fixtures and business to K, who, being unable to pay the bal- ance of the price, retransferred the property to plaintiff, in bulk, in con- sideration of the satisfaction of the debt, without making an inventory or furnishing a list of his creditors and notifying them, as required by a statute regulating sales in bulk, such retransfer, though an accord and sat- isfaction of K's debt to plaintiff, was also, in respect to the merchandise, a " sale " within such act, and was therefore fraudulent as against K's creditors. Gallus v. Elmer, 193 Mass. 106, 78 N. E. 772. Conveyances held to lie Talid. — U. S. — Jones v. Sleeper, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,496, a transfer of goods by a general description, where posses- sion is delivered. Ala. — ^^ndrews v. Jones, 10 Ala. 400, sale on credit is not fraudulent if the vendee has taken a mortgage or other form of security on the prop- erty transferred. /iZ.— Ewing v. Runkle, 20 111. 448, transfer by insolvent to one creditor with the consent of other creditors. Ind. — ^Kane v. Drake, 27 Ind. 29, taking attested bill of sale not a badge of fraud. Iowa. — Johnson v. McGrew, 11 Iowa, 151, 77 Am'. Dec. 137, sale by debtor to one creditor for a fixed consideration, paid in part by dis- charging his claim, in part by paying other debts of grantor, and balance in money. La. — Hirsch v. Fudicker, 43 La. Ann. 886, 9 So. 742, sale to one not a creditor for an adequate considera- tion in cash. 30 Feaudulent Conveyances. or transfer may be in the form of a voluntary conveyance or trans- fer, the effect of want of consideration for which is discussed under that headj*° an assignment or transfer of a promissory note," life-insurance policy,'^ the right of a patentee in a patented invention," or other chose in action;" a deed of trust, mortgage of real or personal property, or a pledge of personal property or choses in action ;^° a bond and mortgage to cover up property;" a fraudulent foreclosure of a real estate or chattel mortgage or a deed of trust;" or a fraudulent attachment." A fraudulent judg- ment, by confession or in legal procedings, and a sale on execution thereon ;" a fraudulent organization of a corporation and transfer of property to it f an ante-nuptial or post-nuptial settlement by a husband on his wife, directly or through a third person, or to trustees for her benefit ;'" the release by a husband to his right to his wife's earnings ;^* the emancipiation of his child by a debtor f' or the attempted creation of a joint tenancy to prevent the coUec- Minn. — ^Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn. 119. Jfo.— State V. Merritt, 70 Mo. 275, the question whether the sale was made in the usual and ordinary course of business is for the jury. Pa. — Forsyth v. Matthews, 14 Pa. St. 100, 53 Am. Dec. 522. 8. Grieb v. Caraker, 69 111. App. 236. And see Effect of consideration, chap. XIII, § 30, infra. 9. Schaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 565, 92 Am. Dec. 708. 10. See Effect of want of consid- eration, chap. VIII, §§ 32-36, infra. 11. Killam v. Peirce, 153 Mass. 502, 27 N. E. 520. 12. See Life insurance, chap. TV, § 20, infra. 13. Gilbert v. Bate, 86 N. Y. 87. See also Patents, copyrights and trade marks, chap. IV, § 18, infra. 14. Harding v. Elliott, 91 Hun (N. y.), 502, 36 N". y. Supp. 648, as- signment of a deposit in bank by a solvent non-resident to prevent at- tachment. See also Choses in action, eliap. IV, § 7, infra. 15. See next section. 16. Jordan v. Fenno, 13 Ark. 593. 17. See Foreclosure of Mortgages and deeds of trust, chap. II, § 13, infra. 18. See Attachment, chap. II, § 15, infra. 19. See Collusive and fraudulent legal proceedings, chap. II, § 9, infra. 20. See Organization of corpora- tion, chap. 11, § 16, infra. 21. Fisher v. Schlosser, 41 Ohio St. 147; Kanawha Valley Bank v. Wilson, 25 W. Va. 242; Bulmer v. Hunter, 38 L. J. Ch. 543, L. E. 8 Eq. 46, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 942. See also Marriage as consideration, chap. VIII, § 25, infra. 22. See Wages of debtor's wife, chap. IV, i 9, irifra. 23. See Wages of debtor's minor child, chap. IV, § 10, infra. Natttke and Foem of Tbansfee. 31 tion of a judgment,^* are other forms in which a debtor may make a conveyance or transfer of his property in, fraud of his creditors. Where a debtor is induced by the fraud of a buyer to sell his business to the buyer, the buyer becomes a constructive trustee of the property bought for the debtor, which constitutes an equitable asset of the debtor subject to be reached by a judg- ment creditor in a suit in equity,^^ § 3. Transfers as security. — ^A mortgage or deed of trust of real property made by a debtor to secure the payment of debts, or advances made or to be made, is fraudulent and void as against creditors of the mortgagor, if made ■\vitih intent to hinder, de- lay, or defraud them.^* But it will not be held fraudulent when 24. Foster v. Whelpley, 123 Mich. 350, 82 N. W. 123. 25. Pritz V. Jones, 117 App. Div. (N. Y.) 643, 102 N. Y. Supp. 549. Transactions not subject to at- tack. — A. defendant furnished money to a third person with which to buy the stock of goods and business of a seller. Defendant never had in his possession any of the property sold. The seller was incompetent and paid from the proceeds of the sale a debt due to defendant. Held, that a judg- ment creditor of the seller was not entitled to set aside the transaction as fraudulent. Pritz v. Jones, supra. A debtor held a lease of a saloon for a year, with the right to renew from year to year so long as he bought beer from the landlord. The landlord required the debtor to as- sume a mortgage on the premises. The mortgage was not a lien on any- thing ever owned by the debtor or transferred by him. The saloon building and fixtures were owned by the landlord. There was nothing to show that the landlord was attempt- ing to enforce any claim secured by the mortgage. Eeld, that a judgment creditor of the debtor was not en- titled to a. cancellation of the mort- gage as fraudulent. Pritz v. Jones, supra. 26. V. S.— Valentine v. Hurd, 21 Fed. 749; Stephens v. Sherman, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,369a, offd. Blenner- hassett v. Sherman, 105 U. S. 100, 26 L. Ed. 80. Ala. — ^McDowell v. Steele, 87 Ala. 493, 6 So. 288; Hall v. Heydon, 41 Ala. 242; Wiswall v. Ticknor, 6 Ala. 178. Conn. — DeWolf v. A. & W. Sprague Mfg. Co., 49 Conn. 282; North v. Belden, 13 Conn. 376, 35 Am. Dec. 83, to render a mortgage valid as against the creditors of the mort- gagor, the real nature of the trans- action, so far as it can be disclosed, must appear from the record with reasonable certainty, or at least the record must point out a track by pursuing which the inquirer may ascertain it. Ky. — Beeler's Heirs v. Bullitt's Heirs, 3 A. K. Marsh, 280, and a de- cree of foreclosure and sale under it are void as to creditors. 32 FeAUDULENT CoWVETAIfCES. made in good faith and uot with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors." If there is actual fraud the transfer is void notwithstanding it was given to secure bona fide indebtedness.^' A transfer of dioses in lactioa or other personal property as collateral to secure indebtedness, either by way of pledge, or by way of chattel mortgage, deed of trust, or contract for a lien, if made without consideration, or with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or if it contains provisions which have such effect, is fraudulent and void as to creditors of the pledgor or mortgagor.^' But if the transfer be bona fide and does not con- tain provisions in hindrancje, delay, or fraud of creditors, it leaves the equitable and beneficial ownership in the debtor while so Me. — ^Aiken v. Kilburne, 27 Me. 252. Mo. — Oliver-Finnie Grocer Co. V. Miller, 53 Mo. App. 107, when facts which invalidate it appear expressly or by implication on its face. Term. — Bennett v. Union Bank, 5 Humphr. 612. W. Va. — Hope v. Valley City Salt Co., 25 W. Va. 789. 27. Rio Grande K. Co. v. Vinet, 132 U. S. 565, 10 Sup. Ct. 168, 33 L. Ed. 438, mortgage of his individual property by a partner, to his firm, to enable it to continue business, is not in fraud of partnership cred- itors; United States v. Griswold, 8 Fed. 496; Vincent v. Suoqualmie Mill Co., 7 Wash. 566, 35 Pac. 396. 28. Blennerhassett v. Sherman, 105 U. S. 100, 26 L. Ed. 1080; Mc- Donald v. Hoover, 142 Mo. 484, 44 S. W. 334. 29. N. Y. — Bearing v. McKinnon Dash, etc., Co., 33 App. Div. 31, 53 N. Y. Supp. 513, a chattel mortgage given to secure creditors, which vested the trustee with discretionary power as to the time and manner of converting the property into cash. and gave him liberty to sell on credit, and defer payment of creditors in- definitely. U. S.— Tuck V. Olds, 29 Fed. 738; In re Bloom, 3 Fed. Cas. Noi. 1,557, Chattel mortgage on present and after-acquired stock of goods. Ala. — ^Wiswall v. Ticknor, 6 Ala. 178. Ga.— Hoffer v. Gladden, 75 Ga. 532. III. — Grieb v. Caraker, 69 HI. App. 236. Me. — ^Wlieelden v. Wilson, 44 Me. 11. Mich. — Pettibone v. Byrne, 97 Mich. 85, 56 N. W. 236. Miss. — Tobin v. Allen, 53 Miss. 563. Mo. — Oliver-Finnie Grocer Co. v. Miller, 53 Mo. App. 107. Term. — McCrasly v. Hasslock, 63 Tenn. 1. Tex. — Gregg v. Cleveland, 82 Tex. 187, 17 S. W. 777. Wis. — Baum v. Bosworth, 68 Wis. 196, 31 N. W. 744. A verbal agreement betiveem. a debtor and creditor, by which the former gives a lien upon certain property to the latter, is valid be- JSTatuee and Form of Tbansfee. 33 held ia pledge or as security, and is not fraudulent laa to creditors of the pledgor or mortgagor.'" An absolute conveyance of lands intended as a security for a debt is held by the courts in some jurisdietdons to be fraudulent and void as against existing credi- tors, al'though there may be no actual fraudulent intent,'* while in otheor jurisdictions a contrary rule is held in the absence of actual fraud.'^ The act of a mortgagee in a chattel mortgage re- leasing a portion of the chattel mortgage, taking other property as security in lieu thereof, does not render the mortgage void at the instance of creditors of the mortgagor.^' § 4. Conditional sales. — A conditional as well as an absolute sale may be fraudulent as against creditors.'* A conditional sale, that is, a sale imder an agreement that the title to the property shall remain in the seller until the purchase price is paid, although possession is delivered to the purchaser, was valid at common law and its validity was not affected by the English statute of frauds.'^ By the weight of authority conditional sales of personal property are valid between the parties and as against creditors of and sub- sequent purchasers from the grantee, in the absence of fraud.'' tween the parties, but void as to lough v. Steele, 1 Stew. & P. (Ala.) creditors and subsequent purchasers 262. in good faith. Osterbag v. Galbraith, 31. Sims v. Gaines, 64 Ala. 392. 23 N€b. 730, 37 N. W. 637. 32. ;See Badges of fraud— Abso- 30. Ala. — Walthall's Ex'rs v. lute conveyance as security, chap. VI, Rives, 34 Ala. 91. § 15, infra; Secret reservations and Ark. — Goodbar v. Locke, 56 Ark. trusts — ^Absolute conveyance in- 314, 19 S. W. 924. , tended as security, chap. X, § 16, Mass. — Bliss v. Crosier, 159 Mass. infra. 498, 34 N. E. 1075. 33. Wellington v. Terry (Colo., Tea;.— Simon v. McDonald, 85 Tex. 1907), 88 Pac. 467. 237, 20 S. W. 52. 34. GifiFord v. Ford, 5 Vt. 532. Wash. — Vincent v. Suoqualmie 35. Thompson v. Walker, 5 Fed. Mill Co., 7 Wash. 566, 35 Pac. 396. 419, 2 McCrary, 33, the Arkansas A Tiill of sale of personal prop- statute of frauds has no operation erty, containing a clause of defeasance on such sales until the possession has for a valuable consideration, and lona continued in the vendee for five fide, is not fraudulent as to creditors, years. under the statutes of Alabama. Kil- 36. U. 8.— In re Binford, Fed. 3 34 Feaudulent Conveyances. A stipulation in a sale of goods tihat, though the goods be de- livered, the title shall not pass until the price is paid, is valid; and if there is no fraud, and nothing more than mere possession of the goods by the buyer to indicate authority in him to sell them, a sale made by him before he has paid the price to his vendor will not impair the latter's title.'' In some jurisdictions, however, an agreement between a vendor and vendee of personal property delivered to the latter, that the property shall be con- sidered as belonging to the former until paid for, is fraudulent and void as to creditors of the vendee,'* and it is immaterial whether the creditor trusted the debtor on the credit of the goods which were in his possession or not.'' An agreement by which a chattel is delivered to another for hire, without a definite term and with an. option to purchase, is a bailment, and not a con- ditional sale, and hence is not fraudulent as to creditors of the bailee.*" The sale of a stock of goods cannot be conditional, as between the vendor and the creditors of the vendee, where such goods were placed in the possession of the vendee for the express purpose of selling at retail, pending an-angements for his paying for them, but such goods must be deemed the property of such vendee.*^ In some jurisdictions conditional sales are required by statute to be recorded to be valid as against creditors of or pur- chasers from the vendee in actual possession, witihout notice.** Cas. No. 1,411, 3 Hughes, 295, rev'd N. F.— Esty v. Aldriph, 46 N. H. Fed. Cas. No. 1,411a, 3 Hughes, 127. 304. 37. In re Binford, supra. ±la,. — South Alabama Oil, etc., Co. 38. McCormick v. Hadden, 37 111. V. Garner, 112 Ala. 447, 20 So. 628. 370; Frank v. Price, 1 Leg. Rec. Rep. Conn. — ^Tomlinson v. Roberts, 25 (Pa.) 101; Heppe v. Speakman, 3 Conn. 477, 68 Am. Dec. 367; Forbes Brewst. (Pa.) 548, 7 Phila. 117. V. Marsh, 15 Conn. 384. i39. Martin v. Mathiot, 14 Serg. & ii'Zw.— Campbell Printing Press, R. (Pa.) 214, 16 Am. Dec. 491. etc., Co. V. Walker, 22 Fla. 412, 1 So. 40. Sporer v. Dale, 5 Pa. Co. Ct. 59. 611. 3fass.--Blanchard v. Cooke, 144 41. Devlin v. O'Neill, 6 Daly (N. Mass. 207, 11 N. E. 83; Ayer v. Bart- Y.), 305. lett, 23 Mass. 71; Patten v. Clark, 42. Moline Plow Co. v. Braden, 71 22 Mass. 5, 16 Am. Dee. 365. Iowa, 141, 32 N. W. 247. Nature and Form of Transfer. 35 The rule that, if possession remains "with liie grantor in an ab- solute bill of sale, it is, fraudulent as to creditors and bona fide purdiasers, does not apply to conditional sales." But if the vendor of personal property, after a conditional sale, remain in possession, it is evidence of fraud as against the creditors of tha vendor and bona fide purchasers," and, unless sufficient reason is shown for it, the evidence will be conclusive.^' Under a con- ditional sale, followed by the delivery of the goods, not expressly qualified, the vendee takes the title to them, which, tihough it may be defeasible between the original parties, like title fraudulently obtained, will be protected as to subsequent purchasers from such vendee. ^° § 5. Purchase of property through or in name of third per- son. — It has been held in some cases that the statute of 13 Elizabeth and similar statutes in the United States only apply to conveyances made by the fraudulent debtor himself, and that consequently purchases by the debtor or with his means, when the title is taken in the name of a third person, are not necessarily fraudulent and void as to the creditors of the debtor, and cannot be avoided by them as fraudulent. ^^ But the courts, asi a general . rule, have held that where lands were conveyed to one, whicih 43. U. 8. — Conard v. Atlantic Vanmetre, 9 Ohio, 153. See Jobnson Ins. Co., 26 U. S. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189. v. Hays, 5 Ohio St. 101. Golo. — Eobets v. Hawn, 20 Colo'. 45. Swift v. Thompson, supra. ' 77, 36 Pac. 886. 46. Mears v. Waples, 4 Houst. Go. — Scott V. Winship, 20 Ga. 429. (Del.) 62. Co»i.•„■ 1 a n fiQO ^- Davidson, 124 Ind. 412, 25 N. E. S. D. — Smith V. Tosmi, 1 S. D. 632, - „ ,,. „ i j.^ «.\, „- 48 N W 299 ^' ^^^'"S "■ Braekett, 34 Me. 27. 58. Reel v. Livingston, 34 Fla. 377, W. yo.— Martin v. Warner, 34 W. 16 So. 284, 43 Am. St. Rep. 202; Blair Va. 182, 12 S. E. 477; Burt v. Tim- y. Smith, 114 Ind. 114, 15 N. E. 817, mens, 29 W. Va. 441, 2 S. E. 780, 6 g Am. St. Rep. 593. See also Farr v. Am. St. Rep. 664; Rose v. Brown, 11 Hauenstein (N. J. Ch. 1905), 62 Atl. W. Va. 122. 383. Contra. — Walters v. Brown (Tenn. 59. Conover v. Ruckman, 36 N. J. Ch. App. 1898), 46 S. W. 777. Eq. 493. it^ATUKE AND FoEM OF TkANSFEK. 41 jected to the satisfaction of their claims to the extent of the value of sucli improvements.*" But as to subsequent creditors, the rule does not apply, in the absence of an intent to defraud them knovm to or participated in by the owner of the property .''^ With some qualifications the same rule_ applies where money is appro- priated by a debtor to the payment of life insurance premiums." § 9. Collusive and fraudulent legal proceedings. — ^Debtors for the purpose of defeating the rights of creditors sometimes resort to collusive and fraudulent legal proceedings to cover up their property and shield it from creditors. Conveyances or transfers of property, although by means of attachment, judgment, execu- tion, sale, or otiher judicial proceeding, if the result of collusive machination between the debtor and others to defraud creditors, or to give one creditor a preference injurious to other creditors, are fraudulent and void as against creditors, and will be revoked by the courts, and the property so disposed of, real or personal, subjected to the satisfaction of the claims of creditors.^^ 60. Isham v. Schafer, 60 Barb. (N. 63. TJ. 8. — James v. Milwaukee. Y.) 317, otherwise, as to his personal etc., E. Co., 73 U. S. 752, 18 L. Ed. services. See also Improvements, 885, collusive sale of a railroad under rents and profits of real estate, chap. mortgage. IV, § 24, infra. Ala. — Cartwright v. Bamberger, 90 But xrhere the conveyance Ala. 405, 8 So. 264, collusive attach- laras valid in its inception, ment. expenditures by a parent in pay- III. — French v. Commercial Nat. ing off incumbrances and improv- Bank, 199 111. 213, 65 N. E. 252; ing land previously voluntarily Thomas v. Van Meter, 62 111. App. conveyed to his children by way of 309, assignment of a beneficiary of a settlement does not render such money decree for the purpose of de- prior conveyance invalid as against feating an intervening creditor, and the parent's creditors. Judson v. sale by a master thereunder without Courier Co., 15 Fed. 541. consideration paid. 61. Robinson v. Huffman, 15 B. Ind. — ^Wright v. Mack, 95 Ind. 332. Mon. (Ky.) 80, 61 Am. Dec. 177; /oroa.— Milliman v. Eddie, 115 Caswell V. Hill, 47 N. H. 407 ; Sex- Iowa, 530, 88 N. W. 964, a judgment ton V. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) of foreclosure held to be in effect a 229, 5 L. Ed. 603. voluntary confession of judgment. 62. See Payment of premiums for Ky. — Yoder v. Standiford, 7 T. B. life insurance, chap. IV, i 21, imfra. Mon. 478, an arrangement between 42 Fraudulent Conveyances. § 10. Collusive judgments. — A judgment at law and a salo of a debtor's property thereunder -will be set aside in equity, al- tbougb founded upon a just debt, if procured by collusion to be used as a cover to protect bis property from other creditors, or for the purpose of giving a preference to one creditor or a part of his ci'editors over others, or otherwise intended to defraud credi- tors.** A creditor may show in a collateral proceeding that a judgment was procured througjh fraud of the debtor, or collusion the debtor and the purchaser of his estate at sheriff's sale to extend the time to redeem, contrived to defraud other creditors, will not be construed as a mortgage to give it effect. La. — ^Newman v. Baer, 50 La. Ann. 323, 23 So. 279; Haas v. Haas, 35 La. Ann. 885. Mass. — Goddard v. DivoU, 42 Mass. 413, collusive judgment. Miss. — ^Hyman v. Stadler, 63 Miss. 362, a collusive suit is one in which the parties who occupy ostensibly ad- verse positions are, in fact, in accord, and whose real though concealed pur- pose is to accomplish the same re- sult. Eng. — ^Bateman v. Ramsay, Sau. & Sc. 459. 64. W. r.— Kingsley v. First Nat. Bank, 31 Hun, 329, insolvent corpo- ration allowing judgments to be entered against it by consent before expiration of the time allowed for answering; Pitney v. Leonard, 1 Paige, 461, confessed judgment and pretended purchase under it held fraudulent and void. jj^ gf. — Sowles V. Witters, 55 Fed. 159, judgment by consent where there was no liability. Cal. — Anderson v. Lassen County Bank, 140 Cal. 695, 74 Pac. 287. Ga. — Beach v. Atkinson, 87 Ga. 288, 13 S. E. 591. lU. — French v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 213, 65 N. E. 252. /nd.— Phelps V. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, 17 N. E. 602, 19 N. e. 156. Ky. — Wilson v. Snelling, 3 Bush. 322. La. — ^Anheuser-Busch Brew. Assoc. V. McGowan, 49 La. Ann. 630, 21 So. 766. Mass. — Sartwell v. North, 144 Mass. 188, 10 N. E. 824; Lamb v. Smith, 132 Mass. 574; Pierce v. Jackson, 6 Mass. 242; Pierce v. Partridge, 3 Mete. 44, judgment by default for amount in excess of plaintiff's claim. 2V. J. — Squier v. Mechanics' Nat. Bank, 35 N. J. Eq. 344; Mechanics' Nat. Bank v. H. C. Burnet Mfg. Co., 33 N. J. Eq. 486; Wandling v. Thompson, 41 N. J. L. 309. Pa.— Kohl v. Sullivan, 140 Pa. St. 35, 21 Atl. 247; Clark v. Douglass, 62 Pa. St. 408, creditors can attack a judgment on a verdict by evidence that it was taken by consent or de- fault, or that the defence set up was a sham; Hall v. Hamlin, 2 Watts, 354; Gilbert v. Hoffman, 2 Watts, 66, 26 Am. Dec. 103; Foulk v. McFar- lane, 1 Watts & S. 297, 37 Am. Dec. 467; Gaskill v. Benton, 14 Phila. 487. Wis. — Bloodgood v. Meissner, 84 Wis. 452, 54 N. W. 772, by statute; E^ATUEE AND FoEM OF TeANSFEE. 43 of both parties, "witih, design to hinder, delay, or defraud him.'' A judgment recovered against a debtor is not necessarily shown to be collusive and fraudulent so that it will be sot aside as fraudulent by proof that the defendant voluntarily appeared and answered in the action,'* or that he did not defend the action," or that he entered appearance and confessed the indebtedness or otherwise facilitated the obtaining of the judgment,"' or that lie failed to plead the statute of limitations, which would have been a bar, and suffered judgment by default,*' or that he admitted Nassauer v. Techner, 65 Wis. 388, 27 N. W. 40. Can. — King v. Duncan, 29 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 113; Knox v. Travers, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 41; McDonald V. Boice, 12 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 48; Dickson v. McMahon, 14 U. C. C. P. 521, judgment and execution in ex- cess of amount due. Eng. — Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Westminster, etc.. Tramway Co., 66 L. J. P. C. 36, A. C. 193, 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 438, 4 Manson, 244. The fact tbat an execution is taken out irith a vie-w to hinder and delay creditors, and that it has such eflFect, does not render the judgment invalid as to creditors, where it was valid at its inception. Wilder v. Winne, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 284. 65. Atlas Nat. Bank v. More, 152 111. 528, 38 N. E. 684, 43 Am. St. Eep. 274; Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assoc, v. McGowan, 49 La. Ann. 630, 21 So. 766 ; Hall v. Hamlin, 2 Watts (Pa.), 354; Stevenson v. Nichols, 13 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 489; Miners' Trust Co. Bank v. Eoseberry, 81 Pa. St. 309 ; In re Dougherty, 9 Watts & S. 189, 42 Am. Dee. 326; Building Assoc. V. O'Connor, 3 Phila. 453. 66. McConihay v. Wright, 121 U. S. 201, 7 Sup. Ct. 940, 30 L. Ed. 932; MoGoldrick v. Slevin, 43 Ind. 522; Bell V. Throop, 140 Pa. St. 641, 21 Atl. 408, an amicable action of eject- ment. See also Wright v. Mack, 95 Ind. 332; Mathews v. Mack, 95 Ind. 431, where there was also other evi- dence of collusion. Camtra. — ^Bass v. Woolf, 88 Ga. 427, 14 S. E. 589, under a statute. 67. Snarr v. Waddell, 24 U. C. Q. B. 165, although he defended actions by other creditors against him. Contra. — Beavan v. Wheat, 14 U. C. C. P. 51, where there were also other suspicious circumstances. 68. Hardin v. Kelley, 114 Fed. 353, nor can the judgment be im- peached when it is based upon an actual bona fide indebtedness, be- cause of an agreement by the plaintiff to hold the property obtained by means of the judgment for a. certain time for the benefit of others who would contribute to the payment of the debt and expense of procuring the judgment. 69. Allen v. Smith, 129 U. S. 465, 9 Sup. Ct. 338, 32 L. Ed. 732, espe- cially where there was sufficient in the relations of the parties and the circumstances of the case to warrant him in permitting judgment; Sloan V. Whalen. 15 U. C. C. P. 319. 44: Feaudulent Conveyances. service of the summons as of a date prior to the day of its actual service,™ or that after the recovering of the judgment he released or waived his right of appeal or review for a consideration paid to him,''' or that he waived inquisition or stay of execution for a consideration, in order to hasten the collection of the judgment.'^ It is not fraudulent conduct to abandon an effort to deprive an honest creditor of the whole or part of his debt, nor is one credi- tor hindered or delayed by ending an effort to hinder or delay another.'^ § 11. Confession of judgment. — A confession of judgment and execution thereon not made for the legitimate purpose of col- lecting a debt, but designed to cover up the leviable property of the debtor and in pursuance of a collusive purpose between the parties to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, will be set aside as fraudulent,'* althoxigh it be shown that the debt was hona 70. Peck V. Richardson, 9 Hun (N". Y.), 567. 71. Inglehart v. Thousand Island Hotel Co., 109 N. Y. 454, 17 N. E. 358; Bcylston v. Carver, 11 Mass. 515; Shibler v. Hartley, 201 Pa. St. 286, 50 Atl. 950, 88 Am. St. Eep. 811. 72. Shibler v. Hartley, supra. 73. Inglehart v. Thousand Island Hotel Co., supra. 74. A". Y.— Galle v. Tode, 148 N. Y. 270, 42 N. E. 673, rev'g on other grounds 74 Hun, 542, 26 N. Y. Supp. 633; Hardt v. Schwab, 72 Hun, 109, 25 N. Y. Supp. 402; Wood v. Mitchell, 53 Hun, 451, 6 N. Y. Supp. 232, 17 Civ. Proc. E. 346, confession of judgment in favor of infants as upon contract, for a cause of action in tort, without the appointment of a guardian ad litem,; Williams v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 682; Burns v. Morse, 6 Paige, 108, a, judgment by confession on a debt not yet due and amply secured, enterecl for the pur- pose of selling the judgment debtor's property thereon, so as to place it beyond the reach of his creditors, is void as to them; Pitney v. Leonard, 1 Paige, 461. TJ. iSf.— Sowles V. Witters, 55 Fed. 159, judgment by confession for money not due; Smith v. Sehwed, 9 Fed. 483. Ala. — ^Davidson v. Watts Min. Car Wheel Co., 121 Ala. 591, 25 So. 758, where property after the execution sale was to be turned over to and used by the debtor company; Wein- garten v. Marcus, 121 Ala. 187, 25 So. 852. Gal. — Anderson v. Lassen County Bank, 140 Cal. 695, 74 Pac. 287, judgment for more than is due; Wil- coxon V. Burton, 27 Cal. 228, 87 Am. Dec. 86. Del.— Newell v. Morgan, 2 Harr. 225; Taggart v. Phillips, 5 Del. Ch. 237. liTATTrEE AND FoRM OJ TeANSFEE. 45 fide.'"' No difference exists between a voluntary conveyance of prop- ©rty for fraudulent purposes and s.ucih an alienation disguised under III. — French v. Commereial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 213, 65 N. E. 252; Argo V. Fox, 95 111. App. 610; Atlas Nat. Bank v. More, 40 111. App. 336, affd. 152 111. 528, 38 N. E. 684, 43 Am. St. Kcp. 274. La. — Marx v. Meyer, 50 La. Ann. 1229, 23 So. 923. Md. — Citizens F., etc., Ins. Co. v. Wallis, 23 Md. 173. Mo. — Benne v. Schneoko, 100 Mo. 250, 13 S. W. 82; Field v. Liverman, 17 Mo. 218; Loth v. Faconesowich,. 22 Mo. App. 68. Neh. — Pitkin v. Burnham, 62 Neb. 385, 87 N. W. 160, 89 Am. St. Hep. 763, 55 L. E. A. 280, judgment not void, but voidable only in a proper proceeding brought by the parties attempted to be defrauded. N. J. — Shallcross v. Deata, 43 N. J. L. 177; Wandling v. Thompson, 41 N. J. L. 309; Metropolitan Bank V. Duvant, 22 N. J. Eq. 35; Jones v. Naughrighl, 10 N. J. Eq. 298. .V. C— Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. C. 342, a consent decree in action to re- cover land; Leroy v. Dickinson, 11 N. C. 223. Ohio. — Bloomingdale v. Stein, 42 Ohio St. 168, an execution on a pro- missory note and warrant of attor- ney, given without consideration and when the maker was insolvent, is void. Pa. — Clark v. Douglass, 62 Pa. St. 408; Bunn v. Ahl, 29 Pa. St. 387, 72 Am. Dec. 639, the giving and receiv- ing judgment is something more than a fraudulent intention; it is some- thing done in pursuance of the in- tention, and it is voidable by any person in a position to question it; Serf OSS v. Fisher, 10 Pa. St. 184; Nusbaum v. Louchhelm, 1 Pa. Cas. 106, 1 Atl. 391; Yocum v. Kehler, 1 Walk. 84; Campbell v. Kent, 3 Pen. & W. 72; Ditchburn v. Jermyn, etc., Co-operative Assoc, 3 Pa. Dist. 635; Gaskill V. Benton, 14 Phila. 487; Building Assoc, v. O'Connor, 3 Phila. 453. See also Taylor's Ap- peal, 45 Pa. St. 71, judgment notes given by a firm to the creditors of a third person, with whom it was in collusion to defraud its creditors, without any dealings or communica- tion with the creditors of such third person, are fraudulent as to the firm's creditors. S. C— Beattie v. Pool, 13 S. C. 379. Tenn. — ^Hickerson v. Blanton, 2 Heiak. 160. Wis. — Bloodgood v. Meissner, 84 Wis. 452, 54 N. W. 772; Nassauer v. Techner, 65 Wis. 388, 27 N. W. 40. Can. — ^Martin v. MoAlpine, 8 Ont. App. 675 ; McGee v. Baird, 3 Ont. Pr. 9; Swayne v. Ruttan, 6 U. C. C. P. 399; Servos v. Tobin, 2 U. C. Q. B. 530; Knapp v. Forrest, 6 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 577, gross usury in taking con- fession of judgment; Bergin v. Pin- dar, 3 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 574, fictitious debt. Eng. — Edison Gen. Electric Co. v. Westminster Tramway Co., 66 L. J. P. C. 36, A. C. 193, 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 438, 4 Manson 244, if the fraudu- lent intent is proven, it is imma- terial that the consent to the judg- ment was given under pressure; Bateman v. Ramsey, Sau. & Sc. 459. Judgment confessed to en- dorser. — Before maturity of a note held by a bank which has discounted it for the maker, there is nothing due 46 Fraudulent Conveyances. the forms of a comfession of judgment." The fact that the debt for ■which the judgment was confessed was a just one, owing from the judgment debtor to the judgment creditor, will not ex- onerate the latter from refunding any sum acquired by him in the attempt to place the debtor's property beyond the reach of the other creditors, for the benefit of the failing debtor." Such a judgment may be collaterally attacked.'* A confession of judg- ment may be rendered fraudulent or the execution thereon rend- ered dormant and fraudulent, as against subsequent as well as existing creditors, by the acts of the judgment creditor." A con- fession of judgment, in order to be fraudulent as against creditors must be either voluntary or made with fraudulent intent partici- pated in by or known to the creditor in whose favor it is con- fessed, and, in the absence of statutory prohibition, when taken in the ordinary course of business, and Avithout any intent that it should operate as a preferential assignment, or to hinder and delay creditors, although its effect may be to give a preference and thereby hinder and delay other creditors, it is not fraudulent as from the maker to the endorser, and debtor before the recovery of plain- a confession of judgment on the note tiff's judgment is not a collateral at- by the maker in favor of the en- tack on the judgments on which such dorser will be set aside at the in- executions were issued. Forrester v. stance of a subsequent judgment Strauss, 18 N. Y. Supp. 41. creditor of the maker. Forrester v. 79. Field v. Liverman, 17 Mo. 218, Strauss, 18 N. Y. Supp. 41. See Con- if the judgment creditor direct the sideration; contingent liability, chap. sheriff to hold up his execution, and VIII, § 12, infra. not to sell or proceed to make the 75. Smith v. Schwed, 9 Fed. 483; money until he shall give further Jones V. Naughright, 10 N. J. Eq. orders and until he shall find 298; Bunn v. Ahl, 29 Pa. St. 387, 72 younger lexecutions crowding in; Am. Dec. 639; Seattle v. Pool, 13 S. Serfoss v. Fisher, 10 Pa. St. 184, a C. 379. voluntary judgment confessed by one 76. Muse V. Yarborough, II La. who is not indebted, with design to 530. defeat a supposed liability which did 77. Hardt v. Schwab, 72 Hun (N. not exist, is rendered fraudulent as Y.) 109, 25 N. Y. Supp. 402. to subsequent creditors by reviving 78. See Collusive judgments, chap. it by scire facias and issuing an exe- II, § 10, note 65, supra. cution thereon ; Campbell v. Kent, 3 An action by a judgment Penr. & W. (Pa.) 72. creditor to set aside ezecntionc A judgment note given by a issued on judgments confessed by the merchant in contemplation of in- Nattiee and Foem of Teansfeje. 47 to creditors.'" Judgment creditors of a corporation, in the absence of fraud, cannot question the right of an attorney to enter a judg- solvency, without consideration, is fraudulent, not only as to creditors of the maker existing at the time of its execution, but also as to those existing at the time of its intended enforcement. Chronister v. Ander- son, 73 111. App. 524. SO. N. Y.— Rutherford v. Schatt- man, 119 N. Y. 604, 23 N. E. 440; Barker v. Franklin, 8 Am. B. E. 468, 37 Misc. Rep. 292, 75 N. Y. Supp. 305, where creditors of an in- solvent, without taking any action themselves, accept the advantage which he gives them by conveyance of his property as a part of a fraudu- lent scheme, the conveyance will be set aside. V. S.— Hardin v. Kelley, 144 Fed. 353. Ala. — ^McBroom v. Rives, 1 Stew. 72, the owner of a deed of trust may, on discovering a defect therein, take judgment by confession against his debtor, and sell the property on exe- cution. Gai. — Pond v. Davenport, 44 Cal. 481. /«?.— Weigley v. Matson, 125 111. 64, 16 N. E. 881, 8 Am. St. Rep. 335, affg. 24 111. App. 178, a provision in a warrant of attorney to confess judgment, for including therein the creditor's attorney's fees, is not fraudulent. La. — ^EUis V. Fisher, 10 La. Ann. 482. Minn. — ^Atwater v. Manchester Sav. Bank, 45 Minn. 341, 48 N. W. 187, 12 L. R. A. 741. Jfo.— Hard v. Foster, 98 Mo. 297, 11 S. W. 760. N. J. — Vanderveere v. Gaston, 25 N. J. L. 615; Jones v. Naughright, 10 N. J. Eq. 298. N. C— Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Newton Cotton Mills, 115 N. C. 507, 20 S. E. 765; Rollins v. Henry, 78 N. C. 432, consent decree in an action to recover land; Finley v. Smith, 24 N. C. 225. Po,. — Page V. Williamsport Suspen- der Co., 191 Pa. St. 511, 43 Atl. 345; Lowery v. Coulter, 9 Pa. St. 349, confession of judgment without the intervention of the creditor and an immediate issue of execution at the creditor's request; Kline v. O'Don- nell, 11 Pa. Co. Ct. 38; Ballon v. Minard, 2 Brewst. 560, giving of a judgment note. 8. C— Drake v. Steadman, 46 S. C. 474, 24 S. E. 458. Wis.— Pirie v. Stem, 97 Wis. 150, 72 N. W. 370, 65 Am. St. Rep. 103, provision for creditor's attorney's fee in a warrant of attorney to confess judgment. Eng. — ^Meux v. Howell, 4 East, 1. A judgment confessed for «. bona fide debt should not be set aside on the mere suspicion that its confession was produced by the same fraudulent intent as the confession of other judgments and a general as- signment, which was also set aside for fraud, where the judgment, and the proofs relating to it, are not con- nected with the other judgments, or with any other part of the litigation, but are separate and distinct. Illi- nois Watch Co. V. Payne, 11 N. Y. Supp. 408, aff'd 132 N. Y. 597, 30 N. E. 1151. See also Effect of fraud- ulent conveyance — Several transac- tions, chap. Ill, § 3, infra. 48 Feaudulbnt Conveyances. ment by confession against the corporation, in pursuance of a warrant of attorney in a judgment note.** § 12. Statutory requirements as to confessions of judgment. — In some of the states the statutes provide that a confession of judgment shall be attended with certain formalities, such as an affidavit or statement of the indebtedness, the particulars of the indebtedness, the facts and circumstances out of which it arose, good faith, and so forth. Under these statutes the failure to make all the disclosures required by the statute has been held in some eases to render the judgment prima facie,^^ and in others conclusively,'^ fraudulent and void both as against existing and subsequent creditors. For example, a confession of judgment will be fraudulent and void as to creditors, imless the statement contains such a recital of facts out of which the debt arose as to identify the transaction and enable inquiries to be made;'* if the Preference not frandnlent in laxr. — A judgment confessed by an insolvent to secure a bona fide credi- tor, although it be intended, and has the effect, to give him a preference over other creditors, is not fraudu- lent in law. Braden v O'Neil, 183 Pa. St. 462, 38 Atl. 1023, 63 Am. St. Rep. 761. See Preferences, chap. XI, infra. Nor is it fraudulent be- cause the amount is sufficient to cover the debtor's contingent liability on endorsements as well as his actual indebtedness. Id. See also Executory or contingent considerations, chap. VIII, §§ 7-12, infra. Potter v. Pickle, 2 Ont. Pr. 391; Swayne v. Ruttan, 6 U. C. C. P. 399. 81. Chicago Tip, etc., Co. v. Chi- cago Nat. Bank, 74 111. App. 439. 82. Pond V. Davenport, 44 Cal. 481; Richards v. McMillan, 6 Cal. 419, 65 Am. Dec. 521. 83. See cases cited in following notes to this section. 84. N. T. — ^Neusbaum v. Keim, 24 N. Y. 325; Lanning v. Carpenter, 20 N. Y. 447, it is not necessary to re- cite that the sum confessed is justly due or to become due; Dunham v. Waterman, 17 N. Y. 9, 72 Am. Dec. 406; Flour City Nat. Bank v. Doty, 41 Hun, 76; Butts v. Schieffelin, 5 Civ. Proc. R. 415; Acker v. Acker, 1 Abb. Dec. 1, 1 Keyes, 291; McKee v. Tyson, 10 Abb. Pr. 392; Claflin v Sanger, 31 Barb. 36, 11 Abb. Pr. 338 Clements v. Gerow, 30 Barb. 325 Bonnell v. Henry, 13 How. Pr. 142 Purdy V. Upton, 10 How. Pr. 494 Seaving v. Brinkerhoff, 5 Johns. Ch. 329, judgment by confession on war- rant of attorney ; Bank of Kinderhook V. Jenison, 15 How. Pr. 41 ; Thomp- son v. Van Vechten, 5 Abb. Pr. 458: Marks v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. Pr. 403, 20 How. Pr. 338. Cal. — ^Pond v. Davenport, 44 Cal. 481, 45 Cal. 225; Wilcoxson v. Bur- ton, 27 Cal. 228, 87 Am. Dec. 66; Cor- dier v. Schloss, 12 Cal. 143, 18 Cal. Natuee and Fokm of Tkansfee. 4» statement as to the indebtedness is defective or insufficient;'^ where it merely sets out a promissory note as the consideration for the indebtedness ;'° where it recites merely that it is based upon a promissory note given for goods sold f or a draft, setting out a copy thereof;'* or where the affidavit is insufficient;'' or where there is no statement,'" or affidavit.*^ But a confession of judgment is not fraudulent and void as to creditors because the statement does not enumerate each item of the account consti- tuting the indebtedness as in a specific bill of particulars;'^ or where a discreipancy in an item is the result of a clerical error ;" or where the statement does not contain a minute description of the goods sold, or time and place and terms of sale of each par* ticular pai'cel.'* A statement that the consideration of the judg- 576; Richards v. McMillan, 6 Cal. 419, 65 Am. Dec. 521. Iowa. — Miller v. Clarke, 37 Iowa, 325. Minn. — ^Atwater v. Manchester Sav. Bank, 45 Minn. 341, 48 N. W. 187, 12 L. R. A. 741; Wells v. Gieseke, 27 Minn. 478, 8 N. W. 380, judgment will be void as to those liabilities insuffi- ciently stated, but vali'd as to the others. Mo. — ^Teasdale Commission Co. v. Van Hardenberg, 55 Mo. App. 326; Stern v. Mayer, 19 Mo. App. 511; McHenry v. Shepard, 2 Mo. App. 378. Wash. — Puget Sound Nat. Bank v. Levy, 10 Wash. 499, 39 Pac. 142, 45 Am. St. Rep. 803. Wis. — Thompson v. Hintgen, 11 Wis. 112. 85. 7f. Y. — ^Winnebrenner v. Ed- gerton, 30 Barb. 185; Van Beck v. Shuman, 13 How. Pr. 472. Cal. — ^Pond v. Davenport, 45 Cal. 225. Iowa. — Kennedy v. Lowe, 9 Iowa, 580. 86. y. 7. — Chappel v. Chappel, 12 N. y. 215, 64 Am. Dec. 496 ; Hoppock 4 V. Donaldson, 12 How. Prac. 141; Mann v. Brooks, 7 How. Pr. 449. Mo. — How V. Dorscheimer, 31 Mo. 349. 87. N. y.— Claflin v. Songer, 11 Abb. Pr. 338; Moody v. Townsend, 3 Abb. Pr. 375. Iowa. — Bernard v. Douglass, 10 Iowa, 370. Mo. — ^Bryan v. Miller, 28 Mo. 32, 75 Am. Dec. 107, the statement may be amended but not so as to inter- fere with the existing rights of other judgment creditors. 88. Davidson v. Alexander, 84 N. C. 621. 89. Ingram v. Robbins, 33 N. Y. 409, 88 Am. Dee. 393; Sheppard v. Sheppard, 10 N. J. L. 250. 90. Bacon v. Raybould, 4 Utah, 357, 10 Pac. 481. 91. Oliver v. Applegate, 5 N. J. L. 479, 551. 92. Vanfleet v. Phillips, 11 Iowa, 558. 93. Hard v. Foster, 98 Mo. 297, 11 S. W. 760. 94. Gandall v. Finn, 33 How. Pr. 50 Feaudulent Conveyances. ment is borrowed money and that tihere is now due a certain sum;" or that the indebtedness is evidenced by a note given for borrowed money, describing the note, though failing to state that the debt is justly due or to become due,^' has been held to be sufficient. § 13. Foreclosure of mortgages and deeds of trust. — A coL- lusive and fraudulent sale under foreclosure of a mortgage or under a deed of trust of real or personal property, either under a power contained therein or by legal proceedings, will be set aside at the suit of creditors of the mortgagor or grantor as fraudu- lent as against them. Sales of this character where the facts clearly established collusion and fraud are referred to in the note below." Lands so fraudulently conveyed may be sold on execution (N. Y.) 444, 2 Abb. Deo. 232, 1 Keyes, 217. 95. Miller v. Clarke, 37 Iowa, 325. 96. Claflin v. Dodson, 111 Mo. 195, 19 S. W. 711. 97. N. y.— Matter of Fuller, 35 Hun, 162, where it ia reasonably ap- parent that an assignment and forp- elosure of a mortgage was to cut off liens to the prejudice of the mortga- gor's creditors, a creditor may procure the setting aside of the foreclosure, if intervening rights can be protected. III. — ^Laflin v. Central Pub. House, 52 111. 432, a statute rendering liable to attachment property sold with in- tent to hinder and delay creditors, in- cludes mortgaged chattels, so sold by fraudulent collusion between the mortgagor and mortgagee as to pre- vent any surplus proceeds from aris- ing, although there was no fraud in making the mortgage. Ind. — Wright v. Mack, 95 Ind. 332, mortgages given shortly before a vol- untary assignment and soon there- after foreclosed under circumstances showing collusion justify creditors suing for the conversion of the prop- erty. Iowa. — Milliman v. Eddie, 115 Iowa, 530, 88 N. W. 964, a judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage, which had been paid but assigned to the mortgagor's children for the purpose of hindering and delaying creditors, is in effect a voluntary confession of judgment, and fraudulent and void as against the mortgagor's creditors. Mo. — Woodard v. Mastin, 106 Mo. 324, 17 S. W. 308, the fact that a trust deed was valid and made in good faith will not protect a, purchaser thereunder, as against the grantor's creditors, where the sale and purchase were collusively and fraudulently made for the purpose of covering up the grantor's equity. U. S.— Watson v. Bonflls, 116 Fed. 157, 53 C. C. A. 535, sheriff's deed and conveyance made in pursuance of a bank's scheme devised to carry the title of all real estate on which it had foreclosed mortgages into a realty corporation, whose stock it held, and to carry the notes and mortgages of Natuke and Foem of Teansfek. 51 of a creditor as though the conveyance had not been made; and the purchaser upon proof of the fraud, is ntitled to a decree vesting the title in him, and the fraudulent grantee will be de- clared trustee for him.'* But it has been held that a creditor for whose benefit land has been conveyed by a trust deed in the nature of a mortgage, and whose claim is three times greater than the value of the land, may cause it to be conveyed as a gift to the debtor's children without affording to other creditors ground ofi complaint.*' And where an equity of redemption is attached, it has been held that the debtor may lawfully remain passive, and suffer the foreclosure to be consummated, and may even persuade another creditor to take his interest as security, and assign it to him, and that such an arrangement is not a fraud on the attaching creditor, although the assignee knew of the existence of the at- tachment ; and that it is not a fraud on the attaching creditor, if the assignee malies an agreement with the mortgagee that the latter shall hold the mortgage until the time for redemption has expired, and then convey the land to the assignee, on being paid by him the amount secured by the mortgage.^ Other cases wherein the courts have held that the facts proven did not establish collusion or fraud are cited in the note below.^ tile latter, representing the amounts and tending to delay creditors, within due by the former mortgagors, at par 13 Eliz., chap. 5. among its assets, held to be voidable 98. Woodard v. Mastin, 106 Mo. at the election of the bank's creditors; 324, 17 S. W. 308. James v. Milwaukee, etc., R. Co., 6 99. Van Riswick v. Spalding, 117 Wall. 752, 18 L. Ed. 885, sale of a U. S. 370, 6 Sup. Ct. 788, 29 L. Ed. railroad under mortgage to secure 913. bonds was fraudulent as against the 1. Danforth v. Roberts, 20 Me. 307. eompany's creditors where the notice 2. Mich. — ^Reeves v. Miller, 121 •f sale grossly misstated the amount Mich. 311, 80 N. W. 19, creditors can- iue. not reach land which their debtor Can. — ^King v. Duncan, 29 Grant owned, where one having a mortgage Ch. (U. C.) 113, fictitious breach of thereon foreclosed it, without any chattel mortgage and judgment be- fraudulent design, and after expira- fore expiration of period of credit; tion of the time to redeem, sold it to Watson V. McCarthy, 10 Grant Ch. a third person, although the mortga- {U. C.) 416, a sale under the power gee bid in the property for a sum in a mortgage set aside as collusive much below its value, and sold it 52. Pkaudulent Conveyances. § 14. Execution and other judicial sales — The statutes qf frauds reach fraudulent executions as well as fraudulent judg- ments.^ Fraud pollutes public as well as private sales, and credi- tors may attack and set aside as fraudulent a conveyance by a debtor through the medium of a levy under a collusive and fraudu- lent execution and a judicial sale thereunder, or other collusive and fraudulent judicial sale, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors of the judgment or execution debtor by covering his property or placing it in another's name, or securing it or any part of it for the benefit of the debtor or his family, and thus shielding it from creditors.* The fact that the sale of the prop- cheap, and although the purchaser from him bought at the suggestion of the debtor, and advanced him money to carry on business there, it not ap- pearing the debtor contributed any- thing to the purchase, or was prom- ised any interest in the property or its proceeds. 8. C— Magruder v. Clayton, 29 S. C. 407, 7 S. E. 844, where, in a suit- to set aside as fraudulent sales of chattels made under a lien and a mortgage, all the parties connected with the sales testify that they wore entirely fair, and it appears that the lien sale was made by the sheriff, and that both were regularly advertised, a finding that they were not fraudu- lent is not clearly against the weight of evidence, though the sales were made hastily, and without proper at- tention to detail, and the property was not immediately removed. Bick- ley V. Norris, 2 Brev. 252, where ne- groes were mortgaged and sold by virtue of the mortgage, and the mort- gagee permitted u, friend with money to purchase them in his own name, as ii trustee for the mortgagor's chil- dren, and the trustee aoooraingly pur- chased and took a conveyance to him- self absolutely, subject to the secret trust, the conveyance, if iorta fide, was good, and not within the statute of Elizabeth. 3. Wilder v. Fondey, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 100. 4. N. Y. — Decker v. Decker, 108 N. Y. 128, 15 N. E. 307; Crary v. Sprague, 12 Wend. 41, 27 Am. Dec. 110; Wilder v. Fondey, 4 Wend. 100; Burnell v. Johnson, 9 Johns. 343. U. yS.— Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. 640, 4 Sup. Ct. 619, 28 L. Ed. 547. Ala. — ^Forrest v. Camp, 16 Ala. 642. Ark. — Miller v. Fraley, 21 Ark. 22, where upon a sale of real estate to satisfy an execution the purchase was made at the request and with the means of the judgment debtor, and the purchaser received a deed, agreeing to hold for the judgment debtor's benefit, the sale was fraudu- lent and void as against creditors of the judgment debtor, and the pur- chaser held, in equity, in trust for their benefit, and a grantee of such purchaser, with notice of the fraud, did not get a valid title. Del. — Purington v. Chandler, 5 Harr. 394. NaTUEE and FoBM of TjiANSFEE. 53 erty on execution was under a valid and unsatisfied judgment regularly and lawfully enforced does not alter the character oi the transaction, if it was done with intent to defraud creditors of the judgment debtor.* .The sale of property on execution for the full amount of a bona fide judgment, where the whole or a part of the judgment is satisfied,* or a sale on execution where the debtor pays the whole or a part of the purchase money,' or where the debtor procures the sale to a purchaser at a grossly inadequate ©o.— Smith V. Dobbins, 87 Ga. 303, 33 S. E. 496. Ind. — Buck v. Voreis, 89 Ind. 116. Ky.—Yoder v. Standiford, 7 T. B. Mon. 478, an arrangement between the debtor and the purchaser at sheriff's sale to extend the time to redeem. La. — Lee v. Whitehead, 8 La. Ann. 81; Lawrence v. Young, 1 La. Ann. 297, consent of debtor to a sale with- out formalities of law. Miss.— White v. Trotter, 14 Sm. & M. 30, 53 Am. Dee. 112; Stovall v. Farmers', etc.. Bank, 8 Sm. & M. 305, 47 Am. Dec. 85. Mo. — ^Morrison v. Herrington, 120 Mo. 665, 25 S. W. 560; Dallam v. Eensliaw, 26 Mo. 533, the creditors may treat the execution sale and the sheriff's deed as nullities; Carter v. Shotwell, 42 Mo. App. 663. N. C— Den v. Erwin, 18 N. C. 569, other .iudgment creditors may treat the sale and deed as nullities and subject the property at law to the satisfaction of their debts. Ohio. — Edgington v. Williams, Wright, 439. Pa. — Hall V. Hamlin, 2 Watts, 354; Mitchell v. Gendell, 7 Phila. 107. Tex. — Smith v. Boquet, 27 Tex. 507, property bid in by the debtor through an agent in trust for him- self or family. Wis. — Reynolds v. Vilas, 8 Wis. 471, 76 Am. Dec. 238. Can. — Servos v. Tobin, 2 U. C. Q. B. 530; Doe v. Van Koughnet, 5 U. C. Q. B. O. S. 246. A fraudulent vendee gains no title to the land by a sheriff's sale, nor interest in it, notwithstanding as innocent creditor may, by that very sale, obtain a good title to the money. Foulk v. McFarlane, 1 Watts &. S. (Pa.) 297, 37 Am. Dec. 467. A sale on execution to the administrator of the judgment debtor, who paid no money, but pur- chased in trust for the creditors and heirs, is fraudulent as to creditors. Hays V. Heidelberg, 9 Pa. St. 203. A sale by an administrator ta a trustee, for the benefit of the heira and creditors is fraudulent and void. Piatt V. St. Clair, 6 Ohio, 227,. Wright, 261. 5. Decker v. Decker, 108 N. Y. 128,. 15 N. E. 307; Cra,ry v. Sprague, 12: Wend. (N. Y.) 41, 27 Am. Dec. 110. 6. Wilder v. Fondey, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 100; Booth v. Moret, 1 Brev, (S. C.) 216. 7. Dawson v. Holbert, 4 La. Ann. 36; Burke v. Murphy, 27 Miss. lB7, and a purchaser would not be pro- tected though he repaid tlve debtor the amount furnished by the latter; Den V. Erwin, 18 N. C. 569. 54 Eeaudulent Conveyances. price or a price much below ita real value,' is fraudulent and void as to creditors. The uie of sheriff's deeds and other legal instru- ments to effect a fraudulent conveyance of property is no bar to its avoidance.' Preventing competitive bidding at an execution or other judicial sale, whereby the purchaser is enabled to buy the property at a reduced price or for less than he otheriwise would, may render the sale fraudulent and void as against other credi- tors." A sheriff's sale cannot, however, be considered a mere simulation and be set aside as fraudulent as against creditors where there is no evidence of any partieipanoy by the seizing creditor or purchaser in any fraudulent purpose of the judgment debtor, or showing that the purchase was made with other than honest intent." In the absence of actual fraud, a sale is not fraudulent as to the creditors of the judgment debtor, although the purchaser subsequently convey, or cause the sheriff to convey, the property to the debtor or his wife or children, or in trust for them." A sale on execution is not per se fraudulent as against the debtor's creditors because of an agreement betweeni the judgment 8. Lawrence v. Young, 1 La. Ann. view to hinder and delay them, if the 297; Worthy v. Caddell, 76 N. C. 82. judgment was valid in its inception. 9. Watson v. Bonfils, 116 Fed. 157, Wilder v. Winne, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 53 C. C. A. 535 ; Forrest v. Camp, 16 284. Ala. 642; Buck v. Yoreis, 89 Ind. 116. A pnrcbase, by an attorney, o£ 10. Johnson v. Waters, 111 U. S. bis client's land at ezecntion 640, 4 Sup. Ct. 619, 28 L. Ed. 547, sale in the proceedings in which the executor's sale of real estate under attorney is employed, is not pre- orders of the prohate court; Saxton sumptively fraudulent as to the V. Seiberling, 48 Ohio St. 554, 29 N. client's creditors. Fisher v. Me- E. 179; Simonton v. Davis, 4 Stroh. Inerney, 137 Cal. 38, 69 Pae. 622, Eq. (S. C.) 133; Carson v. Law, 2 907, 92 Am. St. Eep. 68. Kich. Eq. (S. C.) 296, although the 12. McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 91 motive for so doing was one of Pa. St. 462; McMahan. y. Dawkins, benevolence towards the debtor's 22 S. C 314. family. Tbe judgment debtor's ad- 11. H. B. Clafiin Co. v. Lass, 17 vancing money to a tbird per- Colo. App. 156, 67 Pae. 910; Holmes son, to enable him to purchase and v. Barbin, 15 La. Ann. 553. The tak- take an assignment of the certificate ing out of an execution is not ren- of sale, and thus keep it in force, is dered fraudulent as to creditors not, if no fraud is practiced, invalid merely because it is taken with a as against subsequent creditors. Nature and Form of Transfke. 55 debtor and the purchaser to the advantage of the former, where the debtor's means -were not used in procuring it" But a aale is prima facie fraudulent as to creditors where the property is left by the vendee in the possession of the defendant in the execution for a long time.-'* § 16. Collusive attachment. — The law recognizes no distinc- tion between a voluntary conveyance of property in fraud of creditors and such an alienation disguised under the forms of judicial proceedings, and the court will declare fraudulent and void and set aside a collusive or fraudulent attachment or sale thereunder, at the suit of creditors of the atachment defendant who are hindered, delayed, or defrauded thereby.*^ But where the claim is just and the attachment is in good faith, and there is nothing to impeach it but unusual and suspicious circumstances, the courts have refused to set it aside.'^ Compromising a suit, after obtaining an attachment, for less than was alleged to be due, is no evidence that the prosecution of the attachment wajj Kankin v. Amdt, 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 14. Buck v. Voreis, 89 Ind. 116; 251. Stovall V. Farmers', etc.. Bank, 8 13. Smith V. Dobbins, 87 Ga. 303, Sm. & M. (Miss.) 305, 47 Am. Dec. 14 S. E. 496, where the purchaser 85, for two years or more. See Re- gave the debtor a. year's time to re- tention of possession or apparent fund the purchase money with inter- title, chap. XII, infra. est, and agreed on his doing so to 15. La. — Newman v. Baer, 50 La. convey the land to him, the plaintiflF Ann. 323, 23 So. 279; Haae v. Haas, in fieri facias not participating in 35 La. Ann. 885. the agreement, the sale is not fraudu- Mass. — Pierce v. Jackson, 6 Ifass. lent; nor because of a stipulation 242. that the debtor should have the crop Miss. — Henderson v. Thornton, 37 then upon the land without paying Miss. 448, 75 Am. Dec. 70. for it, or that the succeeding year's ilfo. — Norton v. Thiebes Stierling crop should be the property of the Music Co., 82 Mo. App. 216, but an purchaser in case the debtor failed attachment does not hinder or delay to take the land, nor the fact that creditors where the debtor has no the purchaser afterwards paid the property that can be attached, debtor or his assign for a release Tex. — Zadik v. Schafer, 77 Tex. from the agreement; Chicago, etc., 501, 14 S. W. 153. H. Co. V. Watson, 113 III. 195; Par- 16. Cartwright v. Bamberger, 99 sons v. Black, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.) Ala. 622, 14 So. 477; Hyman t. Stad- 339. ler, 63 Miss. 362. 56 Feaudxjlent Convbtastces. fraudulent as to otiher creditors of the debtor." A writ of at- tachment issued ooUusively between a creditor and a debtor, in- solvent or not, for the purpose of giving a prohibited preference wihich is injurious to other creditors, or with intent to effect a fraudulent transfer of the debtor's property, is a void suit or proceeding within the meaning of a statute, declaring void a " suit commenced " with intent to defraud creditors." And the in-' effectual resort to such judicial machinery with the collusive pur- pose of transferring the debtor's property is an attempt to make a fraudulent transfer within the meaning of the statute." That an attachment is sued out without just ground therefor is a wrong against the debtor, but such attachment is not vulnerable to attack on that ground by ordinary creditors' bill by other creditors.^ But if a party not a creditor makes an attachment which is invalid, but which is not objected to by the debtor, the other creditors can have relief in equity by a bill to annul the judgment. ^^ § 16. Fraudulent organization of corporation. — A transfer or conveyance of property by a debtor, although carried out by the device of a corporation organized with all the forms and re- quirements of law, if made with the design of defrauding credi- tors, is vitiated by such fraud and rendered void, and the 'property transferred may be taken in execution as that of the debtor. ^^ Where a corporation is organized and the property or business of a debtor is transferred to it in exchange for stock and without. 17. Alexander V. Hemrich, 4 Wash. Heidelbaeh, 109 Ala. 220, 19 So. 727, 31 Pac. 21. 719; Rice v. Less, 105 Ala. 298, 16 18. Under Ala. Code, § 2156. But- So. 917, attaclunents obtained by ler V. Feeder, 130 Ala. 604, 31 So. relatives of an insolvent; Cartwright 799; Stern v. Butler, 123 Ala. 606, v. Bamberger, 90 Ala. 405, 8 Sp. 264. 26 So. 359, 82 Am. St. Eep. 146; 19. Comer v. Heidelbaeh, supra; First Nat. Bank v. Acme White Cartwright v. Bamberger, supra. Lead, etc., Co., 123 Ala. 344, 26 So. 20. Meyrovitz v. Glaser, 132 Ala. 354; Rice v. Eiseman, 122 Ala. 343, 103, 31 So. 360. 25 So. 214; Collier v. Wertheimer- 21. Henderson v. Thornton, 37 Schwartz Shoe Co., 122 Ala. 320, 25 Miss. 448, 75 Am. Dec. 70. So. 191 ; Gasaenheimer v. Kellogg, 22. Booth v. Bunce, 33 N. Y. 139, 121 Ala. 109, 26 So. 29; Comer v. 88 Am. Dec. 372. Natuee and Foem of Tkansfee. 57 other consideration and tlie business is thereafter carried on by it, or where the members of a corporation form a new corporation or consolidate with other corporations, to whom the assets of the former corporation are transferred, and stock is received therefor to the amount of the agreed value of such assets, for the purpose of defeating existing creditors, the tjansaotion is fraudulent and void in law as to such creditors, and the property so transferred or the stock representing it may be reached and subjected by creditors to the satisfaction of their claims,^' provided the title has 23. N. Y. — Booth v. Bunce, supra; Third Nat. Bank v. Keefle, 30 Misc. Rep. 400, 63 Supp. 1049; Persee, etc., Paper Works v. Willett, 24 N. Y. Super. Ct. 131, 19 Abb. Prac. 416. U. S.— Hibernia Ins. Co. v. St. Louis, etc., Transp. Co., 13 Fed. 516. Ala. — Metcalf v. Arnold, 110 Ala. 180, 20 So. 301, 132 Ala. 74, 32 So. 763, where all the property of the judgment debtors was turned over to a corporation for stock of the corpo- ration issued to them, and- their wives. Colo. — Colorado Trading, etc., Co. V. Acres Commission Co., 18 Colo. App. 253, 70 Pac. 954, a creditor de- frauded may proceed against the property by attachment. D. C— Clark v. Walter T. Bradley Coal, etc., Co., 6 App. Cas. 437. Ga. — Buckwalter v. Whipple, 115 Ga. 484, 41 S. E. 1010, reorganiza- tion of corporation; Planters', etc., Bk. v. Willeo Cotton Mills, 60 Ga. 168. Z18.— Hinkley v. Reed, 182 111. 440, 55 N. E. 337, where a partnership made a fraudulent transfer of its property to a. corporation in ex- change for stock, the subsequent as- signments for the benefit of cred- tors by the partners of the stock, and by the corporation of all its as- sets, were void. Iowa. — Shumaker v. Davidson, 116 Iowa, 569, 87 N. W. 441. Ka/n. — Kellogg v. Douglass County Bank, 58 Kan. 43, 48 Pac. 587, 62 Am. St. Rep. 596, an attachment of the property conveyed to the corpo- ration sustained'. Md. — Chatterton v. Mason, 86 Md. 236, 37 Atl. 960. Mass. — Allen v. French, 178 Mass. 539, 60 N. E. 125. Mich. — ^Plant v. Billings-Drew Co., 127 Mich. 11, 86 N. W. 399, creditors cannot attack the corporation as gar- nishee, since the property in its new form of stock is still subject to levy and sale to satisfy the debt owing the creditors. Minn. — Benton v. Minneapolis Tailoring, etc., Co., 73 Minn. 498, 76 N. W. 265. N. J. — Mulford V. Doremus (Ch. 1900), 45 Atl. 688; Terhune v. Skin- ner, 45 N. J. Eq. 344, 19 Atl. 377; Van Campen v. Ingram (Ch.), 12 Atl. 537. Ohio. — First Nat. Bank v. F. C; Trebein Co., 59 Ohio St. 316, 52 N. E. 834. Or. — Bennett v. Minott, 28 Or. 339, 39 Pac. 997, 44 Pac. 288. Pa. — Montgomery Web Co. v. Die- nelt, 133 Fa. St. 585. 58 Fkaudulent Cokveyawces. not been acquired by a horia fide purchaser, but they cannot tafce both the property and the consideration therefor.'* The right oi creditors to seize as their debtor's property transferred by him under an arrangement void as to them is not affected by the fact that the property has been conveyed to a corporation organized for the purpose of purchasing it, and continuing the debtor's busi^ ness, especially where it has paid nothing but its own stock, whidi had no value aside from the property acquired.^^ A corporation fraudulently organized by persons for their own benefit, and to which they fraudulently transfer their property for the purpose of defrauding their creditors, and whose stock is wholly owned or controlled by them, cannot be regarded as an innocent pur- chaser of that property for value.^^ Such transactions are not, however, per se fraudulent as to creditors. There must be evi- dence of intent to defraud.^' Under a statute providing that m Term. — Bristol Bank, etc., Co. v. Jonesboro Banking Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545, 48 S. W. 228. Wis. — Densmore Commission Co. v. Shong, 98 Wis. 380, 74 N. W. 114. Gore.— Rielle v. Reid, 26 Ont. App. .54, applying Salomon y. Salomon, A. C. 22, 66 L. J. Ch. 35, 75 L. T. Rep. K. S. 426, 4 Manson, 89, 45 Wkly. Rep. 193. 24. Shumaker v. Davidson, 116 Iowa, 569, 87 N. W. 441 ; Kellogg v. Douglass County Bank, 58 Kan. 43, 48 Pac. 587, 62 Am. St. Rep. 596. 25. Pennsylvania Knitting Co. v. Bibb Mfg. Co., 21 Pa. Co. Ct. 537. 26. Clark v. Walter T. Bradley Coal, etc., Co., 6 App. D. C. 437 ; and other cases in note 23, supra. 27. W. Y. — Kessler v. Levy, 11 Miss. Rep. 275, 32 N. Y. Supp. 260, where a firm formed a corporation to which they transferred all the firm assets in consideration of all the stock except a small amount is- sued for cash paid the company, and offered the stock of the company t* their creditors, the transfer -was not fraudulent; Persse, etc.. Paper Works Co. v. Willett, supra. V. S. — In re A. L. Robertshair Mfg. Co., 133 Fed. 556. Ala. — Henderson v. Perryman^ 114 Ala. 647, 22 So. 24. Ga. — Planters', etc.. Bank v. Wil- leo Cotton Mills, 60 Ga. 168. III. — Kingman & Co. v. Mowry, 182 111. 256, 55 N. E. 330, 74 Am. St. Rep. 169, where » debtor, after notice to all his creditors and with the consent of most of them except complainant, in pursuance of » pla» therefor previously outlined to his creditors, formed a corporation, and conveyed to it all his property, and received in consideration therefor shares of stock, which he pledged to secure money with which to settle his debts, the transaction was neither fraudulent in law nor in fact, so as to support a bill by a judgment credr iter to compel the application of tits NATtTEE AND FoBM OF TrANSFEB. 89 debtor may pay one creditor in preference to another, a debtoir lias a right to organize a corporation, transfer his property to it for stock, and transfer the stock to a creditor in payment of the deibt, so long as such transfers are not made with intent to de- fraud.»» § 11', Waste or loss through debtor's negligence. — ^A credi- tor's bill to set aside a conveyance alleged to be fraudulent cannot be maintained on the ground of fraud on the part of others prac- ticed on the debtor whereby he was wronged out of his property, or on the ground that the debtor has wasted his property or other- property BO conveyed to the satisfac- tion of his judgment. Iowa. — Shiunaker v. Davidson, 116 Iowa, 569, 87 N. W. 441, where a debtor organized a corporation to take title to land, the fact that others invested money therein, and transferred property in consideration of stock received, was suflScient to show that the scheme was not one to defraud creditors, and the mere fact that assignments of stock were made to such debtor's relatives was not alone suflBcient to show that the transaction was fraudulent. Pa. — Coaldale Coal Co. v. State Bank, 142 Pa. St. 288, 21 Atl. 811, where a solvent mercantile firm trans- ferred its business and all its prop- erty to a corporation of which the members of the firm constituted the stockholders, and the partners after- wards pledged most of their stock to secure certain creditors, the transac- tions were not in fraud of the unse- cured creditors; Lasher v. Medical Press Co., 3 Pa. Super. Ct. 571, 40 Wkly. Notes Cas. 19, organization of corporation after confession of judg- ment by a limited company and sale of its property thereunder. Tenn. — Bristol Bank, etc., Co. v. Jonesboro Banking Trust Co., 101 Tenn. 545, 48 S. W. 228, the fact that a corporation name was almost iden- tical with a prior partnership name was not conclusive of a device to de- fraud partnership creditors by in- corporating. Tex. — Sayers v. Texas Land, etc., Co., 78 Tex. 244, 14 S. W. 578, the members of a firm having formed a corporation, and transferred to it all the property of the firm, each receiv- ing stock in proportion to his inter- est, the transfer is not voluntary and fraudulent in law as against the cred- itors of the iSrm. Wis. — Densmore CommissioiT Co. v. Shong, 98 Wis. 380, 74 N. W. 114, the mere fact that the debts of a partner- ship, where partners organized a cor- poration and transferred the property and business, to it for stock, were not provided for was not sufficient to im- peach the hona fides of the transac- tion. 28. Fisher v. Campbell, 101 Fed. 156, 41 C. C. A. 256; Seripps v. Craw- ford, 123 Mich. 173, 81 N. W. 1098; Gardner v. Haines (S. D.), 104 N. W. 244; Troy v. Morse, 22 Wash. 280, 60 Pac. 648. 60 Fkaudulent Conveyances. wise negligently allowed it to pass into the liands of others, and thus diminished or defeated his creditors' chances of securing pay- ment of their claims.^' § 18. Payment of deot before it is due. — The statute against fraudulent conveyances, agreements, etc., does not apply to the case of a payment of a debt before it is due, made by the debtor to the creditor, in order to prevent the creditors of the latter from attaching the debt by trustee process.^" § 19. Cancellation or release of debt or claim. — The cancel- lation or release, by a debtor, of a debt or claim, without consid- eration or with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors, is a gift and is fraudulent as to creditors, contrary to the common law, whereby the property must have been such as could have been taken on execution.^^ This rule prevails in all jurisdietdons where under the statute choses in action are subject to the claims of creditors.'^ § 20. Rescission of contracts and neglect or failure to take conveyance. — If a contract for the sale of land is entered into 89. Johns V. Jordan, 59 Kan. 771, lease was made on a settlement of 51 Pac. 889; Parker v. Roberts, 116 conflicting claims, although more is Mo. 657, 22 S. W. 914, conveyance allowed by the corporation than is made by debtor while under the influ- strictly just, it is not a fraud, unless ence of morphine. See also Fraud the allowance appears to have been a directed against debtor, chap. II, § 26, device to injure others, or is grossly mfra. extravagant or wasteful, so as to 30. Chamberlin v. Pillsbury, 35 Vt. amount to fraud. 16. N. ff.— Everett v. Bead, 3 N. H. 55, 31. Ind. — Johnson v. Jones, 79 Ind. cancellation of note. 141, a surrender of notes and mort- Can. — Upper Canada Bank v. gage. Shickluna, 10 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 157. Mass. — Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. Eng. — Sibthorp v. Moxom, 3 Atk. 222, discharge of promissory note 580, 26 Eng. Reprint, 1134, 1 Ves. given in payment for certain property. 49, 27 Eng. Reprint 883, cancellation Miss. — Wright V. Petrie, Sm. & M. of debt by will. Ch. 282, voluntary release of securi- See Rights or choses in action, ties by a corporation to its debtor; chap. IV, § 7, infra. but where it appears that such re- 32. See chap. IV, § 7, infra. E^ATUBE AND FoBM OF TkANSFEE. 61 and thereafter said contract is rescinded by the parties either in writing or by parol, if the rescission of the contract was prompted by a motive to benefit the vendee, or injure his creditors, it would be a fraud upon the creditors, and would not affect them, and they might proceed against the land for the satisfaction of their claims. Otherwise, if it was made to save the vendor.^' An agreement by one entitled to a conveyance that the grantor shall remain in possession and shall not convey, in order to cover the land from the grantee's creditors, amounts to a conveyance to de- fraud creditors under the statute against fraudulent conveyances.'* But where land is conveyed in consideration that the grantee sup- port the grantor for life, a reconveyance by the grantee at the re- quest of the grantor, the grantee having become indebted, a proper allowance being made for the support already furnished, is not fraudulent in law as to the grantee's creditors, though the land is then conveyed to the wife of the first grantee under a similar agreement.^^ It is not a fraud on creditors for the debtor to sur- render the contract for the purchase of his homestead to the vendor, who thereupon leases the homestead to the debtor's wife for the debtor's benefit, though the debtor thereby intended to defraud his creditors.^^ So a debtor may, without fraud as to his creditors, surrender or transfer an oral bargain for the purchase of an unexpired lease under which he has not entered into possession, since he has no interest therein which can be taken in execution.'^ For a debtor to rescind the contract of sale of personal property, and take the /property back in settlement of the purchase money note is not a fraud on another creditor of the debtor.'* § 21. Conducting business in the name of another. — One 33. Maloney v. Bewley, JO Heisk. 35. K. P. Gustin Co. v. Arm, 107 (Tenn.) 642; Fleming v. Martin, 2 Mich. 231, 65 N. W. 112. Head. (Tenn.) 43. 36. Kvello v. Taylor, 5 N. D. 76, 34. Pennington v. Clifton, 11 Ind. 63 N. W. 889. 162, and the creditor entitled to take g^ j^.,j^^ ^ ^^^^^^ ^^ p^ g^_ the land on execution may settle the title himself or it may he settled by ' ' a, purchaser from him at the levy and 38. Baker v. Drake (Ala.), 41 So. jg 845, sale of a horse. 62 Fkacduleut Convkyances. cannot, by doing business in the name of another, defraud his creditors.^ Where an insolvent or failing debtor, for the pur- pose of placing his property beyond the reach of his creditors, conducts business in the name of his wife, child, or other third person, but the business is carried on or managed by him alone and is in fact his own, the transaction is fraudulent as to creditors, and the property used or accumulated in such business and the profits of the business are liable for and may be subjected to his debts/" But if a debtor carry on a business in the name and upon the credit of another, neither the property used nor that acquired in the business belongs to the debtor or can be reached by his creditors, and if allowed to so cai-ry on a business for his sole benefit, only the property acquired by him in the business could be reached by his creditors, and not the property which the debtor was allowed to use.** One may allow the use of his name and capital to another to carry on a business, giving the whole profits to the latter for his labor and attention, without any 39. Fass V. Rice, 30 La. Ann. 1278. 40. Ark. — Nickle v. Emerson Mer- cantile, etc., Co., 13 S. W. 78. /ZJ.— Robinson v. Brems, 90 111. 351; Moran v. Lilley, 10 111. App. 103. Iowa. — Hamill v. Augustine, 81 Iowa, 302, 46 N. W. 1113; Hamilton T. Lightner, 53 Iowa, 470, 6 N. W. 003, where accumulated property had been conveyed to the wife. La. — Oppenheim v. Loovis, 9 La. Ann. 261, a simulated partnership, entered into by a, debtor to protect his property, will not prevent a credi- tor from seizing the partnership stock to the amount pretended to have been contributed. N. ff.— Levy v. Woodcock, 63 N. H. 413. jf. J.—National Bank of Metropolis T. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13, where a husband, acting under a power of at- torney from his wife, who had no sep- arate property, formed a copartner- ship in the name of his wife with an- other and conducted a hotel business. Pa. — Cadbury v. Brown, 5 Phila. 43, where a failing debtor took his children into partnership without other consideration than services to be rendered by them in the business, the arrangement is fraudulent as to creditors by limiting their remedy by execution sale to » disposal of the debtor's interest in the firm, under which the purchaser would get noth- ing but a suit in equity for an ac- counting. Wis. — Ansorge v. Barth, 88 Wib. 553, 60 N. W. 1055, 43 Am. St. Rep. 928. 41. Smith T. Van OUnda, 48 V. Y. 169. Natijeb and Fobm of Tkaitsfeb. 63 injury to the creditors of the latter, and such an agreement is not fraudulent as to the creditors of the latter.*^ § 22. Keeping mortgage in force after payment. — If a mort- gage is in fact paid, but, instead of being discharged, is fraudu- lently assigned -with intent to defraud creditors, it is not a valid lien, and those who have received a grant of property from the mortgagor's assignee in. bankruptcy, subject to valid incumbrances, are entitled to have the mortgage declared paid, and the fraudulent assignment adjudged void," § 23. Keeping judgment open after payment. — A judgment will not avail against creditors where the proofs show that it was fraudulently kept open after it had been in fact paid; nor will a sale by the sheriff under such a judgment give a good title to a purchaser who was cognizant of, and a party to, the fraud." § 24. Keepmg certificate of execution sale in force. — ^Where a judgment debtor whose land has been sold upon execution ad- vances money to a third person to purchase an assignment of the sheriff's certificate of sale, and thus keep the certificate in force, subsequent creditors cannot object to an assignment so procured.*'^ § 25. Antedated note. — A note bearing interest, which the payee antedates so as to secure to himself money not justly due to him from his insolvent debtor, is within the terms of the statute against fraudulent convey an ees.** But where one has given an extension, trusting to the debtor's representations of solvency, and, finds them false, to take measures to put himself in the same position as if there had been no otherwise binding extension^ as 42. Smith v. Van Olinda, supra; 45. Rankin v. Arndt, 44 Barb. (N. Albert v. Lindau, 46 Md. 334. Y.) 251. 43. McMasters v. Campbell, 41 46. MeKentry v. Gladwin, 10 Cal. Mich. 513, 2 N. W. 836. 227. 44. Booth V. Moret, 1 Brev. (S. C.) 216. ■64 Fbaudulent Conveyances. by obtaining and attaahing on an antedated note, is not construc- tive fraud against otheo- creditors.*' Where a conveyance of lands ias been made, and before it can be recorded defendant attaches the land to secure a note signed by the grantor on the day follow- ing the execution of the conveyance, but which was antedated so as to create a present debt, such antedating was a fraud upon the grantee, and he will not be disturbed under the conveyance by virtue of such attachment,*' § 26. Fraud directed against debtor. — ^Fraud which is di- rected against the debtor, and not against his creditors, is not within the statutes as to fraudulent conveyances, and does not render a transfer or conveyance by the debtor vulnerable to attack by creditors.*' The statutes confine their redress to fraud aimed against creditors, and the fraud which will authorize a creditor to impeach a transfer or conveyance by the debtor must be fraud against the creditor.'''' That the execution of a mortgage or other transfer of property in favor of a creditor was induced by fraud, or by fraud amounting to duress, will not avoid it in favor of other creditors of the mortgagor or transferi;er. The debtor only 47. Brewster v. Bours, 8 Cal. 501. fieient personal property to satisfy 48. Briggs v. French, Fed. Cas. No. the entire claim. 1,871, 2 Svimn. (U. S.) 251. Mo. — Colbern v. Robinson, 80 Mo. 49. Ala. — ^Meyrovitz v. Glaser, 132 541. Ala. 103, 31 So. 360; Savage v. John- N. J. — Garretson v. Kane, 27 N. J. son, 125 Ala. 673, 28 So. 547 ; Henry L. 208. V. Murphy, 54 Ala. 246. Wyo. — ^Metz v. Blackburn, 9 Wyo. Iowa. — Sprague v. Benson, 101 481, 65 Pac. 857. Iowa, 678, 70 N. W. 731, payment by 50. Ind., — ^McAlpine v. Sweetzer, 76 debtor of ten per cent, interest on a Ind. 78, a mere over-reaching of the valid debt to his wife under an oral debtor in the litigation wherein a agreement under which she could only creditor obtains judgment is not a enforce six per cent, under the sta- fraud against other creditors which tute. ■"''11 authorize them to impeach the Kan. — Johns v. Jordan, 59 Kan. judgment obtained. There must be 771, 51 Pac. 889, where the mort- collusion. gagee, who became the purchaser, de- Mich. — Lewis v. Rice, 61 Mich. 97, ceived the court in the foreclosure 27 N. W. 867. suit, alleging a balance due him Pa. — In re Dougherty, 9 Watts & when he had taken possession of suf- S. (Pa.) 189, 42 Am. Dec. 326. I^ATUBE AND FoRM OF TrANSFEE. 65 can take advantage of suoh a wrong. And the intention on the part of the creditor in taking such a mortgage or transfer to de- fraud other creditors of the debtor is not sufficient to avoid it, if the mortgagor or transferrer did not have a like intent in exe- cuting the mortgage or transfer.'^ 51. Parker v. Roberts, 116 Mo. 657, v. Ellis, 63 Mo. App. 17; Eaton ▼. 22 S. W. 914; Marion Distilling Co. Periy, 29 Mo. 96. 66 Fbatjdulent Conveyawces. CHAPTER III. The Effect of Feaudulent Conveyance. Section 1. The effect of fraudulent conveyance in general. 2. Transactions fraudulent in part. 3. Fraud in one or more of several transactions. 4. Effect of prior fraudulent transaction on subsequent valid transfer. 5. Effect of subsequent fraudulent transaction on prior valid transfer. 6. Conveyance must be fraudulent when made. 7. Purging conveyance of fraud by matter ex post facto. 8. Conveyance validated by assent or affirmance of creditors. 9. Prejudice to rights of creditors. 10. Conflict of laws — What law governs. Section 1. The effect of fraudulent conveyance in general. — The effect of a fraudulent conveyance of property, under the statutes of 13 and 27' Elizabeth and under most of the statutes in the United States which are based on the English statutes, is to render the conveyanice, while the fraudulent grantee holds the title, absolutely void and a nullity, as against existing and sub- sequent creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers, both in equity and at law, and they have the same rights against the property eonbraoed in the conveyance as though it had never been made, and the creditor may pursue his process for satisfaction as though the title were un- embarrassed by the fraudulent deed.^ Many of the cases, however, 1. N. r.— Smith V. Reid, 134 N. Y. 48 Am. Dec. 103; CarviUe v. Stout, 568; 31 N. E. 1082; Bergen v. Car- 10 Ala. 796. man, 79 N. Y. 146; Rinchey v. Stry- Arfc.— Norton t. McNutt, 55 Ark. ker, 28 N. Y. 45, 84 Am. Dec. 324. 59, 17 S. W. 362; Hershy v. Latham. 26 How. Pr. 75, 31 N. Y. 140. 42 Ark. 305. U. 8. — Thompson v. Baker, 141 TJ. Cal. — ^Nixon v. Goodwin (App. S. 648, 12 Sup. Ct. 89, 35 L. Ed. 889; 1906), 85 Pac. 169; Mason v. Vestal, Beadle v. Beadle, 40 Fed. 315, 2 Mc- 88 Cal. 396, 26 Pac. 213, 22 Am. St. Crary, 586; Lenox v. Notrebe, 15 Fed. Kep. 310; Judson v. Lyford, 84 CaL Cas. No. 8,246c, Hempst. 251. 505, 24 Pac. 286. Ala. — Nelson v. Warren, 93 Ala. Conn. — Price v. Heubler, 63 Conn. 408, 8 So. 413; Henry v. Murphy, 54 374, 28 Atl. 524; Owen v. Dixon, 17 Ala. 246; High v. Neims, 14 Ala. 350, Conn. 492; Starr v. Tracy, 2 Root,^ The Effect of Feaudulent Conveyance. 67 hold that a conveyance fraudulent as to creditors is not absolutely void, but is voidable only, and may be affirmed or avoided by them 528; Pruden v. Leavensworth, 2 Root, 129. D. C— Hayes v. Johnson, 6 D. C. 174. Go. — Gormerly v. Chapman, 51 6a. 421; Feagan v. Cureton, 19 Ga. 404. /ZZ.— Willard v. Masterson, 160 111. 443, 43 N. E. 771 ; McKinney v. Farm- ers' Nat. Bank, 104 111. 180 ; Gould v. Steinburg, 84 111. 170; Ward v. End- ers, 29 111. 519; Getzler v. Saroni, 18 111. 511. Ind. — Stevens v. Works, 81 Ind. 445. Iowa. — ^Brainard v. Van Kuran, 22 Iowa, 261. BTy.— Scott V. Scott, 85 Ky. 385, 3 S. W. 598, 5 S. W. 423, 9 Ky. L. Hep. 363; Worland v. Outten, 3 Dana, 477; Snapp v. Orr, 4 Ky. L. Kep. 355. La. — ^Vickers v. Block, 31 La. Ann. 672; Mora v. Avery, 212 La. Ann. 417; Southern Bank v. Wood, 14 La, Ann. 554, 74 Am. Dee. 446; Ems- wiler V. Burham, 6 La. Ann. 710; Maxwell v. Mallard, 5 La. Ann. 702; Hughes V. Winfrey, 5 La. Ann. 668; Meeker v. Hays, 18 La. 19; Price v. Bradford, 4 La. 35; Kimble v. Kim- ble, 1 Mart. N. S. 633. Me. — ^Wyman v. Fox, 59 Me. 100; Brown v. Snell, 46 Me. 490; Frost v. Goddard, 25 Me. 414. Md.— Cooke v. Cooke, 43 Md. 522; Spindler v. Atkinson, 3 Md. 409, 56 Am. Dec. 755. Mass. — Sherman v. Davis, 137 Mass. 132; Edwards v. Mitchell, 1 Gray, 241. Mich. — ^Michigan Trust Co. v. Chapin, 106 Mich. 384, 64 N. W. 334, 58 Am. St. Rep. 490; Pierce v. Hill, 35 Mich. 194, 24 Am. Rep. 541 ; Trask V. Green, 9 Mich. 358. Minn. — Jackson v. Holbrook, 36 Minn. 494, 32 N. W. 852, 1 Am. St. Rep. 683 ; Campbell v. Jones, 25 Minn. 155. Miss. — ^Thomason v. Neeley, 50 Miss. 310. Mo. — Woodard v. Mastin, 106 Mo. 324, 17 S. W. 308; Ryland v. Callison, 54 Mo. 513; Potter v. Stevens, 40 Mo. 229; Kinealy v. Macklin, 2 Mo. App. 241. ff. J.— Mulford v. Peterson, 35 N. J. L. 127. y. C. — Plynn v. Williams, 29 N. C. 32; Burgin v. Burgin, 23 N. C. 160; Henderson v. Hoke, 21 N. C. 119; Hoke V. Henderson, 14 N. C. 12; West V. Dubberly, 4 N. C. 478. ' Ohio. — Fowler v. Trebein, 16 Ohio St. 493, 91 Am. Dec. 95. Pa. — Janney v. Howard, 150 Pa. St. 339, 24 Atl. 740; Stewart v. Coder, 11 Pa. St. 90; Hays v. Heidel- berg, 9 Pa. St. 203; Kimmel v. Mc- Right, 2 Pa. St. 38; McKee v. Gil- christ, 3 Watts, 230; Patrick v. Smith, 2 Pa. Super. Ct. 113. S. C— Paris v. Du Pre. 17 S. C. 282; Jones v. Crawford, 1 McMull. 373; Lowry v. Pinson, 2 Bailey, 324, 23 Am. Doc. 140; Abrahams v. Cole, 5 Rich. Eq. 335. Tenn. — Jacobi v. Schloss, 7 Coldw. 385. Teco. — Lynn v. Le Gierse, 48 Tex. 138. Va. — Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. 334. Bny.— Twyntfs Case, 3 Coke, 80a, 1 Smith Lead. Cas, L See also Remedies, chap. XV, infra. 68 Pkaudulent Conveyances. as they see fit,^ A conveyance made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is only voidable, it is held, so far as to enable creditors who are prejudiced by it to enforce their demands against the grantor,^ and will only be regarded as invalid at the instance of creditors proceeding in the mode prescribed by law to subject the property involved to their debts.* When a conveyance is said to be void against creditors the reference is to such parties when clothed with their judgments and executioins, or such other titles as the law has provided for the collection of debts.^ A fraudulent transfer of property, if executed, passes the title, and the trans- feree has a good title until the same is impeached by a creditor in an action brought for that purpose.* The judgment creditor may, but he is not bound to, file a creditors' bill to set aside the conveyance,' or he may sell the land under execution upon his judgment, and the purchaser may impeach the conveyance in an action at law to recover possession, or if he gain possession defend 2. Ark. — Doster v. National Bank, 67 Ark. 325, 55 S. W. 137, 77 Am. St. Rep. 116, 48 L. R. A. 339. Ga. — Moore v. Mobley, 123 Ga. 424, 51 S. E. 351. Mass. — Oriental Bank v. Haskina, 44 Mass. 332, 37 Am. Dec. 140. Minn. — ^Hathaway v. Brown, 22 Minn. 214. y. if.— Hill V. Pine River Bank, 45 N. H. 300, it is good until avoided by creditors; they cannot ignore it. ST. C— Boyd V. Turpin, 94 N. C. 137, 55 Am. Rep. 597, though void as to u. creditor who is pursuing legal process to reach the property, it is valid as against inactive cred- itors when collaterally drawn in question. Ofcio.— Brown v. Webb, 20 Ohio, 389, 3 Ohio St. 246. Pa.— Appeal of Byrod, 31 Pa. St. 241. fi. C— Kid V. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702. Wash. — Preston - Parton Milling Co. V. Horton, 22 Wash. 236, 60 Pac. 412, 79 Am. St. Rep. 928. 3. CoUinson v. Jackson, 14 Fed. 305, 8 Sawy. 357. 4. In re Estes, 5 Fed. 60, it is only voidable at the election of the creditor; Parrott v. Crawford (Ind. T. 1904), 82 S. W. 688; Webb v. Brown, 3 Ohio St. 246; Rutherford v. Carr (Tex. Civ. App. 1905), 84 S. W. 659; French Lum- bering Co. V. Theriault, 107 Wis. 627, 83 N. W. 927, 81 Am. St. Rep. 856, 51 L. R. A. 910. 5. Van Heusen v. Radcliff, 17 N. Y. 580, 72 Am. Dec. 480. 6. Gibson v. National Park Bank, 98 N. Y. 97; Harding v. Elliott, 12 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 521, 33 N. Y. Supp. 1095. 7. Smith V. Reld, 134 N. Y. 568, 31 N. E. 1082; Bergen v. Carman, 79 N. Y. 146; Erickson v. Quinn, 15 Abb. Pr. N. S. (N. Y.) 168. The Effect of Fkaui)ui.ent Conveyance. 69 tihe title thus acquired against the fraudulent grantee or those claiming under him.* If the creditor condones the fraud and takes no steps to avoid the conveyance, it stands forever as a divestiture of the title of the debtor.' But a transfer of prop- erty made to defraud creditors, although thus void or voidable as to creditors and purchasers, is good inter partes and valid and binding as between the parties and their heirs and representa- tives, and the fraudulent grantee may convey a good title to a bona fide purchaser." A conveyance fraudulent as to one creditor 8. Smith V. Reid, supra; "Bergen v. Carman, supra; Chautauqua Co. Bank v. Risley, 19 N. V. 369, 75 Am. Dec. 347. 9. Parrott v. Crawford (Ind. T. 1904), 82 S. W. 688. See Purging conveyance by mattw ex post facto, chap. Ill, § 7, infra. 10. y. Y. — Smith v. "Reid, supra; Moore v. Livingston, 14 How. Pr. 1 ; Jackson v. Cadwell, 1 Cow. 622; Os- borne V. Moss, 7 Johns. 161, 5 Am. Dec. 252. V. S. — ^Lenox v. Notrebe, 15 Fed. Cas. No. 8,246c, Hempst. 251. Ala. — Nelson v. Warren, 93 Ala. 408, 8 So. 413. Ark. — Norton v. McNutt, 55 Ark. 59, 17 S. W. 362; King v. Clay, 34 Ark. 291. Co?.— Brown v. Cline, 109 Cal. 156, 41 Pac. 862. Conn. — Bouton v. Beers, 78 Conn. 414, 62 Atl. 619; Chapin v. Pease, 10 Cbnn. 69, 25 Am. Dec. 56. Ga. — Fouche v. Brower, 74 Ga. 251; Anderson v. Brown, 72 Ga. 713. m. — ^Harmon v. Harmon, 63 HI- 512. Ind. — Henry v. Stevens, 108 Ind. 281, 9 N. E. 356; Anderson v. Etter, 102 Ind. 115, 26 N. E. 218; Etter v. Anderson, 84 Ind. 333. lowa. — Mellen v. Ames, 39 Iowa, 283. Ky. — Jones v. Hill, 9 Bush. 692; Anderson v. Bradford, 5 J. J. Marsh, 69. La. — Keane v. Goldsmith, 14 La. Ann. 349. Me.— Hatch v. Bates, 54 Me. 136; Thompson v. Moore, 36 Me. 47 ; Woodman v. Bodfish, 25 Me. 317. Md. — Atkinson v. Phillips, I Md. Ch. 507. Mass. — Stillings v. Turner, 153 Mass. 534, 27 N. E. 671; Edwards v. Mitchell, 1 Gray, 239; Perry v. Hay- ward, 12 Cush. 344. Mich. — Wheeler v. Wallace, 53 Mich. 364, 19 N. W. 33. Min«..— Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 60; Lemay v. Bibeau, 2 Minn. 291. Miss. — ^Whitney v. Preeland, 26 Minn. 481. Mo. — McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 16 Mo. 242. 2fe6.— Baldwin v. Burt, 43 Neb. 245, 61 N. W. 601. N. J. — Evans v. Herring, 27 N. J. L. 243. N. C. — Powell V. Inman, 53 N. C. 436, 82 Am. Dec. 426. Ohio. — ^Douglass v. Dunlap, 10 Ohio, 162. Pa. — Janney v. Howard, 150 Pa. St. 339, 24 Atl. 740; Bonesteel v. Sullivan, 104 Pa. St. 9. 70 Feaudulent Conveyances. is void as to all creditors." Where a debtor pays the purchase money of land and tates the conveyance to a third person, the rule that a fraudulent conveyance is absolutely void and that the property can be seized under execution against the grantor is generally held not to apply, and such property is not the subject of levy and sale under execution by his creditors, even though the trans- action was fraudulent and intended to protect the land from the claims of creditors, since the statute of Elizabeth and similar statutes in the United States apply only to conveyances by the debtor. ^^ But, under the statutes of some of the states, the rule is held to apply even in such cases and such property may be seized and sold in execution on the creditors' judgments." R. /.—Hudson v. White, 17 R. I. 519, 23 Atl. 57. S. G. — Swanzy v. Hunt, 2 Nott & M. 211; Kid v. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M. 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702. STenn.— Bayless v. Elcan, 1 Coldw. 96; Williams v. Lowe, 4 Humph. 62. Tex. — Wilson v. Trawick, 10 Tex. 428; Texarkana Nat. Bank v. Hall {Civ. App. 1895), 30 S. W. 73. Wis. — Noiton V. Kearney, 10 Wis. 443; Schettler v. Brunette, 7 Wis. 197. See Eights and liabilities of parties, chap. XIV, infra. II. Hoke V. Henderson, 14 N. C. 12. See also Intent to defraud one creditor, chap. XIII, § 2, infra. But see Blair v. Brown, 116 N. C. 631, 21 S. E. 434, a deed of assignment ia not necessarily fraudulent and void as to all the creditors of the as- signor because fraudulent as to one of them; Solomon v. Wright (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 414, fraud in part of the debts secured by a deed of trust, participated in by the trus- tee and the grantor, does not invali- date the instrument as to an honest and valid debt of an innocent holder. 12. N. T. — Brewster ▼. Power, 10 Paige, 562. Uass. — Hamilton v. Cone, 99 Mass. 478; Howe v. Bishop, 44 Mass. 26. Mich. — ^Maynard v. Hosklns, 9 Mich. 485; Trask v. Greene, 9 Mich. 358. Miss. — Ferguson v. Bobo, 54 Miss. 121; Carlisle v. Tindall, 49 Miss. 229. N. J. — Haggerty v. Nixon, 26 N. J. Eq. 42. N. 0.— Everett v. Eaby, 104 N. C. 479, 10 S. E. 526, 17 Am. St. Rep. 685; Gentry v. Harper, 55 N. C. 177 ; Gowing v. Rich, 23 N. C. 553. 8. C. — Bauskett v. Holsonback, 2 Rich. L. 624. Tenn. — Smith v. Hinson, 51 Tenn. 250. F<.— Buck V. Gilson, 37 Vt. 653. 13. Ind. — Tevis v. Doe, 3 Ind. 129. Mass. — Clark v. Chamberlain, 95 Mass. 257. Mo. — ^Dunnica v. Coy, 28 Mo. 525, 75 Am. Dec. 133; Herrington v. Her- rington, 27 Mo. 560; Dunnica v. Coy, 24 Mo. 167, 69 Am. Dec. 420; Eddy V. Baldwin, 23 Mo. 588; Ran- kin V. Harper, 23 Mo. 579. The Effect of Fraudulent Conveyance. 71 § 2. Transactions fraudulent in part. — ^Where a conveyance is actually fraudulent in part and the fraud is participated in or known to the grantee, it is fraudulent in toto and void as to the whole of the property conveyed by it, as' to the creditors of the party conveying, and oaunot stand to any extent as security or indemnity." But where two distinct parcels of land are con- Pa. — ^Appeal of Winch. 61 Pa. St. 424. 14. 2V. r.— Baldwin v. Short, 125 N. Y. 553, 20 N. E. 928; Billings v. Russell, 101 N. y. 226, 4 N. E. 531 ; Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70; Spies V. Boyd, 1 E. D. Smith, 445; John- son V. Phillips, 2 N. Y. Supp. 432, transfers and mortgages given partly for valid debts, but including ficti- tious liabilities, are invalid in toto and cannot stand as security even for the actual indebtedness; Marks v Keynolds, 12 Abb. Pr. 403; Austin v Bell, 20 Johns. 442, 11 Am. Dec. 297 Hyslop V. Clarke, 14 Johns. 458 Goodrich v. Downs, 6 Hill, 438 Wakeman v. Grover, 4 Paige, 23 Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. 547, 15 Am. Dec. 477, an assignment for the benefit of creditors, bad in part as against the provision of a statute, is void in toto; Boyd v. Dunlap, 1 Johns. Ch. 478. Ala. — ^Tatum v. Hunter, 14 Ala. 557; Tickner v. Wiswall, 9 Ala. 305. /ZL— Fabian v. Traeger, 117 HI. App. 176, aif'd 215 111. 220, 74 N. E. 131, a purchase which is colorable and fraudulent in part is, as to other creditors of the. seller, void as to the whole of the property conveyed; Biggins v. Lambert. 213 111. 625, 73 N. E. 371, 104 Am. St. E«p. 238, conveyance of land fraudulently con- veyed at a sum much less than its value set aside in its entirety and not sustained as to a portion equal to the actual value paid; Oakford v. Dun- lap, 63 111. App. 498, where part of property was taken in payment of debts and part for cash or valuable consideration paid or agreed to be paid. Ind. — Beagan v. First Nat. Bank. 157 Ind. 623, 61 N. E. 575, 62 N. E. 701, where an insolvent corporation executed a mortgage in favor of cred- itors who accepted the same, and the mortgage was invalid as to pref- erences therein granted to stock- holders over unsecured creditors, the mortgage will be deemed inseverable and invalid as a whole. Xon.^Miami County Nat. Bank v. Barkalow, 53 Kan. 68, 35 Pac. 796, the inclusion in a mortgage from a failing firm of a debt due from one not a member of the firm vitiates the mortgage as to creditors of the firm; Wallach v. Wylie, 28 Kan. 138, chattel mortgage to secure a sum which was partly hona fide indebted- ness and partly fraudulent is void in toto; Harley v. Adsit, 3 Kan. App. 122, 42 Pac. 836. ilfd.— Albert v. Wynn, 7 Gill, 446, although no fraud is intended a con- veyance good in part and in part void as contrary to statute is void in toto. Mass. — tynde v. McGregor, 95 Mass. 172, 90 Am. Dee. 188. Mich. — Clarke v. Lee, 78 Mich. 221, 44 N. W. 260; Pierson v. Man- 72 Featjdulent Cokveyances. veyed, the conveyance of one being bona fide and that of the other fraudulent as to creditors, it may be avoided by creditors as to the latter, and be valid as to the former. '^^ And where a con- veyance is only constructively fraudulent in part it is not thereby necessarily rendered invalid, in the absence of actual fraud.*' As ning, 2 Mich. 446; Kirby v. Inger- soU, Harr. 172. Miss. — Burke v. Murphy, 27 Miss. 167. Mo. — Boland v. Ross, 120 Mo. 208, 25 S. W. 524, where part of indebted- ness for which a mortgage is given is fraudulent as to creditors it will avoid the entire mortgage; Hanna v. Finley, 33 Mo. App. 645, where a creditor took more of a. debtor's as- sets than were reasonably necessary to pay his claim, agreeing to cancel the surplus for a time and then ac- count for it, the entire transaction was void; State v. Excelsior Distil- ling Ck)., 20 Mo. App. 21; McNichols v. Riohter, 13 Mo. App. 515. 2fe6.— Switz v. Bruce, 16 Neb. 463, 20 N. W. 639. N. C. — Johnson v. Murchison, 60 N. C. 286; Stove v. Marshall, 52 N. C. 300; Hafner v. Irwin, 23 N. C. 490, where part of the consideration is feigned or fraudulent, the whole deed is void. Pa. — Gates v. Johnston, 3 Pa. St. 62; McClurg v. Lecky, 3 Penr. & W. 83, 23 Am. Dee. 64, assignment for benefit of creditors; Thomas v. Jenks, 5 Rawle, 221, assignment of partnership property, containing pro- vision for release of partners from individual indebtedness, void where partners had separate property; Whiting V. Johnson, 11 Serg. & R. 328, 14 Am. Deo. 633, bond taken fraudulently for more than real debt. Tenn. — Simpson v. Mitchell, 8 Yerg. 417; Sommerville v. Horton, 4 Yerg. 541, 26 Am. Dec. 242; Young v. Pate, 4 Yerg. 164; Darwin v. Handley, 3 Yerg. 502. Tex. — Brasher v. Jamison, 75 Tex. 139, 12 S. W. 809, part of considera- tion for deed unreal or fictitious; Lambeth v. McClinton, 65 Tex. 108, where the transaction which results in the transfer of goods is single and indivisible, it must stand or fall as a whole. Va. — Garland v. Rives, 4 Rand. 282, 15 Am. Dec. 756. W. Va. — Kanawha Valley Bank v. Wilson, 25 W. Va. 242; Livesay v. Beard, 22 W. Va. 585. Can. — Cameron v. Perrin, 14 Ont. App. 565. Fraudulent judgment. — ^A judg- ment fraudulent in part must stand or fall as a whole and is void, not to the extent of the fraud, but abso- lutely. Simons v. Goldbach, 56 Hun (N. Y.) 204, 9 N. Y. Supp. 359; Marks v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 403; Hardt v. Heidweyer, 152 U. S. 547, 14 Sup. Ct. 671, 38 L. Ed. 548 ; Taaflfe v. Josephson, 7 Cal. 352 ; Gates v. Johnston, 3 Pa. St. 52. An execution sale, partly color- able, is void. Floyd v. Goodwin, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.) 484, 29 Am. Dec. 130. See Execution and other judicial sales, chap. II, § 14, supra. 15. Chase v. Walker, 26 Me. 555. 16. Rogers v. Munncrlyn, 36 Fla. 591, 18 So. 669, a mortgage covering merchandise and real estate, which is constructively void as to the goods. The Ekfsct of Feaudtjlent Conveyance. a general vvle where a part of the consideration for a conveyance or transfer is fictitious or fraudulent the conveyance is void in ioto, though the rest of the consideration be valid." But a con- veyance or transfer of property to two or more creditors or pur- chasers may be valid as to one and fraudulent and void as to the other, pai'ticularly where one creditor or purchaser participated in or knqw of the fraudulent purpose and the other was innocent thereof ; the fact that the transfer was as to one of them in fraud of creditors will not necessarily i-ender it fraudulent as to the other." because of the mortgagee's permission to sell them in the usual course of trade without accounting for the proceeds, is not thereby rendered in- valid as to the real estate. See Eeimbursement, indemnity and subrogation, consideration and expenditures, chap. XIV, §§ 40, 41, infra. 17. Marks v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. Prac. (N. Y.) 403, but a confession of judgment may be sustained as to some of the amounts acknowledged, though held void as to others for indefiniteness ; Tatum v. Hunter, 14 Ala. 557 ; Gates v. Johnston, 3 Pa. St. 52, a judgment fraudulent in part is void in the whole as to creditors. See Partial invalidity or illegality of con- sideration, chap. VIII, § 30, infra. 18. JV. y. — Commercial Bank v. Sherwood, 162 N. Y. 310, 56 N. E. 834, a transfer of property by an in- solvent to two of his creditors, in payment of » distinct indebtedness owing to each, gives each of them an undivided one-half interest in the property, and may be sustained as to one of them, although the transfer as to the other is invalid as in fraud of creditors. U, fif.— Tefft v. Stern, 73 Fed. 591, 21 C. C. A. 67, certain creditors se- cured by a mortgage, having knowl- edge of a fraudulent purpose, and others not having such knowledge; Crawford v. Neal, 144 U. S. 585, 12 Sup. Ct. 759, 36 L. Ed. 552, separate conveyances of different property for separate considerations. Ala. — Robert Graves Co. v. McDade, 108 Ala. 420, 19 So. 86, where but one knew of the fraud. Mass. — Prince v. Shepard, 26 Mass. 176, where one of the assignees was innocent of the fraud. Mich. — Koek v. Bostwick, 113 Mich. 302, 71 N. W. 473, the fraudu- lent character of a chattel mortgage given by a corporation as against its creditors does not invalidate a para- mount mortgage on the same prop- erty to a bona fide creditor, although the two mortgages were executed on the same day, and were authorized at the same meeting of the board of di- rectors. N. J.— Farrel v. Colwell, 30 N. J. L. 123, where one of the partners who made the purchase did so in fraud of creditors and the other was a bona fide vendee. Tenn. — Troustine v. Lask, 4 Baxt. 162, trust deed may be valid as to some of its beneficiaries, and void as 74 FeAUDULENT CoNVEYAJifCES. § 3. Fraud in one or more of several transactions. — ^Where several conveyances of property are made by a debtor to one grantee at or about the same time or at differemt times, the fact that one of them is fraudulent and void as to creditors, or is otherwise invalid, will not render the others void, if they are separate and distinct transactions;" but, if the several acts form to others who concur in a fraudulent purpose of the grantor. Tex. — Sonnentheil v. Texas Guar- anty, etc., Co., 10 Tex. Civ. App. 274, 30 S. W. 945; Willis & Bro. v. Mur- phy (Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 362; Kraus V. Haas, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 665, 25 S. W. 1025, trust deeds held void as to beneficiaries who participated in the fraud and valid as to others who had no knowledge thereof. W. yo.— Livesay v. Beard, 22 W. Va. 585, a, fraudulent deed to several grantees jointly will stand as secu- rity for those who had no knowledge of the fraud. Contra. — Minn. — Thompson v. Johnson, 55 Minn. 515, 57 N. W. 223, where a preference is given by trans- ferring property to a creditor, and to others who pay part of the agreed price in money, the transfer will be invalid as to the latter if they knew its purpose was to give a preference to the creditor. 19. ff. r.— Maass v. Falk, 146 N. y. 34, 40 N. E. 504; Friedman v. Rose, 83 Hun, 542, 31 N. Y. Supp. 1040; Kinghorn v. Wright, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 615; Nicholson v. Leavitt, 4 Sandf. 252; Wise v. Rider, 34 N. Y. Supp. 782; Books v. Wilson, 53 Hun. 173, 6 N. Y. Supp. 116, where the grantee in a conveyance made to defraud the grantor's creditors, at the request of the grantor, mortgages the property conveyed to secure a debt owing by the grantor to the mortgagee, the latter has the same rights as if the mortgage had been made before the fraudulent convey- ance. U. S.— Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163, 29 L. Ed. 329; Hunter v. Marlboro, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,908, 2 Woodb. & M. 168, where a trust made to defraud creditors is ex- ecuted by the trustee, who conveys the property to a third person to se- cure a loan to the cestui que trust, whose rights the grantee distinctly recognizes, the trust created by such conveyance between the grantee and the cestui que trust is enforceable. Ala. — ^Nelms v. Steiner, 113 Ala. 562, 22 So. 435, where goods were sold to plaintiff and afterwards the seller gave plaintiff mortgages which were wholly disconnected from the sale, fraud as to creditors in the mortgages would not affect the sale, if that in itself was free from fraud. Cat. — Gray v. Galpin, 98 Cal. 633, 33 Pac. 725. Conn. — Lucas v. Birdsey, 41 Conn. 357. /Z2.— Rutt V. Shuler, 49 111. App. 655. Ind. — Keen v. Preston, 24 Ind. 395, a sale of chattels to a creditor in part satisfaction of a debt, and a. transfer of collateral security to him for the balance of the debt, although made in pursuance of the same agree- ment, are separate transactions, so that a fraudulent transfer of the col- The Effect of Fkaubitlent Convbyauce. 75 parts of one transaction, they will be considered together in a proceeding to set them aside, and, if one of them is fraudulent, all of theon will be void as to creditors.^" And where several con- veyances of property are made by a debtor to several different grantees with a common purpose on the part of the grantor and the grantees to defraud creditors of the grantor, the several con- laterals would not contaminate the sale, if the latter was bona fide. Iowa. — ^Muir v. Miller, 103 Iowa, 127, 72 N. W. 409. the fact that one note in controversy was obtained by the garnishee, wife of defendant, from her husband without consideration and in fraud of creditors, raised no pre- sumption against the validity of the transfer of another note between the same parties. Kam. — ^Bowling v. Armourdale Bank, 57 Kan. 174, 45 Pac. 584. S^y, — Ford V. Williams, 42 Ky. 550. Me. — ^Matthews v. Buck, 43 Me. 265. Mass. — Boyd v. Brown, 34 Mass. 453. Mich. — ^Kock v. Bostwick, 113 Mich. 302, 71 N. W. 473. ^o. — St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. Cravens, 69 Mo. 72. 2Vg5._Bierbower v. Polk, 17 Neb. 268, 22 N. W. 698. Af. H. — ^Pettee t. Dustin, 58 N. H. 309. 21?. J. — Stillman v. Stillman, 21 N. J. Eq. 126. 2V. C. — Winborne v. Lassiter, 89 N. O. 1. OAio.— O'Connell v. Cruise, 1 Handy, 164, 12 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 81. Tenn. — ^Robinson v. Baugh (Ch. App.),61 S. W. 98. Wis.— Kickbush v. Corwith, 108 Wis. 634, 85 N. W. 148; Hoey v. Pier- ron, 67 Wis. 262, 30 N. W. 692, the fact that several chattel mortgages are executed at the same time does not make them all of one transaction, so that the invalidity of one for lack of sufficient consideration attaches to all. 20. V. «.— Burdick v. Gill, 7 Fed. 668, 2 McCrary, 486. Cal. — Chenery v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 119, 65 Am. Dec. 493. Colo. — Anders v. Barton, 3 Colo. App. 324, 33 Pac. 142. - Iowa. — Snouffer v. Kinley, 96 Iowa, 102, 64 N. W. 770. Mass. — Lynde v. McGregor, 95 Mass. 182, 90 Am. Dec. 188. Mich. — ^Hubbard v. Taylor, 5 Mich. 155. Mo. — State v. Excelsior Distilling Co., 20 Mo. App. 21. JVe6.— Switz v. Bruce, 16 Neb. 463, 20 N. W. 639. S. C— Bates v. Cobb, 29 S. C. 395, 7 S. B. 743, 13 Am. St. Rep. 742; MeSween v. McCown, 23 S. C. 342; Hipp V. Sawyer, 1 Rich. Eq. Oas. 410, conveyance by husband of per- sonal property in trust for his wife and at the same time conveyance of real estate to the same trustee for the tatter's own use. Tex. — Baylor v. Brown, 3 Tex. Civ. App. 177, 21 S. W. 73, conveyance by debtor of his entire stock of goods, fixtures, etc., followed on the same day by a transfer of all his notes and outstanding accounts. T6 Fkaudulent Conveyances. veyanoes, whether made at different times or at or about the same time, aad although made to different persons, will he considered as component parts of one scheme or transaction, with the same intent pervading the whole, and if a fraudulent intent be shown as to any one of the conveyances, it will vitiate and invalidate all.^^ Where, however, the conveyances are separate and inde- pendent transactions, and one is not tainted with the same fraudu- lent intent as the others, it will not be rendered fraudulent and invalidated by the fact that the others are fraudulent and void as to creditors.^" Where a debtor made a conveyance fraudulent as to his creditors, and took from the grantee a mortgage to se- cure trust funds in the grantor's hands, it was held that equity, while setting aside the conveyance, would recognize the validity of the mortgage.^' § 4. Effect of prior fraudulent transaction on subsequent valid transfer. — A conveyance of property by a debtor which 21. N. r.— Illinois Watch Co. v. Payne, 11 N. Y. Supp. 408, aff'd 132 N. Y. 597, 30 N. E. 1151, fraudulent confessions of judgments and as- signment. Ala. — Russell v. Davis, 133 Ala. 647, 31 So. 514, 91 Am. St. Rep. 56. Mo. — ^Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250, 13 S. W. 82. 8. C. — ^Younger v. Massey, 39 S. C. 115, 17 S. E. 711; Hipp v. Sawyer, 1 Rich. Eq. Cas. 410. Tenn. — Summers v. Howland, 2 Baxt. 407. Teai.— Hughes v. Roper, 42 Tex. 116, a deed from a father to some of his children to whom he was indebted, and from them to others, as to whom no indebtedness existed, may be con- sidered as one transaction, and as a deed of gift to the extent of the sec- ond transfer. W. Va. — ^Livesay v. Beard, 22 W. Va. 585. 22. N. r.— Illinois Watch Co. v. Payne, 11 N. Y. Supp. 408, afd 132 N. Y. 597, 30 N. E. 1151. U. S.— Crawford v. Neal, 144 U. S. 585, 12 Sup. Ct. 759, 36 L. Ed. 552, aff'g 36 Fed. 29. /«.— Rutt V. Shuler, 49 111. App. 655. Kif. — Ford V. Williams, 3 B. Mon. 550. Mich. — Sheldon t. Mann, 85 Mich. 265, 48 N. W. 573. Neb. — Bierbower v. Folk, 17 Neb. 268, 22 N. W. 698. y. J.— Stillman v. Stillman, 21 N. J. Eq. 126. Tenn. — Summers v. Howland, 2 Baxt. 407. Wis.— Hoey v. Pierron, 67 Wis. 262, 30 N. W. 692. 23. First Nat. Bank v. Cummins, 39 N. J. Eq. 577. The Effect of Fraudulent Conveyance. 77 was not fraudulent as to creditors at the time it was made can- not be rendered fraudulent by prior acts or conduct of the par- ties, or by previous separate and distinct fraudulent transactions, made at or about the same time or at a different time.^ Bui) prior fraudulent transactions may not only be a badge of fraud- ulent intent, but may in themselves be sufficient evidence that a conveyance was in fact fraudulent. ^^ The fact that a mort- gage on a stock of goods is void, as to other creditors of the mortgagor, because it authorizes the mortgagor to sell the prop- erty and use the proceeds in his business, does not affect the right of the mortgagor to give another mortgage to secure the debt, free from such infirmity.^' § 5. Effect of subsequent fraudulent transaction on prior valid transfer. — ^A conveyance of property by a debtoB valid in its inception and made in good faith and without intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors is not invalidated by the subsequent acts or conduct of the parties, or by a subsequent and independent transaction, made at or about the same time or at a different time which is fraudulent as to creditors.^' But subsequent fraudulent 24. N. Y. — ^Wise v. Rider, 88 Hun, 25. Mo. — Benne v. Schnecko, 100 620, 34 N. Y. Supp. 782. Mo. 250, 13 S. W. 82. U. S. — Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. C. — ^McSween v. McCown, 23 S. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163, 29 L. Ed. 329. C. 342. Ala. — ^Thornton v. Cook, 97 Ala. W. Ta. — LiTesay v. Beard, 22 W. 630, 12 So. 403. Va. 585. Conn. — Lucas v. Birdsey, 41 Conn. 26. Wise v. Rider, 88 Hun, 620, 34 357 ; Cook v. Swan, 5 Conn. 140. N. Y. Supp. 782. Me. — ^Matthews v. Buck, 43 Me. 27. N. T.— Maass v. Falk, 146 N. 265. Y- 34, 40 N. E. 504, the fact that, on Mieh. — ^Krolik v. Root, 63 Mich. the day after the transfer of prop- 562, 30 N. W. 339. erty to secure certain creditors, the Mo. — St. Louis Mut. L. Ins. Co. v. debtor made a general assignment. Cravens, 69 Mo. 72. does not of itself raise a presumption f}. B. — Pettee v. Dustin, 58 N. H. that the transfer was fraudulent; 309_ Friedman v. Rose, 83 Hun, 542, 31 jV. O. — White V. White, 35 N. C. N. Y. Supp. 1040, the fact that a bill ■265- King v. Cantrel, 26 N. C. 251. of sale taken aa additional security Ohio. — O'Connell v. Cruise, 1 to a chattel mortgage is void because 31andy,164, 12 Ohio Dec. (Reprint), 81. it was not filed, and there was no 78 FeATJDULENT CoNVBYAJSrCES. transactions may not only furnish proof of fraudulent mtent, but may in themselves be sufficient evidence that a conveyance was change of possession, does not render the chattel mortgage also void; King- horn V. Wright, 45 N. Y. Super. Ct. 615, although the proceeds of the prior conveyance may be connected with the consideration of the subse- quent transfer; Nicholson v. Leavitt, 4 Sandf. 252; Weller v. Wayland, 17 Johns. 102, a bill of sale valid at the time of execution is not rendered in- valid by allowing part of the goods included therein to remain in pos- session of the vendor. TJ. fif.— Schreyer v. Scott, 134 U. S. 405, 10 Sup. Ct. 579, 33 L. Ed. 955; Judson V. Courier Co., IS Fed. 541, a voluntary conveyance from a parent to his children by way of ' settlement, when otherwise valid as to creditors, is not rendered invalid by subsequent contributions by the parent of money to pay off incumbrances and improve the property. Ala. — Buford v. Shannon, 95 Ala. 205, 10 So. 263; Warren v. Jones, 68 Ala. 449; Stokes v. Jones, 18 Ala. 734. Ark. — Cornish v. Dews, 18 Ark. 172; Hempstead v. Johnson, 18 Ark. 123, 65 Am. Dec. 458. Co!.— Gray v. Galpin, 98 Cal. 633, 33 Pac. 725. Conn. — Clark v. Johnson, 5 Day, 373. Go. — Scott V. Winship, 20 Ga. 429, the fact that a judgment debtor fraudulently conceals property sup- posed to be subject to his debts will not render a prior conveyance fraud- ulent as to creditors, unless the grantee was privy to the act. 7W.— Rutt V. Shuler, 49 111. App. 655. /nd.— Rose v. Colter, 76 Ind. 590, subsequent insolvency of vendor; Ray V. Simons, 76 Ind. 160. Kan. — Bowling v. Armourdale Bank, 57 Kan. 174, 45 Pac. 584, the taking of a second and separate mort- gage by a, creditor, even if invalid, does not necessarily defeat a first valid mortgage. Ky. — United States Bank v. Huth, 4 B. Mon. 423. Mass. — Hatch v. Smith, 5 Mass. 42. Mich. — Sheldon v. Mann, 85 Mich. 265, 48 N. W. 573; Paige v. Ken- driek, 10 Mich. 300. Mo. — Krueger v. Vorhauer, 164 Mo. 156, 63 S. W. 1098, schemes to de- fraud existing and subsequent cred- itors entered into by a. debtor, after making a deed of trust, cannot affect the validity of such deed; Page v. Dixon, 59 Mo. 43 ; Gates v. Labeaume, 19 Mo. 17, an assignment for the bene- fit of creditors, valid in its creation, is not vitiated by subsequent fraudu- lent or illegal acts of the assignor. Neb. — Blerbower v. Polk, 17 Neb. 268, 22 N. W. 698. y. J. — Owen V. Arvis, 26 N. J. L. 22; Stillman v. Stillman, 21 N. J. Eq. 126. Ti. C. — Winborne v. Lassiter, 89 N. C. 1. Tex. — Cleveland v. Empire Mills, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 479, 25 S. W. 1055, subsequent conduct of debtor and trustee in conveyance for benefit of preferred creditors not acquiesced in by the beneficiaries. 7<.— Bracket v. Waite, 4 Vt. 389. Va. — Clayton v. Anthony, 6 Rand. 285, a deed of trust, if fairly executed to secure a just debt, cannot be im- The Effect of Fbaddtilent Conveyajstce. 79 in fact fraudulent.^ Fraud will be presumed where a voluntary conveyance to a wife is followed within a short time by the fraud- ulent disposition of the remaining estate of the grantor.^' A conveyance which is constructively fraudulent, but is made to cure the defects in a prior valid conveyance, will not, however, affect the validity of such prior conveyance.^" A conveyance not fraudulent at first may become so afterwards by being concealed, or not pursued, by means of which creditors have been induced to give credit,^^ or by being subsequently made use of for the pur- pose of covering up the grantor's interest in the property or otherwise defrauding his creditors.'^ And when put to a fraudu- lent use as to subsequent creditors, the fraud may be carried back to the date of the conveyance, so as to invalidate it as to such creditors.'* If a judgment be valid in its inception, it is not rendered invalid because execution is taken out thereon with a view to hinder and delay creditors, and has such effect." The fact that, after completion of an absolute and valid sale and delivery of property, piomises are made to the seller to give him the proceeds of the sale of the property in excess of a certain amount, does not operate retroactively on the sale, and avoid it in favor of a creditor of the seller.'^ A volim.tary conveyance, if peached on the ground of fraud for Ala. — Constantine v. Twelves, 29 any matter ex post facto. Ala. 607. Wash. — Sanders v. Main, 12 Wash. Mass. — ^Lynde v. McGregor, 95 665, 42 Pae. 122. Mass. 182, 90 Am. Dec. 188. W. ro.— Harden v. Wagner, 22 W. 29. Burdick v. Gill, 7 Fed. 668, 2 Va. 356. McCrary, 486. Eng. — Stone v. Griebham, 2 Bulst. 30. Warren v. Jones, 68 Ala. 449 2X7, 31. Lamont v. Began, 96 111. App Equity may compel ezecntion 369. of the tra»t immediately, where a 32. Woodard v. Mastin, 106 Mo, conveyance valid in its inception, 324, 17 S. W. 308; Bauer Grocery Co, made for the security of creditors, be- v. Smith, 1 Mo. App. Repr. 439. comes by subsequent events oppres- 33. Carter v. Grimshaw, 49 N. H sive and injurious to other creditors. 100. Pope V. Wilson, 7 Ala. 690. 34. Wilder v. Winne, 6 Cow. (N. 28. U. S.— Burdick v. Gill, 7 Fed. Y.) 284. 668 2 McCrary, 486. 35. Klemm v. Bishop, 56 111. App, 613. 80 Feaudulent Conveyances. valid at tlie time of its execution, because of tihe absence of fraudulent intent and of the grantor's retaining sufficient prop- erty to meet all his debts, is not rendered fraudulent as against subsequent creditors or purchasers by subsequent embarrassments of the grantor.'" § 6. Conveyance must be fraudulent when made. — ^A convey- ance is not necessarily void because its effect is to hinder and delay creditors of the grantor, but such must be its object, and it must be a fraudulent contrivance for that purpose ; and the party to be benefited by the conveyance must be privy to the fraudulent design. '' The intention of the party making the conveyance gives it its character and whether or not the fraudulent intention existed is to be ascertained from the circumstances existing at- the time, and not from subsequent events having no actual con- nection with the transaction.^* The legality of a conveyance is determined at the rnoment of its execution, though the disposition of the proceeds of the salo may be material to show the legality or illegality of the intention of the parties." But a conveyance whidi when drawn was intended by the grantor to put his property out of the reach of his creditors will not be set aside as fraudu- lent if, at the time of its delivery and acceptance by the grantee, the sole object of both the parties to the instrument was that it should be held by the grantee as a security for a deibt due from the grantor to a third person." § 7. Purging conveyance of fraud by matter ex post facto. — It is a well settled principle that a conveyance in fraud of credi- tors, and voidable by a purdhaser, may be purged of the fraud and become good by matter ex post facto.*'^ Where there is ai 36. Brackett v. Waite, 4 Vt. 389. 41. U. S.^Stewart v. Dnnham, 37. Hempstead v. Johnston, 18 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163, 29 L. Ark. 123. Ed. 329, where a debtor in order to 38. Eay v. Simons, 76 Ind. 150. secure a creditor, assigned to a trus- 39. Owen v. Orvis, 26 N. J. L. 22. tee, meantime retaining the goods 40. Stewart v. Mannington Exch. for sale, which assignment was void Bank, 55 N. J. Eq. 795, 38 Atl. 952. for irregularities under the laws of The Effect of Feaudulent Conveyance. 81 conveyance fraudulent as to creditors, the parties may subse- quently rescind it, and if the illegal agreement be annulled or abrogated and the fraudulent purpose wholly abandoned, and another conveyance or contract be made in good faith and free from fraud, before the rights of creditors or purchasers have intervened and become fixed or they have takeui afty action to disaffirm it or to obtain any lien, or before liens have attached upon the property, or in the case of a conveyance which is fraudu- lent because it is voluntary and without consideration, if a con- sideration is afterwards paid, this may purge the fraud and give validity to the transaction.*^ But where a conveyance expressly the state where made, a subsequent deed by him, in whicli the trustee joins, in favor of the creditor, and a bill of sale of the property by him to tlie creditor, in the absence of fraud, were valid; Sumner v. Hicks, 2 Black, 532, 17 L. Ed. 355, if the debtor makes an assignment which is void, and afterwards, but before any creditor has acquired a lien, makes another which is free from objection, the latter assignment is valid. Miss. — Agricultural Bank v. Dor- sey, 1 Freem. Ch. 338, as if it be transferred in payment of a debt of the grantor, or, if a portion only of the property be conveyed and applied by the fraudulent grantee, the con- veyance .will be valid to that extent. N. ff.— Smyth v. Carlisle, 17 N. H. 417. 42. ar. Y.— ^Hurd v. New York, etc.. Steam Laundry Co., 52 App. Div. 467, 65 N. Y. Supp. 125, rev'g 29 Misc. 183, 6© N. Y. Supp. 813, where a corporation of which R. was president transferred a portion of its property to another corporation, re- ceiving stock in payment, the fact that the stock was issued to the wife of R. would not invalidate the previous sale, if that were valid, if 6 such act was done mistakenly, and subsequently corrected by a, recon- veyance by her to the corporation, and no one was prejudiced by the act; Hardt v. Deutsch, 30 App. Div. 589, 52 N. Y. Supp. 335, where a creditor holds a chattel mortgage upon the property of his debtor, which is voidable by other creditors on account of an illegal verbal agree- ment, but, before their rights have become fixed or they have taken any action to disaffirm it or obtain any lien the illegal agreement is an- nulled, and the debtor voluntarily transfers possession of the property to the mortgagee as security for the indebtedness, this latter transfer is not invalidated by the originally voidable character of the mortgage; Bowdish v. Page, 153 N. Y. 108, 47 N. E. 45; Wise v. Rider, 34 N. Y. Supp. 782. the fact that a mortgage on a stock of goods is void, as to other creditors ol the mortgagor, be- cause it authorizes the mortgagor to sell the property and use the pro- ceeds in his business, does not affect the right of the mortgagor to give another mortgage to secure the debt, free from such infirmity; Brooks v. Wilson, 53 Hun, 173, 6 N. Y. Supp. 82 Fbauddlknt Conveyances. an,d intentionally fraudulent has been made, no subsequent act of the grantor nor subsequent payment or advance by the grantee ■will purge it of fraud and give validity to the transaction. If any part of the original purpose is fraudulent, the whole may be avoided, though made upon sufficient consideration. In like man- ner, if any f)art of the fraudulent purpose remain, it vitiates the whole. ^' No rights can be lost or acquired by a fraudulent trans- 116, where the grantee in a convey- ance made to defraud the grantor's creditors, at the request of the grantor, mortgages the property con- veyed to secure a debt owing by the grantor to the mortgagee, the latter has the same rights as if the mort- gage had been made before the fraud- ulent conveyance. Ala. — Borland v. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104. Ind. — ^Langsdale v. Woollen, 99 Ind. 575, a conveyance originally made on a secret trust in fraud of creditors may become valid by so modifying the terms of the trust as to give to creditors their rights in the proceeds of the sale to be made by the trustee. Dukeylus Syndics, La. — Eoussel v, 4 Mart. 240. Me. — ^Matthews 265. Mass. — ^Lynde v. Buck, 43 Me. V. McGregor, 95 Mass. 182, 90 Am. Dec. 188; Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 3 Mete. 332, 37 Am. Dec. 140; Boyd v. Brown, 34 Mass. 453; Richard's v. Allen, 25 Mass. 405, an absolute conveyance in- tended as security for future ad- vances, if it could be avoided by creditors, is rendered valid by a bond, given after the advances have been made, to recover upon the pay- ment of the money so advanced. N. C— White v. White, 35 N. C. 265; King v. Cantrcl, 26 N. C. 251. The f randnlenoy of a convey- ance of attached real property from a, judgment debtor to his wife pending an attachment suit does not aifeet the validity of his title derived under a purchase at an execution sale in pursuance of the attachment and a subsequent foreclosure sale under a mortgage executed by her. Dimock v. Eidgway, 169 Mass. 526, 48 K. E. 338. Delivery of possession after sale or mortgage!, see chap. XII, §§ 3, 27, infra. 43. N. r.— Bailey v. Burton, 8 Wend. 339. /«}.— Head v. Harding, 166 III. 353, 46 N. E. 890. Ky. — Poague v. Boyce, 6 J. J. Marsh. 70. Md. — Moore v. Blondheim, 19 Md. 172. Mass. — Lynde v. McGregor, 95 Mass. 182, 90 Am. Dee. 188. Mo.— Gentry v. Field, 143 Mo. '399, 45 S. W. 286; Martin v. Rice, 24 Mo. 581; Lawrence V. Barker, 82 Mo. App. 125, where no abandonment of a previous mortgage was shown, so as to purge the transaction from fraud and entitle plaintiff to the rights of a hona fide purchaser under a bill of sale executed on the same day the property was- attached by the mortgagor's creditors. Pa. — Bunn v. Ahl, 29 Pa. St. 387. 72 Am. Dec. 639. Thk Effect of Fraudulent Conveyance. 83 fer of property whicli is retransferred before the fraudulent pur- pose is effected, so tihat the conditions existing prior to such transfer are restored/* "Wihere property is fraudulently con- veyed by a debtor to avoid attachment, and is subsequently trans- ferred by the holder to a creditor of such debtor, and at his re- quest, such, creditor will hold the property by a good title.*^ Where the object of a grantor in making a conveyance is to hinder or delay his creditors, the instrument is not purged of the fraud because he also had some other purpose in view in making it.*° § 8. Conveyance validated by assent or affirmance by credi- tors. — A conveyance which is fraudulent as to creditors may be rendered valid by the subsequent assent thereto or affirmance thereof, express or implied, of the creditors entitled to avoid the same." Express assent may be by a formal authenticated act recognizing the title of the grantee.'^ The assent or affirmance of a creditor may be implied from his having dealt with the par- ties to the conveyance as if it were valid ;*' or from his accepting a benefit under it, with full knowledge of all the vitiating cir- 8. G. — ^McSween v. McCown, 23 S. where a fraudulent sale was revoked C. 342. by consent. A subsequent purchase of Me. — ^Matthews v. Buck, 43 Me. the land at an execution sale by 265, contract rescinded before the th« fraudulent purchaser at a trus- rights of creditors or purchasers in- tee's sale does not validate his title, tervened. as against a bona fide judgment cred- N. J. — Wheeler v. Kirkland, 23 N. itor of the grantor. Woodard v. J. Eq. 13, where voluntary gifts, were Mastin, 106 Mo. 324, 17 S. W. returned. 308. Tenn. — Stanton v. Shaw, 3 Baxt. 44. N. T. — Cramer v. Blood, 48 N. 12, land reconveyed by third party. Y. 684, aff'g 57 Barb. 155, 671, prop- 45. Boyd v. Brown, 34 Mass. 453. erty conveyed, returned or paid out 46. Hansen v. Deanison, 7 111. before recovery of judgment. App. 73; Reed v. Noxon, 48 111. 323. Ind. — Second Nat. Bank v. Brady, 47. Hatchett v. Blanton, 72 Ala. 96 Ind. 498, reconveyance pursuant 423; Zuver v. Clark, 104 Pa. St. 222; to agreement. Geisse v. Beall, 3 Wis. 367. lovia. — ^Davidson v. Dwyer, 62 48. Theriot v. Michel, 12 La. Ann. Iowa, 332, 17 N. W. 575. 107. Kan. — ^McCord, etc., Mercantile Co. 49. Eenniek v. Bank of Chilli- V. Burson, 38 Kan. 278, 16 Pae. 664, cothe, 8 Ohio, 530. 84 Feattdtjlent Conveyances. cumstancesj^ or from the receipt by Mm of the purchase money or a part thereof from the grantor or the grantee;" or from the receipt by him of the proceeds from the sale of the property or a dividend under an assignment or deed of trust ;°^ or from his proceeding against the grantee for the purchase price.'* The re- ceiver of the judgment debtor who has elected to take a personal judgment against one to whom the debtor had assigned property cannot have the assignments set aside on the ground that tiiey were fraudulent as to creditors.'* § 9. Prejudice to rights of creditors — ^In order that a con- veyance, transfer, or transaction may be attacked as being fraudu- lent and void as against creditors, prejudice to the rights of 50. Gutzwiller v. I^aekman, 23 Mo. 168. 51. Ala. — Butler v. O'Brien, 5 Ala. 316, note given for purchase of goods received by creditor from grantor. Ark. — Bowden v. Spellman, 59 Ark. 251, 27 S. W. 602, promissory notes given by the purchaser and as- signed by the debtor to the creditor; Millington v. Hill, 47 Ark. 301, 1 S. W. 547, creditor elected to take from the grantee the agreed price. 7ot(Z.— Kitts V. Willson, 140 Ind. 604, 39 N. E. 313, judgment paid by grantee. Towa. — Heaton v. Ainley (1898), 74 N. W. 766, title of fraudulent grantee cannot be attacked by a creditor who has taken a mortgage from him. Minn. — Lemay v. Bibeau, 2 Minn. 291, judgment creditor received, on account of his judgment, a portion of the purchase price of certain lands conveyed. Term. — Cunningham v. Campbell, 3 Tenn. Ch. 708. Tem. — Larkin v. Wilsford (Civ. App.), 29 S. W. 540. Wis. — Shawano County Bank v. Koeppen, 78 Wis. 533, 47 N. W. 723, where creditor's claim was secured in part by a mortgage on the prop- erty. Can. — Wood v. B«esor, 22 Ont. App. 57. 52. FJa. — Simon v. Levy, 36 Fla. 438, 18 So. 777, where creditor went into partnership with the fraudulent vendee, to carry on business with the goods transferred; Fumess v. Ewing, 2 Pa. St. 479. 53. Sickman v. Abemathy, 14 Colo. 174, 23 Pac. 447, where cred- itors proceeded against the pur- chasers for the moneys due upon notes taken in payment. 54. Fitts V. Beardsley, 8 N. Y. Supp. 567. See also Estoppel — Knowledge, assent or aflSrmanee, chap. V, §§ 18, 19, infra; Receipt of benefit under conveyance, chap. V, § 21, infra; Right of grantee to pay credi- tor and retain property, chap. XIV, § 32, infra; Election of remedies, chap. XV, i 30, infra. The Effect of Ekaubulent Cohveyas'ce. 85 creditors must result therefrom, even where there is an actual fraudulent intent.^' A mere intent to defraud not resulting in injury will not render a conveyance fraudulent; there must be something done in pursuance of the intention which operates prejudicially on the rights of creditors.^' If one of two joint judgment debtors conveys property to the other, such conveyance is not prejudicial to the rights of the judgment creditor, and cannot be made the basis of a creditors' bill to set aside the con- veyance as fraudulent." A conveyance made with intent to de^ fraud creditors is not fraudulent if there were no creditors; and it is for the law to determine whether there were creditors or 55. N. T. — Shand v. Hanley, 71 N. Y. 319. Ala. — Danner Land, etc., Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 77 Ala. 184; Pickett V. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 520. Comi. — ^Barney v. Cutler, 1 Root, 489. Ga. — Rutherford v. Chapman, 59 Ga. 177; Brown v. Splvey, 53 Ga. 155. rH.— Phillips V. North, 77 111. 243. Iowa. — Hook V. Mowre, 17 Iowa, 195. Ky. —K&nhy v. Logan, 62 Ky. 242 ; Shiveley v. Jones, 45 Ky. 274. La. — Willis v. Scott, 33 La. Ann. 1026; Payne v. Kemp, 33 La. Ann. 818; Levi v. Morgan, 33 La. Ann. 532; Meche v. I^ilamie, 30 La. Ann. 1136; Gillis V. Dansby, 26 La. Ann. 711; Lafleur v. Hardy, 11 Robi 493; Lott V. Gray, 6 Rob. 152; Hubbard V. Hobson, 14 La. 453; Kenney v. Dow, 10 Mart. 577, 13 Am. Dec. 342. Me. — Crooker v. Holmes, 65 Me. 195, 20 Am. Rep. 687. Mich. — ^Bodine v. Simmons, 38 Mich. 682. Miss. — Simmons v. Ingram, 60 Miss. 886; Henderson v. Thornton, 37 Miss. 448, 75 Am. Dec. 70; Winn V. Bamett, 31 Miss. 653; Everett v. Winn, 1 Sm. & M. Ch. 67. N. ff.— Blake v. Williams, 36 N. H. 39; Bean v. Braekett, 34 N. H. 102. Pa. — Appeal of Haak, 100 Pa. St. 59; Miner v. Warner, 2 Grant, 448; Boyle V. Thomas, 1 Chest. Co. Rep. 117. 8. C— Kid V. Mitchell, 1 Nott. & M. 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702; King v. Clarke, 2 Hill Eq. 611. S. D. — Gardner v. Haines (1905), 104 N". W. 244. Tea:. — Kerr v. Hutching, 46 Tex. 384, 30 Tex. 452. W. Fo.— Zell Guano Co. v. Heath- erly, 45 W. Va. 311, 31 S. E. 932. Wis. — Ingram v. Rankin, 47 Wis. 406, 2 N. W. 755, 32 Am. Rep. 762. See also Tests as to fraudulent con- veyance, chap. I, § 3, supra. Persons who may attack conveyance, chap. V, infra. 56. Rice v. Ferry, 61 Me. 145; Bancroft v. Blizzard, 13 Ohio, 30. See also cases cited in the last pre- ceding note. See also Accomplish- ment of purpose, chap. XIII, § 3, infra. 57. McPhee v. O'Rourke, 10 Colo. 301, 15 Pac. 420, 3 Am. St. Rep. 579. 86 Eeaudulent Conveyances. not.^ The transfer by a debtor of exempt property or property of little or no value, not being prejudicial to the rights of credi- tors, cannot be set aside as fraudulent and the property sub- jected by creditors.^' § 10. Conflict of laws; what law governs The general rule is that the validity of a conveyance or transfer of real property by a debtor, as by any other person, is governed by and to he determined in accordance with the law of the state or place where such real property is situated."" The general rule as to a trans- fer of personal property by a debtor wheresoever situated, is that the validity thereof is goveraed by and to be determined in ac- cordance with the law of the debtor's domicile, or of the place where the transfer is made; but this rule always yields when the law and policy of the state where the property is actually located have provided a different rule of transfer from that of the state where the debtor lives, or of the place where the transfer is made." Judicial comity does not require the courts of one state 58. Day v. Lown, 51 Iowa, 364, 1 Dry Goods Co., 4 Okla. 145, 43 Pac. N. W. 786. 1148. 59. See Exempt Property, chap. IV, 61. N. F.— Keller v. Paine, 107 N. § 41, infra; Property of little or no Y. 83, 13 N. E. 635; Warner v. Jaf- value, chap. IV, § 4, mfra. fray, 96 N. Y. 248, 48 Am. Kep. 616; 60. U. S. — Spindle v. Shreve, 111 Ockerman v. Cross, 54 N. Y. 29. U. S. 542, 4 Sup. Ct. 522, 28 L. Ed. U. S.— Greene v. Van Buskirk, 5 512; Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, Wall. 307, 18 L. Ed. 599, 7 Wall. 23 L. Ed. 254; Niehol v. Levy, 5 Wall. 139, 19 L. Ed. 109. 433, 18 L. Ed. 596. Ala. — Hardaway v. Semmes, 38 Ala. — Danner v. Brewer, 69 Ala. Ala. 657; Inge v. Murphy, 10 Ala. 191. . 885. D. c. — ^Keane v. Chamberlain, 14 Cal. — Forbes v. Scannell, 13 Cal. App. Cas. 84. 242. ^an. — ^Watson v. Holden, 58 Kan. Conn. — ^Ward v. Connecticut Pipe 657, 50 Pac. 883. Mfg. Co., 71 Conn. 345, 41 Atl. 1057, Xi/.— Brown v. Early; 2 Duv. 369. 71 Am. St. Rep. 207, 72 L. R. A. 706; Mass. — Chipman v. Peabody, 159 Ballard v. Winter, 39 Conn. 179; Mass. 420, 34 N. E. 563, 38 Am. St. Koster v. Merritt, 32 Conn. 246. Rep. 437. '^'"'- — Ames Iron Works v. Warren, Ohio. — ^Brannon v. Brannon, 2 76 Ind. 512, 40 Am. Rep. 258. Disn. 224. ^""- — ^Mackey v. Pettijohn, 6 Kan. OfcJa.— Williams v. Kemper, etc., App. 57, 49 Pac. 636. The Effect of Feaudulewt Conveyance. 87 to enforce a transfer of personal property, which, even, if valid under the lex domicilii, conflicts with the policy of that state relating to property within its borders, or impairs the rights or remedies of domestic creditors.'^ A transfer in one state, al- though valid there, which would be void as to creditors if tnade in another state, does not confer title to personal property situated in the latter state, that is good as against a resident of that state .armed "with legal process to collect a debt.^* To this ex- tent, in nearly all jurisdictions, the rule of comity yields to the policy of the state with refefTence to the collection of debts due its own citizens, out of property within its boundaries and pro- Ky. — ^Levy v. Kentucky Distilling Co., 9 Ky. L. Rep. 103. La. — Oliver v. Townes, 2 Mart. N. S. 93. Md. — Pleasanton v. Johnson, 91 Md. 673, 47 Atl. 1025; Moore v. Land, etc., Co., 82 Md. 288, 33 Atl. 641; Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Glenn, 28 Md. 287, 92 Am. Dec. 288. Moss. — Frank v. Bobbitt, 155 Mass. 112, 29 N. E. 209; Hallgarten v. Old- ham, 135 Mass. 1, 46 Am. Rep. 433. Minn. — In re Kahn, 55 Minn. 509, 57 N. W. 154; In re Dalpay, 41 Minn. 532, 43 N. VV. 564, 16 Am. St. Rep. 729, 6 L. R. A. 108; Lewis v. Bush, 30 Minn. 244, 15 N. W. 113. Mo. — ^National Bank of Commerce V. Morris, 21 S. W. 511, 19 L. R. A. 463. N. H.— Sessions v. Little, 9 N. H. 271. N. J. — Frazier v. Fredericks, 24 N. J. L. 162. if. C. — Drewry v. Phillips,. 44 N. C. 81. . Okla. — Williams v. Kemper, etc.. Dry Goods Co., 4 Okla. 145, 43 Pac. 1148. Pa. — ^Townsend v. Maynard, 45 Pa. St. 198. Term. — Lally v. Holland, 1 Swan,, 399; Flickey v. Loney, 4 Baxt. 169. Tea!.— Fowler v. Bell, 90 Tex. 150, 37 S. W. 1058, 59 Am. St. Rep. 788, 39 L. R. A. 254. A transfer of personal property which is invalid by the law of the place where it was made and where the property was situated will not be declared valid in another State. Watt- son V. Campbell, 38 N. Y. 153 ; Pyatt V. Powell, 51 Fed. 551, 2 C C. A. 367; Arkansas City Bank v. Cassidy, 71 Mo. App. 186. 62. Dearing v. McKinnon Dash, etc., Co., 165 N. Y. 78, 87, 58 N. E. 773, 80 Am. St. Rep. 708, aff'ff 33 App. Div. (N. Y.) 31, 53 N. Y. Supp. 513; Keller v. Paine, 107 N. Y. 83, 89, 13 N. E. 635; Warner v. Jaffray, 96 N. Y. 248, 255, 48 Am. Rep. 616. But see Smith v. Jones, 63 Ark. 232, 37 S. W. 1052, the rule that a for- eign assignment will not be upheld as against domestic creditors does not apply to an absolute and iona fide sale. 63. Dearing v. McKinnon Dash, etc., Co., supra; Guillander v. Howell, 35 N. Y. 657. 88 Feaudulent Conveyances. tected by its law/* If, however, a transfer of personal property is valid in the state where it is made, it will be held valid by the courts of another state, as against non-resident creditors, although the law and policy of that state prescribe otherwise.*^ A trans- fer of personal property by a debtor which is legal under the laws of the state where the transfer is actually made and the property is situated passes the title, and the laws of another state, which is the domicile of the debtor, making such a trans- fer void, cannot divest the title thus legally acquired.** Where a mortgage of personal property made by a corporation organized in one state is made in another state there to be performed and the goods covered thereby are in the latter state, it is not subject to a statute of the former state, forbidding mortgages by cor- porations so organized, but its validity is determined by the law of the latter state." Whether a wife acquired ownership of her earnings so as to make them a valid consideration for a conveyance to her from her husband must be determined by the law of the state where they resided when the earnings were made.** Where an insolvent husband removes with his wife from one state to another and after removal makes a conveyance in trust for her, in consideration of property belonging tO' her which he has used, in determining his liability to her, as against his creditors, the law of each state should govern as ta that portion of her property there received and used by him." 64. Bearing v. McKinnon Dash, Williams v. Kemper, etc., Dry Goods- etc., Co., supra; Greene v. Van Bus- Co., 4 Okla. 145, 43 Pac. 1148. kirk, 72 U. S. 307, 312, 18 L. Ed. 599, 66. Mead v. Dayton, 28 Conn. 33; 74 U. S. 139, 150, 19 L. Ed. 109; Hal)- Tn re Queensland Mercantile, etc.,. garten v. Oldham, 135 Mass. 1, 7. 46 Co. (1891), 1 Ch. 536. Am. Rep. 433. 67. Boehme v. Rail, 51 N. J. Eq. 65. Barnett v. Kinney, 147 U. S. 541, 26 Atl. 832. 476, 13 Sup. Ct. 403, 37 L. Ed. 247; 68. Hinman v. Parkis, 33 Conn. Rhode Island Cent. Bank v. Danforth, 188. 14 Gray (Mass.), 123; State Bank v. 69. Gilkey t. Pollock, 82 Ala. 608.. First Nat. Bank, 34 N. J. Eq. 460; Pbopeett, etc., which Oeeditoes mat Seach. CHAPTER IV. Peopbety and Rights Teansfeeeed Which Cbeditoes May Reach. Section 1. Property subject to claims of creditors in general. 2. Estates which may be reached. 3. Personal property. 4. Property or rights without pecuniary value. 5. Interest of debtor in property conveyed. 6. Conveyance of property in another county. 7. Rights or choses in action. 8. Earnings or wages of debtor. 9. Earnings, services and savings of wife. 10. Earnings or wages of debtor's minor child. 11. Earnings or wages of public officers or their deputies. 12. Services, labor, talents and industry of debtor. 13. Services rendered by husband for wife. 14. Services rendered by parent for child. 15. Earnings of debtor's property. 16. Good-will of a business. 17. Membership in stock or merchants' exchange. 18. Patents, copyrights and trade-marks. 19. Fire insurance. 20. Life insurance policies and proceeds thereof. 21. Payment of premiums for life insurance. 22. Payment of premiums not voluntary or fraudulent. 23. Premiums not paid by debtor. 24. Improvements, rents and profits of real estate. 25. Crops, ores and other products of the land. 26. Equitable estates, rights and interests. 27. Equity of redemption. 28. Interest under contract of purchase. 29. Property purchased in name of third person. 30. Reservations by debtor. 31. Property conveyed by debtor to equitable owner. 32. Conveyance in pursuance of parol trust. 33. Conveyance by husband to or for wife. 34. Reconveyance by fraudulent grantee. 35. Property subject to power of appointment. 36. Separate estate or property of debtor's wife. 37. Husband's curtesy or other interest in wife's property. 38. Wife's dower or other interest in husband's property. 39. Community property. 90 Feattdulent Conveyances. Section 40. Property of adopted child. 41. Exempt property in general. 42. Homestead in general. 43. Homestead included in conveyance of other property. 44. Crops grown on homestead. 45. Purchase of homestead and payment of liens. 46. Improvements on homestead. 47. Insurance on homestead. 48. Change in character of property and following proceeds. 49. Stock in trade sold in bulk. Section 1. Property subject to claims of creditors in general. — It is tihe general policy of the law that creditors shall have the right to resort to all the property of the debtor not protected by statute.^ At common la.w all of a debtor's property, except nec- essary wearing apparel, might be taken to pay the claims of creditors. So might all rights of action arising from contract, and also judgments recovered for the wrongs of others.^ A judgment creditor with the aid of equity may reach any property or intex'est of his debtor, not eixempt from execution, which, with such aid, the debtor might himself reach.' But to authorize the setting aside of a conveyance as fraudulent as against creditors, it must transfer property of some value out of which the creditor could have realized his claim, or some portion of it, and the transfer must have been made with intent to defraud.* A trans- 1. Sehenek v. Barnes, 156 N: Y. 316, ■ N. J. — ^Haven v. Bliss, 26 N. J. Eq. 41 L. R. A. 395, 50 N. E. 967; Wil- 363; Stratton v. Dialogue, 16 N. J. liams V. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270; Graff Eq. 70. V. Bonnett, 31 N. Y. 9, 88 Am. Dec. 4. N. F.— Hoyt v. Godfrey, 88 N. 236; Catchings v. Manlove, 39 Miss; Y. 669; Mapes v. Snyder, 59 N. Y. 655. 450; Guy v. Craighead, 21 App. Div. 2. Stevenson v. Stevenson, 34 Hun 460, 47 N. Y. Supp. 576; Spaulding (N. Y.) 157. V. Keyes, I Silv. Sup. 203, 5 N. Y. 3. AJo.— Sims v. Gaines, 64 Ala. Supp. 227, aff'd 125 N. Y. 115, 26 N. 392. E. 15. Ark.— Harris v. King, 16 Ark. 122. U. S.— Stewart v. Piatt, 101 U. S. ifia.— Robinson v. Springfield Co., 731, 25 L. Ed. 816. 21 Fla. 203. Ala. — Dearman v. Dearraan, 5 Ala. JVe6.— Weeker-ly v. Taylor (1905), 202. 103 N. W. 1065 ; Millard v. Parsell, Conn. — Barbour v. Connecticut 57 Neb. 178, 77 N. W. 390. Mut. L. Ins. Co., 61 Conn. 240, 23 yev. — White v. Seldon, 4 Nev. 280. Atl. 154. Peopeety, etc., which Ceeditoes may Reach. 91 fer by a debtor is not fraudulent as to his creditors which does not withdraw from the creditors any propei'ty which was subject to their claims.^ A conveyance or transfer of property by a debtor cannot be fraudulent as against creditors, where they have no right, either at law or in equity, to subject the property to the payment of their claims.' The transfer by a debtor, witli- out consideration, of an equitable interest in property not sub- ject to be levied on at law, to hinder and delay his creditors, is not void as to his judgment creditors.' A debt, payment of no part of which can be enforced by reason of the insolvency of the debtor, does not constitute property, within the purview of tlie statute, the transfer of which is fraudulent as to creditors.' Future earnings of minor children are not assets of the father's estate to which creditors have any right to look, so as to prevent their reJinquishmeiit by the father, though insolvent, to the children, if he so wills.' If a conveyance of land be set aside as fraudulent the products of the land may also be reached by Ga. — Rutherford v. Chapman, 59 Ga. 177. JTi/.— Steeley v. Steeley, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 966, 64 S. W. 642. La. — Baldwin v. McDonald, 48 La. Ann. 1460, 21 So. 48; Succession of Coyle, 32 La. Ann. 79. Me. — Pulsifer v. Waterman, 73 Me. 233; Hall v. Sands, 52 Me. 355; Hubbard v. Reraiek, 10 Me. 140 ; Wil- son V. Ayer, 7 Me. 207. Minn. — ^Aultman & Co. v. Pikop, 56 Minn. 531, 58 N. W. 551; Blake v. Boisjoli, 51 Minn. 296, 53 N. W. 637. Mo. — Trabue v. Henderson, 180 Mo. 616, 79 S. W. 451; Ault v. EUer, 38 Mo. App. 598. Or. — Besser v. Joioe, 9 Or. 310. S. C. — Durham Fertilizer Co. v. Hemphill, 45 S. C. 621, 24 S. E. 85; Davidson v. Graves, Riley Eq. 232. tenn.— Read v. Mosby, 87 Tenn. 759 11 S. W. 940, 5 L. R. A. 122; Wagner v. Smith, 81 Tenn. 560; Les- lie v. Joyner, 39 Tenn. 514. Tex. — ^Monday v. Vance, 11 Tex. Civ. App. 374, 32 S. W. 559. Can. — ^Lodor v. Creighton, 9 U. C. C. P. 295; Blakely v. Gould, 24 Ont. App. 153; Mathevrs v. Feaver, 1 Cox Ch. 278, 1 Rev. Rep. 39, 29 Eng. Reprint, 1165, copyholds not being naturally subject to debts, are not the subject of a conveyance fraudulent as against creditors. 5. Adkins v. Bynum, 109 Ala. 281, 19 So. 400. 6. Stam y. Smith, 183 Mo. 464, 81 S. W. 1217. See also cases in note 4. 7. Planters' Bank v. Henderson, 23 Tenn. 75. 8. Hoyt V. Godfrey, 88 N. Y. 669; Shultz V. Hoagland, 85 N. Y. 464. 9. Merrill v. Hussey, 101 Me. 439, 64 Atl. 819. 92 FkATJDULEBTT CoNVEYAJSfCES. creditors/" but improvements made pending the aetioui will not be allowed." A fraudulent transfer does' not in any sense en- large the rights of creditors, but leaves them to enforce such rights as if no conveyance had been made." § 2. Estates which may be reached. — Land conveyed to hus- band and wife jointly and partly paid for by the husband's means, or the husband's portion of an estate by the entirety, may be reached by his creditors to the extent of such payment, al- though there was no actual fraudulent intent." A lease of lands owned by a debtor," a contingent reversionary interest,^* and an estate in expectancy,^* are within the statute against fraudulent conveyances. Property taken by a debtor in the name of trus- tees for the debtor's family," or in the name of the husband and wife," is also within the statute. But the statute does not apply to the case of a tenant in tail opening his estate and re- 10. State V. McBride, 105 Mo. 265, 15 S. W. 72. See chap. IV, § 25, infra, 11. Grandin v. First Nat. Bank (Neb. 1904), 98 N. W. 70. See Com- pensation for improvements, chap. XIV, § 43, infra. 12. V. 8.— Coil v. Wilder, 6. Fed. Cas. No. 3,308, 2 Dill. 45 ; McFarland V. Goodman, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,789, 6 Biss. 111. Ky. — Knevan v. Specker, 74 Ky. 1. Miss. — Dulion v. Harkness, 80 Miss. 8, 31 So. 416, 92 Am. St. Rep. 563. Mo. — ^Vogler v. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577. y. G. — Crummen v. Bennet, 68 N. C. 494. Ohio. — Sears v. Hcnks, 14 Ohio St. 298, 84 Am. Dec. 378. 13. Newlove v. Callaghan, 86 Mich. 297, 48 N. W. 1096, 24 Am. St. Rep. 123. 14. Daugherty v. Bogy, 3 Ind. T. 197, 53 S. W. 542; Christy v. Courte- nay, 26 Beav. 140, 53 Eng. Reprint, 850; Shears v. Rogers, 3 B. & Ad. 362, 1 L. J. K. B. 89, 23 E. C. L. 164. 15. Neale v. Day, 4 Jur. N. S. 1225, 28 L. J. Ch. 45, 7 Wkly. Rep. 45; French v. French, 6 DeG. M. & G. 95, 2 Jur. N. S. 169, 25 L. J. Ch. 612, 4 Wkly. Rep. 139, 55 Eng. Ch. 74, 43 Eng. Reprint 1166. 16. Read v. Mosby, 87 Tenn. 759, 11 S. W. 940, 5 L. R. A. 122, a volun- tary transfer by a, debtor of his ex- pectancy in his living father's estate will not be upheld in equity as against creditors who were such either at the time of the conveyance or at the date of the father's death. 17. Barton v. Vanheythuysen, 11 Hare, 126, 18 Jur. 344, 1 Wkly. Rep. 429, 45 Eng. Ch. 127. 18. Glaister v. Hewer, 8 Ves. Jr. 195, 32 Eng. Reprint, 329. 9 Ves. Jr. 12, 32 Eng. Reprint, 504, 11 Ves. Jr.. 377, 32 Eng. Reprint. 1133. Peopeety, etc., which Cheditobs may Keach. 93 settling it on himself for life with remainder over." Where a deed conveying realty in fee and reserving a life estate is held fraudulent as to creditors, it cannot be upheld as to the reserva- tion of the life estate to the extent of requiring that the land be sold subject to the life interest as an incumbrance."* § 3. Personal property — The statute of 13 Elizabeth avoids voluntary conveyances of personal property, as well as land, as against creditors, but not as against subsequent purchasers; and the statute of 27 Elizabeth avoids voluntary conveyances of land only as against subsequent purchasers. The latter statute as well as the former has been often held to be declaratory or affirmative of the common law, although in its terms it applies only to land f' yet it has been held that it may be regarded as a settled principle that it extends only to conveyances of real estate.^ A voluntary conveyance of personal property is within the spirit of the statute of 27 Elizabeth and, therefore, void, as against subsequent purchasers, as well as void upon the principles of the common law.^* Most American statutes, which are based upon the English statutes mentioned,^^ in terms avoid all volun- tary transfers of real or personal property, and a creditor's suit will lie to reach personal property fraudulently transferred.^' The mere omission of the provision embracing " goods, chattels, and things in action " from a statute, declaring void conveyances made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, will not be con- strued as affecting the common law rule which renders a con- veyance of goods and chattels, made with such intent, fraudulent and void as to creditors." The provisions of the statutes of 13 19. Clements v. Eceles, 11 Ir. Bq. 23. Sewall v. Glidden, 1 Ala. 52. 229. 24. Harper v. Scott, 12 Ga. 125. 20. McNally v. White, 154 Ind. 25. See chap. I, §§ 8, 11. 163, 54 N. E. 794, 56 N. E. 214. 26. McCIosky v. Stewart, 63 How. 21. Garrison v. Brice, 48 N. C. 85, Pr. (N. Y.) 137; Blair v. Smith, 114 22. Footman v. Pondergrass, 3 Ind. 114, 15 N. E. 817, 5 Am. St. Rep. Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 33; Hudnal v. Wil- 593. der, 4 MeCord (S. C), 294, 17 Am. 27. Byrnes v. Volz, 53 Minn. 110, Dee. 744; Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 54 N. W. 942; Benton v. Snyder, 22 205; Gibson v. Love, 4 Fla. 217. Minn. 247; Hicks v. Stone, 13 Minn. 94 Fkaudulent Conveyances. and 27 Elizabeth relating to fraudulent transfers of property apply to transfers of personal property, notwithstanding the omission from such statutes, as revised, of the words " goods and chattels."^" .§1 4. Property or rights without pecuniary value Although a voluntary conveyance of property has been held to be void as to creditors, irrespective of the value of the property,^ as a rule the gift or voluntary transfer of property of trifling value or of no value at all will not be adjudged by the courts to be a dis- position of property with intent to defraud. It is a familiar rule that the thing disposed of must be of value, out of which the creditor could have realized all or a portion of his claim.'" 434 ; Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 326. 88. Avery v. Wilson, 47 S. C. 78, 25 S. E. 286. 29. Grarrison v. Monaghan, 33 Pa. St. 232, overruling Faaait v. Phillips, 4 Whart. (Pa.) 399; Rankin v. Gard- ner (N. J. Ch.), 34 Atl. 935, the conveyance of only a valueless equity in land held to be fraudulent. 30. N. r.— Hoyt V. Godfrey, 88 N. Y. 669, cancellation of worthless debt against an insolvent; Guy v. Craighead, 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 460, 47 N. Y. Supp. 576. Compare Fitts v. Beardsley, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 603, 8 N. Y. Supp. 576, aif'd 126 N. Y. 645, 27 N. E. 853, although a mortgage is claimed to have been valueless and not enforceable, when the mortgagee testified that he had advanced the full consideration and one to whom he had assigned it has foreclosed it, and its validity was not questioned in the foreclosure proceedings, its validity is sufficiently established to subject the proceeds of the foreclosure to the claims of the mortgagee's creditors on the ground that the assignment was fraudulent. Conn. — Barbour v. Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 61 Conn. 240, 23 Atl. 154, surrender of life insurance policies of no value as assets. lovm. — Foreman v. Citizens' State Bank, 128 Iowa, 661, 105 N. W. 163, transfer by a husband to his wife of a calf of trifling value; McCormick Harvester Hach. Co. v. Pouder, 123 Iowa, 17, 98 N. W. 303, husband per- mitting wife to be substituted in his place as one of the tenants under a lease having no pecuniary value at the time, although it afterwards be- came of value. Ky. — Steeley's Creditors v. Steeley, 23 Ky. h. Rep. 996, 64 S. W. 642, as- signment by a debtor to his wife of a life insurance policy that had no vendible value; Hanby v. Logan, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 242. La. — Baldwin v. McDonald, 48 La. Ann. 1460, 21 So. 48, transfer by an insolvent debtor of the parts of an incomplete patented machine, of prac- tically no value to any one but tlip Peopebty, etc., which Cbeditoes may Reach. 95 Tlie conveyance of an equity of redemption, practically valueless because of the property being incumbered to its full value or for more than it is worth, will not be set aside as fraudulent as against creditors, since in such a case the creditors are not injured.'* Actual intent to defraud should be clearly established from the value of the property transferred and the surrounding circumstances.'^ patentee, will not be set aside as fraudulent merely because an indebt- edness due the transferee is the con- sideration, if the transfer is not inju- rious to the creditors. Me. — French v. Holmes, 67 Me. 186, the gift of property of infinitesimal value or so trifling in value that it would not pay the expenses of a sale on execution, will not be disturbed as fraudulent. Mass. — ^Williams v. Robbins, 15 Gray (Mass.), 590. Minn. — Keith v. Albrecht, 89 Minn. 247, 99 Am. St. Eep. 566, 94 N. W. 677, transfer of equity in land the non-exempt part of which was at the time materially less in value than the vendor's lien; Baldwin v. Rogers, 28 Minn. 544, 11 N. W. 77. Pa. — ^In re Gross' Estate, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 113, 19 Phila. 80, gifts of articles of insignificant intrinsic value, by an insolvent husband to his wife, not at any one time by way of settlement, but at considerable intervals, are not applicable to the payment of the husband's debts. Wash. — ^Klosterman v. Vader, 6 Wash. 99, 32 Pac. 1050, assignment of lease of wild land of little value until improved, unless it is shown that the lease is of some value. W. fa. — Johnson v. Riley, 41 W. Va. 140, 23 S. E. 698, conveyance of property incumbered to its full value. 31. IS. r.— Stacy v. Deshaw, 7 Hun (N. Y.), 449. /nrf.--— Marmon v. White, 151 Ind. 445, 51 N. E. 930. Mass. — Williams v. Robbins, 15 Gray (Mass.), 590. Minn. — Keith v. Albrecht, 89 Minn. 247, 94 N. W. 677, 99 Am. St. Rep. 566; Aultman & Taylor Co. v. Dalen, 56 Minn. 531, 58 N. W. 551; Blake v. Boisjoli, 51 Minn. 296, 53 N. W. 637; Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 193, 41 N. W. 1031; Baldwin v. Rogers, 28 Minn. 544, 11 N. W. 77, though made with intent to put the land beyond their reach. Gom- pare Spooner v. Travelers' Ins. Co., 76 Minn. 311, 77 Am. St. Rep. 651, 79 N. W. 305, as to debtor's right when other remedy is available. Mo. — Mittelburgb v. Harrison, 90 Mo. 444, 3 S. W. 203, of'jr 11 Mo. App. 136, in the absence of proof of actual fraud. TT. yo.— Cox v. Horner, 43 W. Va. 786, 28 S. E. 780; Johnson v. Riley, 41 W. Va. 140, 23 S. E. 698, property incumbered to its full value may be conveyed by an insolvent in satisfac- tion of the incumbrances, since it is not a conveyance to the exclusion or prejudice of other creditors. ,32. Hoyt V. Godfrey, 88 N. Y. 669; Washington Cent. Nat. Bank v. Hume, 128 U. S. 195, 9 Sup. Ct. 41, 32 L. Ed. 370, as to premiums paid 96 Feaudulent Conveyances. § 5. Interest of debtor in property conveyed. — Statutes pro- viding that gifts, conveyances, etc., of any estate, with intent to delay, hinder, and defraud, shall be void as against creditors, have been held, as a rule, to refer to property owned by the debtor, and not to apply to property to which he had no title or interest, legal or equitable, which was liable to sale on execution, or which his creditors could reach and had a right to subject to the payment of their claims.^' Such statutes do not apply to by an insolvent for a moderate amount of insurance upon his life in favor of his wife; Hopkirk v. Ean- dolph, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,698, 2 Brock. (U. S.) 132; Emerson v. Bemis, 69 111. 537, reasonable gift or provision for wife or child; French V. Holme-s, 67 Me. 186; Partridge v. Gopp, Ambl. 590, 27 Eng. Reprint, 388, 1 Eden, 163, 28 Eng. Reprint, 647; Lush v. Wilkinson, 5 Ves. Jr. 384, 31 Eng. Reprint, 642. 33. N. T. — Jackson v. Hamj 15 Johns. (N. Y.) 261, where a lot was conveyed to the debtor, without con- sideration, for the purpose of qualify- ing him to vote, the grantor retain- ing possession, and was subsequently reeonveyed to the grantor while a suit was pending against the debtor for a tort. Ala. — Dearman v. Dearman, 5 Ala. 202, where a father joined with a son in the conveyance of property to another son, which property, before the conveyance was not liable for the debt of the father, the act of the father was not fraudulent as to creditors. Cal. — ^Moore v. Besse, 43 Cal. 511, where a judgment debtor sold land to which he had acquired a pre-emp- tion right, to defraud a judgment creditor, and the purchaser pre- empted the land and obtained a patent therefor, such creditor cannot attack the patent for fraud, or the title held by the purchaser, since at the time of the conveyance the debtor had only a personal privilege to take the necessary steps to procure title and had no interest in the land which was liable to sale on execu- tion. Conn. — Jarvis v. Prentice, 19 Conn. 272, conveyance of property held in trust. Ind. — Bremmerman v. Jennings, 101 Ind. 253, to a complaint to set aside an alleged fraudulent deed, an answer stating that the deed was drawn up in the debtor's name as grantee, that it was never delivered, that the grantor intended to give the land to his daughter, the debtor's wife, and that at his- request he made another deed coonveying the land to her, was held good, if for no other reason than that the deed was never delivered to the husband, and hence he never had any title to the prop- erty which his creditors could reach. Ky. — Louisville City Nat. Bank v. Woolridge, 116 Ky. 641, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 869, 76 S. W. 542, it is no fraud as to his creditors for a hus- band to consent to a wife's testa- mentary disposition of her person- alty. Md.— Mishler v. Finch, 104 Md. 183, 64 Atl. 945, conveyance of prop- erty by a debtor and his wife, con- Peopeety, etc., which Ceeditoks may Eeaoh. 97 conveyances of trust property by the trustee to the beneficiaries or to conveyances by one having the bare legal title to one al- ready having the beneficial title or interest in the property." A conveyance in fraud of creditors, or a voluntary conveyance, if made to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, of lands to veying property conveyed by the deb- tor to the wife prior to the incurring of his indebtedness. ilficfe.— Petit V. Hubbell, 105 Mich. 405, 63 N. W. 407, a levy and execu- tion sale may be declared voiid as a cloud upon the title of the true owner, who at the time of the levy liad been promised a conveyance by the debtor, who "had without author- ity, while acting as agent, taken the title in his own name; Columbia Bank v. Jacobs, 10 Mich. '349, 81 Am. Dec. 792, a transfer of a mortgagee's interest in land is not fraudulent as to creditors. Miss. — Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foster, 64 Miss. 288, 1 So. 238, where all the debtor conveyed was the legal title, wnich could not be subjected to the debts of a firm to which he be- longed, while the equitable title was in his wife. Mo. — Stam v. Smith, 180 Mo. 464, 81 S. W. 1217. But see St. Francis Mill Co. v. Sugg, 169 Mo. 130, 69 S. W. 359, where in an action by judg- ment creditors to set aside a fraudu- lent conveyance by their debtor, they alleged that the land belonged to him at the time, and defendant also asserted that title was in him, and claimed title under such deed, and the court found all the issues in favor of the plaintiff, it was error to dismiss the bill on the ground that he had no title. N. J. — ^Wisner v. Osborne, 64 N. J. Eq. 614, 55 Atl. 51, -where an in- 7 solvent permitted hi? infant son to contract for wages to be paid to the son, and stock of a corporation was bought with the wages and stood In the son's name, it was not subject to the claims of the father's creditors. A'. C. — Runyon v. Leary, 20 N. C. 373, where the vendor and purchaser contracted for a life estate in cer- tain slaves at a fair price for such interest, with the supposition that the vendor was entitled to no greater interest, and the vendor conveyed all his right, title and interest therein, and it subsequently appeared that the vendor was entitled to an abso- lute interest in them, worth ten times the value of the life estate, the conveyance was not fraudulent as to creditors. W. Vo,— Prim v. Mcintosh, 43 W. Va. 790, 28 S. E. 742, a vendor of land, who knows that the purchase price is to be paid from the separate estate of the purchaser's wife, al- though the legal title is taken by the husband, cannot thereafter attack as fraudulent a conveyance made by the husband to the wife, in an attempt to subject the land to the payment of a debt owed him .by the husband for the purchase of a mule, of which debt, the wife had no notice. ,34. Smith v. Ellison, 80 Ark. 447, 97 S. W. 666; McCormiek Harvesting Mach. Co. v. Perkins (Iowa, 1906), 110 N. W. 156. See Conveyance of property by debtor to equitable owner, chap. 4, § 31, infra. 98 Featoulent Conveyances, •which, at the time of its execution, the grantor had not such an interest as could be subjected by his creditors, either in law or equity, to the payment of his debts, but to which he after- wards acquired title, is void aa to creditors and subsequent bona fide purchasers. A voluntary fraudulent estoppel is impotent to defeat the just claims of creditors and bona fide purchasers.'^ § 6. Conveyance in another county. — A judgment rendered. is not a lien on lands of the judgment debtor situated in another county, where a transcript of the judgment has not been filed in the county where the land is situated; and it does not con- stitute a fraud upon the judgment plaintiff for the judgment defendant to convey such land to a third person after the ren- dition of judgment.'* § 7. Rights or choses in action. — It is held by the courts in many jurisdictions that, in the absence of a statute, the debts,, choses in action, and equitable rights of the debtor may be reached in equity when fraudulently transferred, although not subject to execution and sale at common law.'^ In other juris- 35. Stokes v. Jones, 21 Ala. 731, hattan L. Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 769, pro- 80 held as to a conveyance with cove- eeeds of assigned policies and prem- Hants of warranty; Flynn v. Wil- iums and interest paid by an insolv- liams, 20 N. C. 32. ent on policies payable to his wife 36. Baker v. Chandler, 51 Ind. 85, can be reached. where no fraud in fact was alleged. Oa. — Stenson v. Williams, 35 Ga. i37. N. T. — Hadden v. Spader, 20 170, if a judgment creditor has pur- Johns. (N. Y.) 554; Bayard v. Hoff- sued his legal remedies to every man, 4 Johns. 'Ch. (N. Y.) 450; available extent without success. McDe^m^ltt v. Strong, 4 Johns. ZZZ.— Hitt v. Ormsbee, 14 111. 233. Ch. (N. Y.) 687; Greenwood Me.— Sargent v. Salmond, 27 Me. V. Brodhead, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 539. 593; Edmeston v. Lyde, 1 Paige Mass. — Drake v. Rice, 130 Mass. (N. Y.) 637, 19 Am. Dec. 454. See 410; Anthracite Ins. Co. v. Sears,, also First Nat. Bank v. Shuler, 153 109 Mass. 383. N. Y. 163, 60 Am. St. Rep. 601, 47 Micft.— Ionia County Sav. Bank v. K. E. 262; Knower v. Central Nat. McLean, 84 Mich. 625, 48 N. W. 159, Bank, 124 N. Y. 552, 21 Am. St. Rep. a policy taken out for the benefit of 700, 27 N. E. 247. the estate of the assured', and not for U. 8. — ^Aetna Nat. Bank v. Man- the sole benefit of his wife and Peopeety, etc.j which Ceeditoks mat Ebaoh. 99 dictions the rule is maintained tJxat suoK property, not being subject to execution at common law, cannot be subjected in equity to the satisfaction of the claims of creditors.'* In most jurisdictions, either by express statutory enactments, or under daughter, cannot be assigned to them so as to place it beyond the reach of his creditors'. Miss. — Catchings v. Manlove, 39 Miss. 655, equity will avail to sub- ject the avails of a life insurance policy voluntarily assigned by an in- solvent debtor to his wife and chil- dren; Wright V. Petrie, 1 Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.) 282, a transfer of a chose in action by a release of a mortgage and Ibe liability due thereunder is fraudulent. Mo. — ^Pendleton v. Perkins, 49 Mo. 565. Neb. — ^Rogers v. Jones, 1 Keb. 417. N. J?.— Abbott V. Tenney, 18 N. H. 109; Tappan v. Evans, 11 N. H. 311. N. J. — Oolgan, v. Jones, 44 N. J. Eq. 274, 18 Atl. 55, the assignment by a debtor of his claim for damages for personal injuries by a railroad collision for $330 to an attorney, who prosecuted it to judgment and re- covered in the name of the debtor. $4,000, was void as to antecedent creditors so far as the amount re- covered exceeded reasonable compen- sation for the attorney's services. N. G. — Burton v. Farinholt, 86 N. C. 260; Powell v. Powell, 63 N. C. 283. Ohio. — Bryans v. Taylor, Wright (Ohio), 245. Pa. — Elliott's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 75, 88 Am. Dec. 525. Eng. — Ryall v. Rolle, 1 Atk. 165, 26 Bng. Rep. 107, 1 Ves. 348, 27 Eng. Reprint, 1074; Partridge v. Gtopp, AmW. 596, 27 Eng. Reprint, 388, 1 Eden, 163, 28 Eng. Reprint, 647; King V. Dupine, 2 Atk. 603, note, 26 Eng. Reprint, 760; Taylor v. Jones, 2 Atk. 600, 26 Eng. Reprint, 768. 38. Ala. — Henderson v. Hall, 134 Ala. 455, 32 So. 840. Ark. — ^Matlock v. Bledsoe (Ark.), 90 S. W. 848, an administrator may not attack his intestate's assignment of his life insurance as in fraud of creditors. Ind. — Stewart v. English, 6 Ind. 176. Ey. — ^McFerran v. Jones, 2 Litt. (Ky.) 219. Md. — Harper v. Clayton, 84 Md. 346, 57 Am. St. Rep. 407, 35 Atl. 1083, 35 L. R. A. 211, 44 Cent. L. J. 97, an unassigned right of dower cannot be reached by a. creditor's bill, in the absence of a statute; Watkins v. Dorsett, 1 Bland. 530. Mich. — Columbia Bank v. Jacobs, 10 Mich. 349, 81 Am. Dec. 792, in- terest of mortgagee. N. J.— Green v. Tantum, 19 N. J. Eq. 105. B. I. — Greene v. Keene, 14 R. I. 388, 51 Am. Rep. 400. Tex. — White Sewing Mach. Co. v. Atkinson, 75 Tex. 330, 12 S. W. 812. But see Taylor v. Gillean, 23 Tex. 508. Cora.— Blakely v. Gould, 24 Ont. App. 153, assignment of prospective profits under an executory contract; Lodbr V. Creighton, 9 U. C. C. P. 295, assignment of mortgage. Eng. — Norcutt v. Dodd, Cr. & Ph. 100, 41 Eng. Reprint, 428; Rider v. Kidder, 10 Ves. Jr. 360, 32 Eng. Re- print, 884; Stokoe v. Cbwan, 29 100 Feaudulent Conveyances. statutes rendering them liable to attachment, execution, or garnishment, choses in action, -when fraudulently transferred or assigned by debtors, like any other property fraudulently con- veyed may be reached by creditors in equity, and under some statutes even at law.^' If the effect, not necessarily the object, of the assignment or transfer is to defeat, hinder, or delay one particular creditor only, the assignment or transfer will be void under the statute/" This general rule under the statutes has Beav. 637, 7 Jur. N. S. 901, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 695, 9 Wkly. Eep. 801, 54 Eng. Beprint, 775; Sims v. Thomas, 9 L. J. Q. B. 399, 12 A. & E. 536, 4 P. & D. 233, 40 E. C. L. 268, a bond is not goods and chattels within 13 Eliz. chap. 5; Oorogan v. Cooke, 2 Ball. & B. 233; McCarthy v. Goold, 1 Ball. & B. 387; Dundas v. Dutens, 2 Cox. Ch. 235, 30 Eng. Reprint, 109, 1 Ves. Jr. 196, 1 Rev. Rep. 112, 30 Eng. Reprint, 298. 39. Aia.— Hall & Farley v. Ala- bama Term. & Imp. Co. (Ala.), 39 So. 285. Gal. — Ballou v. Andrews Banking Co., 128 Cal. 562, 61 Pac. 102, as- signment of book account. Comi.— Enos v. Tuttle, 3 Conn. 27. Ind. — Quarl v. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233, 1 N. E. 476, 52 Am. Rep. 662; Scott T. Indianapolis Wagon Works, 48 Ind. 75, fraudulent transfer of the capital stock of a corporation. Ki/. — Bumes v. Cade, 73 Ky. 251; Davis V. Sharron, 54 Ky. 64. La. — ^North v. Gordon, 15 La. Ann. 221. Me. — Spaulding v. Fisher, 57 Me. 411. N. J. — Tenbrook v. Jessup, 60 N. J. Eq. 234, 46 Atl. 516; Mallory v. Kirkpatrick, 54 N. J. Eq. 50, 33 Atl. 205; Colgan v. Jones, 44 N. J. Eq. 274, 18 Atl. 55; Tantum v. Green, 21 N. J. Eq. 364, aff'g 19 N. J. Eq. 105. Ohio. — Maclaren v. Stone, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 854, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 794, release by husband of his dower in- terest in lands of his deceased wife to his children; Newark v. Funk, 15 Ohio St. 462. B. I. — Beekwith v. Borrough, 14 R. I. 366, 51 Am. Dec. 392. Wis. — Bragg v. Gaynor, 85 Wis. 468, 55 N. W. 919, 21 L. R. A. 163; LaCrosse Nat. Bank v. Wilson, 74 Wis. 391, 43 N. W. 153. Can. — Upper Canada Bank r. Shickluna, 10 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 157. Eng. — Edmunds v. Edmunds, 73 L. J. P. 97, P. 362, 91 L. T. 568, since choses in E^tion became attachable by Common Law Procedure Act, 1854, § 60 et seq., an assignment of them may be void under 13 Eliz. c. 5, as tend- ing to defeat, hinder or delay credi- tors. See also Stat. 1 and 2 Vict. c. 110, § 12; Stokoe v. Cowan, 29 Beav. 637, 7 Jur. N. S. 901, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 695, 9 Wkly. Eep. 801, 54 Eng. Reprint, 775; Warden v. Jones, 2 DeG. & J. 76, 4 Jur. N. S. 269, 27 L. J. Ch. 190, 6 Wkly. Rep. 180, 59 Eng. Ch. 61, 44 Eng. Reprint, 916; Barrack v. McCuUoch, 3 Jur. N. S. 180, 3 Kay. L. J. 110, 26 L. J. Ch. 105, 5 Wkly. Rep. 38. 40. Edmunds v. Edmunds, 73 L. J. P. 97, P. 362, 91 L. T. 568. Pbopeetv, etc., which Ckeditobs iiAx Reach. 101 been held to apply to the transfer or assignment of promissory notes," drafts," money and bank bills," accounts and balances due on accounts," debts due under contract for the sale of land,*' rents due under a lease,*' mortgages/' stock of a corporation," subscriptions for stock in corporations," life insurance policies,^" 41. Conn. — ^Enos v. Tuttle, 3 Conn. 27. La. — ^North v. Gordon, 15 La. Ann. 221. Me. — Sargent v. Salmond, 27 Me. 539. Web. — ^Rogers v. Jones, 1 Neb. 417. Wis. — Bragg v. Gaynor, 85 Wis. 468, 55 N. W. 919, 21 L. R. A. 161; LaCrosse Nat. Bank v. Wihon, 74 Wis. 391, 43 N. W. 153. 42. LaCrosse Nat. Bank v. Wilson, 74 Wis. 391, 43 N. W. 153, non- leviable assets, things in action, evi- dences of debt, credits and effects, and any property held by any sort of con- veyance or title void as to the credi- itors of the principal debtor, may be garnished, under Wis. Rev. Stat., S 2768. 43. N. 7.— Hadden v. Spader, 20 Jolins. 554; Spader v. Davis, 5 Johns. (Jh. 280 ; Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 Johns. Ch. 451. U_ 8. — Shainwald v. Lewis, 6 Fed. 766, 770, 7 Sawy. 148. Ind. — ^Blair v. Smith, 114 Ind. 114, 5 Am. St. Rep. 593, 15 N. F. 817. Jlfe.— Spaulding v. Fisher, 57 Me. 411. S. C. — Brenan v. Burke, 6 Rich. Eq. 200, money of debtor in hands of sheriff. 44. Ballou v. Andrews Banking Co., 128 Cal. 562, 61 Pac. 102; Drake V. Rice, 130 Mass. 410. 45. Hitt V. Ormsbee, 14 111. 223. 46. Daugherty v. Bogg, 3 Ind. T. 197, 53 S. W. 542. 47. Wright v. Petrie, Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.) 282; Tantum v. Green, 21 N. J. Eq. 364; Bragg v. Gaynor, 85 Wis. 468, 55 N. W. 919, 21 L. R. A. 161; Upper Canada Bank v. Shick- luna, 10 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 157. 48. N. r.— Weed v. Pierce, 9 Cow. 722; Edmeston v. Lyd'e, 1 Paige, 637, 19 Am. Dec. 454; Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 Johns. Ch. 450. /nd.— Quarl v. Abbett, 102 Ind. 233, 52 Am. Rep. 662, 1 N. E. 476; Scott V. Indianapolis Wagon Works, 48 Ind. 75. B. I. — Beckwith v. Burrough, 14 R. I. 366, 51 Am. Dec. 392. Eng. — Warden v. Jones, supra; Barrack v. MeCulloch, supra. 49. 17. 8. — Camden v. Stuart, 144 U. S. 104, 12 Sup. Ct. 585, 36 L. Ed. 363; Hadley v. Stutz, 139 U. S. 417, 11 Sup. Ct. 530, 35 L. Ed. 227; Hatch v. Dana, 101 U. S. 205, 25 L. Ed. 885 ; Ogilvie v. Knox Ins. Co., 22 How. 380, 16 L. Ed. 349; Marsh v. Bur- roughs, 16 Fed. Cfts. No. 9,112, 1 Woods. 463. Ohio. — ^Henry v. Vermillion R. Co., 17 Ohio, 187; Miers v. Zanesville, etc.. Turnpike Co., U Ohio, 273; 13 Ohio, 197. Wis. — Pierce v. Milwaukee Constr. Co., 38 Wis. 253. 50. Catehings v. Manlove, 39 Miss. 655; Burton v. Farinholt, 86 N. O. 260; Stokoe v. Cowan, supra. See Life insurance, chap. IV, § 20, infra. 102 Fbaudulent Conveyances, cies,'^ annuities,^^ distributive shares in a decedent's es- tate/' unassigned dower interest," judgments,^' claims for dam- ages for torts with respect to property/" and for damages for personal injuries." But it has been held in other cases that a debtor's mere right of action for a personal tort, as for assault and battery, slander, malicious prosecution, and other personal injuries, cannot be reached by a creditor's bill.'* Nor can the debtor's right of action for a conversion of property exempt from execution be reached in equity.^* The cancellation or release of a mortgage or other debt by an insolvent debtor, without con- sideration, is fraudulent and void as to existing creditors.'" The 51. Bigelow V. Ayrault, 46 Barb. (N. Y.) 143; Taylor v. Jones, 2 Atk. 600, 26 Eng. Reprint, 758. 52. De Hierapolis v. Lawrence, 115 Fed. 761 ; Norcutt v. Dodd, Cr. & Ph. 100, 41 Eng. Reprint, 428; King v. Dupine, 2 Atk. 603, note, 26 Eng. Re- print, 760. 53. Smith v. Patton, 194 III. 638, 62 N. E. 794, surrender of right to contest will as consideration for con- veyance; Moores v. White, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 139. 54. See Wife's dower or other in- terest in husband's property, chap. IV, § 38, infra. 55. Egberts v. Pemberton, 7 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 208; North v. Gordon, 15 La. Ann. 221. 56. Reilly v. Sicilian Asphalt Pav- ing Co., 170 N. Y. 40, 62 N. E. 772, 88 Am. St. Rep. 636, 57 L. R. A. 176; Hudson V. Plets, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 180; Cincinnati v. Hafer, 49 Ohio St. 60, 30 N. E. 197; Dening v. Nelson, 1 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 503, 10 West. L. J. 215. See also Ten Broeck v. Sloo, 13 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 28. 57. Colgan v. Jones, 44 N. J. Eq. 274, 18 Atl. 55. See note 37, supra. 58. Hudson v. Pletz, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 180; Bennett v. Sweet, 171 Mass. 600, 51 N. E. 183, a verdict for per- sonal injuries before judgment has been entered thereon is not property which can be reached in equity. 59. Hudson v. Pletz, 11 Paige (N. Y.) 180, although a right of action for the destruction or injury of prop- erty liable to execution may be. 60. Ind. — Johnson v. Jones, 79 Ind. 141, surrender of notes and mort- gages. Mass. — Martin v. Root, 17 Mass. 222. N. H.— Everett v. Read, 3 N. H. 55. N. J. — Youngs V. Public School - Trustees, 31 N. J. Eq. 290. Can. — Upper Canada Bank v. Shick- luna, 10 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 157, dis- charge of mortgage without conside- ration. Eng. — Sibthorp v. Moxon, 3 Atk. 581, 26 Eng. Reprint, 1134, 1 Ves. 49, 27 Eng. Reprint, 883, the cancellation of a debt by will is not valid as against creditors. See chap. II, § 19, supra. Accident policy. — Where a wife took out an accident policy in- suring her husband, who was made beneficiary therein, and the only Peopebty, etc., which Cbeditoks may Keach. 103 voluntary release by an insolvent grantor of the covenant of liis grantee to assume and pay a debt secured by mortgage on the premises is fraudulent and void as to creditors, if the effect of the release is to hinder or defraud creditors.*^ But a judgment creditor cannot impeach a release, by an insolvent debtor, of a mere contingent obligation.'^ § 8. Earnings or wages of debtor. — ^Where a debtor assigns his earnings or wages after they become due, without considera- tion, or with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors, they may be reached in equity by the creditors, like any other chose in action, if they are not by law exempt from the claims of creditors.'* No agreement entered into by a debtor, with a view to deprive his creditors of his future earnings, imder either an existing or future contract, and enable him to retain and use them for his own benefit, is valid as against them.^ But reference to the wife was in the ap- plication which provided that the policy in case of death should be pay- able to the wife, and the wife paid the premiums thereon, and the hus- band assigned all his interest in the policy to his wife, and thereafter he was injured, the assignment was not fraudulent as to the creditors of the husband. Weckerly v. Taylor (Neb. 1906), 110 N. W. 738. 61. Youngs V. Public School Trus- tees, 31 N. J. Eq. 290, but such re- lease, although without consideration, is valid if the grantor is solvent. 62. McGay v. Keilback, 14 Abb. Pr. (N. Y.) 142. 63. Wolfsberger v. Mort, 104 Mo. App. 257, 78 S. W. 817, an insolvent debtor cannot systematically give practically all earnings to his wife, and thereby allow her to accumulate property in her own name, which, if acquired by him, would be subject to levy; Robinson v. McKenna, 21 E. I. 117, 42 Atl. 510, an assignment of wages to secure a present indebted- ness and future advances of goods and merchandise is not good as against creditors, so as to include money paid over to the assignor out of the wages under an agreement to that effect outside of the assignment; Dow V. Taylor, 71 Vt. 337, 45 Atl. 220, 76 Am. St. Rep. 775, where a debtor assigned his wages for a debt honestly due, but- also to prevent other creditors trusteeing his em- ployer for the excess over the debt, the assignment was within the stat- ute against fraudulent conveyances; Moran v. Moran, 12 Bush. (Ky.) 301. 64. Tripp V. Childs, 14 Barb. (N. Y.) 85; I^nnon v. Parker, 21 R. I. 43, 46 Atl. 44, defendant's assign- ment of wages to a creditor, who col- lected the same and turned them over to defendant, retaining a small part to apply on his claim^ was fraudu- 104 Featjdulent Conveyances. "where the assignment is given for a valid and valuable considera- tion/' or made in consideration of necessaries to be furnished to the assignor for the support of himself and his family/' or where wages and earnings of the debtor are exempted by statutes from the claims of creditors," such an assignment is good as against creditors. An employer cannot be garnished by his employee's creditor where he has paid the employee's wages in advance, so that at the time of service there is nothing due the latter, al- though they were paid in advance for the purpose of avoiding liability to garnishment,'^ A creditor cannot coerce a debtor to labor for his benefit, and a debtor is not obliged to apply the proceeds of his labor to the benefit of his creditor, leaving his family to suffer want." A debtor's wife receiving her husband's earnings may entirely consume them in the suitable support of his family, without becoming in any way answerable to his creditors.'" But, as against them, she cannot appropriate such earnings or income to make investments in her own name, either for him or herself, or to keep down or pay off incum- brances on or otherwise improve her own property, or to pay the debts or increase the profits of her separate business." The fact that a part of the price of a house and lot conveyed to the wife for a home, and the cost of the improvements thereon neces- sary for the comfort of the family, are paid for out of the fausiband's earnings, but not exceeding the amount which is lent; Gragg v. Mastin, 12 Allen Smith, supra; Emery v. Lawrence, (Mass.), 498, 90 Am. Dec. 164; Rob- supra. inson v. McKenna, supra; Dow v. 67. See Exempt earnings or Taylor, supra. wages, chap. IV, § 41, infra. 65. Lannan v. Smith, 7 Gray 68. Van Vleet v. Stratton, 91 (Mass.), 150; Emery v. Lawrence, 8 Tenn. 473, 19 S. W. 428. Gush. (Mass.) 151; Boylen v. 69. Van Vleet v. Stratton, 91 Leonard, 2 Allen (Mass.), 407; Dole Tenn. 473, 19 S. W. 428; Leslie v. V. Farwell, 72 N. H. 183, 55 Atl. Joyner, 2 Head. (Tenn.) 514. ' 553 ; Fradd v. Charon, 69 N. H. 189, 70. Trefethen v. Lynam, 90 Me. 44 Atl. 910. 376, 38 Atl. 335, 60 Am. St. Eep. 271, 66. Dole V. Farwell, 72 N. H. 183, 38 L. R. A. 190; Coyne v. Sayre, 64 55 Atl. 553; Provencher v. Brooks, N. J. Eq. 702, 39 Atl. 96. 64 N. H. 479, 13 Atl. 641; lannan v. 71. Trefethen v. Lynam, supra. Peopektt, etc., which Creditors may Keaoh. 105 iMcessary for tte reasonatle support of the family, does not ren- der the conveyance fraudulent as against the husband's credi- tors.'^ The obligation of a husband to support his family is paramount to that of paying his debts, and such support involves provision of a home to shelter, as well as raiment to clothe, or food to sustain life.™ A judgment creditor has no right to the products of his debtor's labor, which became as soon as pro- duced the property of a third person, and it is immaterial that the debtor refused to make the contract to furnish the products directly, fearing that they might be subjected to the judgment debt, but procured a contract to be made by his wife." § 9. Earnings, services, and savings of wife. — The common law rule that the wife's earnings belong to the husband, and that he cannot give or voluntarily relinquish them to her, or invest them, or permit her to invest them, in property in her own name, and thus withdraw them or the property from the claims of his existing creditors, still prevails, in the absence of statute, and the earnings of the wife while cohabiting with her husband are not made her separate property by the Married Woman's Acts in the absence of express provision in such acts.'* 72. Eversole v. Bullock, 26 Ky. L. Ala. 202; Evans v. Covington, 70 Kep. 1098, 83 S. W. 556; Green v. Ala. 440; Glaze v. Blake, 56 Ala. Buckler, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 286, 40 S. 379; Mcljemore v. Nuckolls, 37 Ala. W. 382; O'Gforman v. Madden, 9 Ky. 62; Pinkston v. McLemore, 31 Ala. L. Rep. 567, 5 S. W. 756; Cbyne v. 308. Sayre, supra. Conn. — Hinman v. Parkis, 33 Conn. 73. Greene v. Buckler, supra. 188. 74. Buckley v. Dunn, 67 Mlsa. Oa. — Georgia R. &, Banking Co. v. 710, 19 Am. St. Rep. 334, 7 So. 550. Tice, 124 Ga. 459, 52 S. E. 916. 75. U. 8. — Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. III. — Bowman v. Ash, 143 111. 649, S. 580 24 L. Ed. 179, aff'g 1 Mc- 32 N. E. 486; Schwartz v. Saunders, Arthur (D. C), 480; Union Trust 46 111. 18. Co. V. Fisher, 25 Fed. 178. loioa. — Duncan v. Roselle, 15 Iowa, Ala. — Bates v. Morris, 101 Ala. 501. 282, 13 So. 138; Bangs v. Edwards, Ky.—Penn v. Young, 10 Bush, 88 Ala. 382, 6 So. 764; Carter v. 626; Uhrig v. Horstman, 8 Bush, Worthington, 82 Ala. 334, 2 So. 516, 172; Musgrave v. Parish, 10 Ky. L. 60 Am. Rep. 738; Wing .v. Roswald, Rep. 998, 11 S. W. 464, the proceeds 74 Ala. 346; Gordon v. Tweedy, 71 of the labor of a married woman, un- 106 Fbaudulent Conveyances. But, as against subsequent creditors, a gift or voluntary renun- ciation by a husband to his wife of her earnings is valid at com- mom law, unless successfully assailed for intentional fraud.'* In most jurisdictions the common law rule has been changed or modified by statutes which give a married woman the right to her earnings in carrying on a separate business with the express or implied consent of her husband, or after desertion by him." less derived from an employment by or under a third person, belong to her husband. Miss. — ^Apple V. Ganong, 47 Miss. 189. N. H.—Soyt V. White, 46 N. H. 45. N. J.— Cramer v. Eeford, 17 N. J. Eq. 367, 90 Am. Dee. 594. But see Tresch v. Wirtz, 34 N. J. Eq. 124, prior to N. J. Statute, a husband could make a valid gift or relinquish- ment to his vpife of her earnings, even against creditors whose debts had already been contracted. 8. C— McAfee v. McAfee, 28 S. C. 188, 5 S. E. 480; Bridgers v. Howell, 27 S. C. 425, 3 S. E. 790. Tenn. — Cox v. Scott, 9 Baxt. 305. Va.— Grant v. Sutton, 90 Va. 771, 19 S. E. 784, prior to the taking ef- fect of the Virginia Code, May 1, 1888; Campbell v. Bowles, 30 Gratt. C52. W. Va. — Bailey v. Gardner, 31 W. : Va. 94, 5 :S. E. 636, 13 Ajn. St. Rep. -; 847. See also chap. VIII, § 43, infra. I 76. Bates v. Morris, supra; Bangs : V. Edwards, supra; Wing v. Kos- wald, supra; Glaze v. Blake, supra; Pinkston v. McLemore, supra; Bow- man V. Ash, supra. But when a hus- band said to his wife that she might have certain earnings of hers to do with as she pleased, but still used them in his business, and gave no re- ceipt therefor, and she asserted no claim thereto for fourteen years, the gift could not then be established in equity as against his subsequent creditors. Evans v. Covington, 70 Ala. 440. See also Oarleton v. Rivers, 54 Ala. 467; Shaeffer v. Sheppard, 54 Ala. 244, the Alabama statutes have not changed the com- mon law rule giving the husband the earnings of the wife, so that she has no separate estate in the com- pensation for her services in keeping a boarding house, carried on in the name of her husband, or in money spent by her husband in paying a debt for lands purchased by him, which money was earned by the wife carrying on a farm for several years. 77. N. Y. — Stevens v. Cunning- ham, 181 N. Y. 454, 74 N. E. 434, rev'g 75 App. Div. 125, 77 N. Y. Supp. 364, the enabling statutes have no effect upon those duties which a wife owes to the husband at common law in the marriage relation. Ala. — Reeves v. McNeill, 127 Ala. 175, 28 So. 623; Bates v. Morris, supra; Carter v. Worthington, supra; Wing v. Roswald, supra. Conn. — Whiting v. Beckwith, 31 Conn. 596. III.— Bowman v. Ash, 143 111. 649, 32 N. E. 486; Partridge v. Arnold, 73 111. 600. Ind.— Boots V. Griffith, 89 Ind. 246. loroa. — Hed^e v. Glenny, 75 Iowa, Peopeety, etc., which Ceeditoes mat Keach. 107 But the earnings of tte wife, in order that they may be exempt from liability for the husband's debts, must have accrued to her from services rendered to a third party in conducting a separate business, distinct from the common law duties she owes her hus- 513, 39 N. W. 818, 1 L. K. A. 479, the keeping of boarders by a married woman is such business and entitles her to the proceeds under the Iowa statute. See also King v. Wells, 106 Iowa, 649, 77 N. W. 338, subsequent creditors of the husband cannot sub- ject to the payment of their claims land held by a wife obtained through her labor and prudent management, although the husband worked with her and aided with his labor in pur- chasing it; Carse v. Reticker, 95 Iowa, 25, 63 N. W. 461, 58 Am. St. Rep. 421, profits of a wife in a con- tract for boarding prisoners. Kan. — Larimer v. Kelly, 10 Kan. 298. Ky. — Olafk v. Meyers, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 380, 68 S. W. 853, the wife's earnings under an emplojrment by her husband as agent of another may be held by her free from the husband's creditors; Wallace v. Mason, 100 Ky. 560, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 935, 38 S. W. 887, real estate paid for by the labor of a wife is not sub- ject to a judgment against her hus- band; Rath V. Rankins, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1120, 33 S. W. 832, the pro- ceeds received by a wife from the sale of produce, the products of her in- dustry, are not subject to the pay- ment of her husband's debts under the Kentucky statute; Carter v. Drewery, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 888. Mass. — Draper v. Buggee, 133 Mass. 258, where a wife paid, with money earned by her own labor a note of her husband and a mortgage on land owned by him, the convey- ance of the land to her was not in fraud of creditors. Mo.— Furth V. March, 101 Mo. App. 329, 74 S. W. 147, the earnings of the wife in keeping boarders not subject to husband's debts; Grunor v. Scholz, 154 Mo. 415, 55 S. W. 441, drug business conducted by wife with assistance of her husband; Bartlett v. Behrens, 94 Mo. 530, 7 S. W. 581, where a married woman loaned to her husband earnings ac- cumulated by her with his consent, which were afterwards advanced' by him for the purchase of real prop- erty for her, the deed was not fraud- ulent; Kidwell v. Kirkpatrick, 70 Mo. 214; Coughlin v. Ryan, 43 Mo. 99, 97 Am. Dec. 375; Beach v. Bald- win, 14 Mo. 597; Baer v. Pfaff, 44 Mo. App. 35. N. J. — Costello V. Prospect Brew. Co., 52 N. J. Eq. 357, 30 Atl. 682, a wife who pays with her own and her children's earnings part of a mort- gage on land voluntarily conveyed to her by her husband is entitled, where the conveyance is set aside as fraudulent, to a lien for the amount paid by her ; Peterson v. Mulford, 3.(i N. J. L. 481; Nat. Bank of Metropo- lis V. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13; Quidort's Adm'r v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472. Po.— Phillips V. Hall, 160 Pa. St. 60, 28 Atl. 502, personal property purchased in part by wife's earnings in keeping boarders; Holcomb v. People's Sav. Bank, 92 Pa. St. 338; Bucher v. Ream, 68 Pa. St. 421; Brown v. Pendleton, 60 Pa. St. 419. 108 Feaudui-ent Cokveyanceb. band in the marital relation, and not in tihe discharge of the ordinary duties of a wife to her husband, or the duties which he owes to another, an inmate of his family, or merely, assisting the husband in his business.^^ I§ 10. Earnings or wages of debtor's minor child The services and the earnings or wages of a minor child belong to the father, unless the child has been emancipated and his future earnings made his own, and a conveyance by a father to his minor child, in consideration for the past services of the child during his minority, the father being indebted at the time, though valid But see Leinbach v. Templin, 105 Fa. St. 522. Term. — Carpenter v. Franklin, 89 Tenn. 142, 14 S. W. 484, property purchased by earnings of wife in keeping boarders and as a seamstress. Vt.— Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 362. yo.— Grant v. Sutton, 90 Va. 71, 19 S. E. 784; Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 503, 94 Am. Dee. 478. W. Fa.— Stewart v. Stout, 38 W. Va. 478, 18 S. E. 726; Trapnell v. Conklyn, 37 W. Va. 242, 16 S. E. 570, 38 Am. St. Eep. 30. Can. — Bohaker v. Morris, 20 Nova Scotia, 212; Murray v. McCallum, 8 Ont. App. 277. Eng. — ^Ashworth v. Outram, 5 Ch. D. 923, 46 L. J. Ch. 687, 37 L. T. Hep. N. S. 85, 25 Wkly. Rep. 896; La- Porte V. Costick, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 434, 23 Wkly. Rep. 131. 78. N. T. — Stevens v. Cunningham, 181 N. y. 454, 74 N. E. 434, services of a wife rendered to a third party as a nurse or attendant; Coleman v. Burr, 93 N.Y. 17, 45 Am. Eep. 160, services of the wife rendered to her husband in taking care of his mother, who was a member of his household and whom he had agreed to support in considera- tion of the conveyance to him of cer- tain lands, in payment for which ser- vices the husband conveyed real estate to his wife through a third person, were held not a valid consideration and the conveyance void as to credi- tors. Oa. — Dumas v. Neal, 51 6a. 563, a wife's claim that, by agreement with her husband, she was to have one-half the proceeds of a boarding house, for helping him carry it on, was in fraud of creditors. Iowa. — ^Langford v. Thurlby, 60 Iowa, 105, 14 N. W. 135, the volun- tary conveyance by a husband to a wife of property acquired in his name, by their joint industry and manage- ment, cannot be upheld to the preju- dice of existing creditors. y. J. — ^Nat. Bank of Metropolis v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13, the pro- ceeds of a business carried on by a. husband and wife in co-operation will be considered that of the husband, and will not be protected for her, as against creditors; Quidort's Adm'r v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472. 8. C— McAfee v. McAfee, 28 S. C. 188, 5 S. E. 480. Eng. — LaPorte v. Cbstick, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 434, 23 Wkly. Rep. 131. Peopebty, etc., which Creditoes mat Eeach. 109 as between father and child, is a voluntary conveyance, without legal consideration, and therefore fraudulent and void as to the creditors of the parent, and the property may be reached in equity and subjected by existing creditors of the parent." The services of a son rendered during minority to his father cannot be set up as part of a valuable consideration of a deed from the latter to the former, and a conveyance from a father to his minor son, paid for in part by money which he had earned in wages and his note for the rest of the price, is fraudulent and void as to creditors.*" The investment by a father of the earn- ings of minor children in real estate in their names cannot pro- tect the property from his debts.'^ Lands purchased by a mother with earnings of her minor son which he gave her are liable to the father's debts, where the father never emancipated the son.'^ But a father has no present valuable property in the fu- ture labor or earnings of his minor child, and may, acting in good faith, though insolvent at the time, emancipate him, or make a valid gift or release to him of his time and future earn- ings. And if the father emancipates his child and allows him to contract for and retain his own wages or earnings, whether tie child continues as a member of his father's family or pro- vides for his own support and education by his own labor, the father does not thereby withdraw from his creditors any property or funds to which they are legally or justly entitled for the pay- ment of his debts; and hence after such emancipation the child becomes competent to contract as if of full age, and such wages 79. U. S.— Dowell v. Applegate, 15 N. C— North v. York, 35 N. C. 206. Fed. 419, 8 Sawy. 427. Pa- — Beaver v. Bare, 104 Pa. St. 58, Ala. — Donegan v. Davis, 66 Ala. 49 Am. Rep. 567. 362; Godfrey v. Hays, 6 Ala. 501, 41 80. Bullett v. Worthington, 3 Md. Am. Dec. 58. Ch. 99; Winchester v. Reid, 53 N. C. Kan. — Stumbaugh v. Anderson, 46 377. Kan. 541, 26 Pac. 1045. 81. Bell v. Hallenbaeh, Wright Miss. — ^Dick v. Grissom, 1 Freem. (Ohio), 751. Ch. 428. 82. Schuster v. Bauman Jewelry 2^. J.—Gardner's Adm'r v. Schoo- Co., 79 Tex. 179, 23 Am. St. Rep. 327, ley, 25 N. J. Eq. 150. 15 S. W. 259. 110 Fraudulent Conveyances. or earnings, or the property purchased with them or in which they have been invested, by or for the child, cannot be reached and subjected by the father's creditors.*' Profits resulting to the 83. N. r.— Kain v. Larkin, 131 N. Y. 300, 30 N. E. 105, rev'g 62 Hun, 621, 17 N. Y. Supp. 223; McCaffrey v. Hickey, 66 Barb. 489. Ala. — Donegan v. Davis, 66 Ala. 362; Lyon v. Boiling, 14 Ala. 753, 48 Am. Dec. 122. Ark. — Bobo V. Bryson, 21 Ark. 387, 76 Am. Dec. 406. Cal. — ^Lackman v. Wood, 25 Cal. 147. Conn. — ^Atwood v. Holcomb, 39 Conn. 270, 12 Am. Rep. 386. Go.— Wilson V. McMillan, 62 Ga. 16, 35 Am. Rep. 115, where a father promised his minor child a reason- able part of the prospective crop as compensation for the child's labor. /H.— Heeren v. Kittson, 28 111. App. 259, where a father agreed to pay his minor son as much as any other man would give him for his services until he became of age, and a certain sum thereafter; Partridge v. Arnold, 73 111. 600. Ind. — Jenison v. Graves, 2 Blackf. 440. Iowa. — Bener v. Edgington, 76 Iowa, 105, 40 N. W. 117; Wolcott v. Rickey, 22 Iowa, 171. Ke.— Lord v. Poor, 23 Me. 569. Future earnings of minor children are not assets of the father's estate to which creditors have any right to look, so as to prevent their relin- quishment by the father, though in- solvent, to the children, if he so wills. Merrill v. Hussey (Me.) 64 Atl. 819. Mass. — Jenney v. Alden, 12 Mass. 375; Whiting v. Earle, 3 Pick. 201, 15 Am. Dec. 207. Miss. — Dick v. Grissom, 1 Freem. Ch. 428. ^o.— Mott V. Purcell, 98 Mo. 247, 11 S. W. 564; Dierker v. Hess, 54 Mo. 246. Neh. — Shortel v. Young, 23 Neb. 408, 36 N. W. 572, where the testi- mony raises a presumption of his emancipation; Clemens v. Brillhart, 17 Neb. 335, 22 N. W. 779. N. ff.— Johnson v. Silsbee, 49 N. H. 543. N. ,/.— Wisner v. Osborn, 64 N. J. Eq. 614, 55 Atl. 51, where stock of an incorporation was purchased with the wages of an emancipated son; Coyne V. Sayre, 54 N. J. Eq. 702, 36 Atl. 96. Ohio. — Geringer v. Heinlein, 20 Cine. L. Bui. 339, 6 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 26. Or. — Flynn v. Baisley, 35 Or. 268, 57 Pac. 908, 76 Am. St. Rep. 495, 45 L. R. A. 645. Pa. — Beaver v. Bare, 104 Pa. St. 58, 49 Am. Rep. 567; Appeal of Brown, 86 Pa. St. 524; Rush v. Vought, 58 Pa. St. 437, 93 Am. Dec. 769; McCIoskey v. Cyphert, 27 Pa. St. 220. Tenn. — ^Rosenbaum v. Davis (Oh. App.), 48 S. W. 706; Carpenter v. Franklin, 89 Tenn. 142, 14 S. W. 484; Leslie v. Joyner, 2 Head, 514. Teas. — Furrh v. McKnight, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 583, 26 S. W. 95; Schuster V. Bauman Jewelry Co., 79 Tex. 183, 23 Am. St. Rep. 327, 15 S. W. 259. yt.— Bray v. Wheeler, 29 Vt. 514; Chase v. Elkins, 2 Vt. 290. To.— Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. 503, 94 Am. Dec. 478. Pbopeety^ etc., which Cebditoes may Eeaoh. Ill separate estate of a wife, whose minor child, with its father's consent, gives her the benefit of his labor on such separate estate, are not liable for the father's debts." § 11. Earnings or wages of public officers or their deputies. — ^The same rules are applicable to an assignment or release of the compensation, salary, or fees of a public officer, as are applicable to other earnings or wages of a debtor unless they are expressly exempted by statute.** It has been held, however, that a sheriff may grant to a deputy all the fees earned by the latter, so that they cannot be garnished for the sheriff's debts." § 12. Services, labor, talents, and industry of a debtor. — The creditors of an insolvent have no claim upon his talents or industry, his labor or services They cannot compel him to work and earn wages for their benefit, and hence he does not defraud them and they have no legal right to complain, if he chooses to give away his services by working gratuitously for another. It is only the debtor's property that may be reached by creditors.*^ W. Va. — ^Trapnell v. Conklyn, 37 W. Ala. — ^Nanee v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, Va. 242, 16 S. E. 570, 38 Am. St. Rep. 4 So. 699, 5 Am. St. Rep. 378, the 30. labor and skill of a husband in mak- "Wia. — ^Wambold v. Viek, 50 Wis. ing improvements on his wife's separ- 456, 7 N. W. 438. "■te estate cannot be charged thereon Can. — Jack v. Greig, 27 Grant Ch. by his creditors. (U. C.) 6. Ga.— King v. Skellie, 79 Ga. 147, See also Earnings or service of 151, 3 S. E. 614, it is an invariable child as consideration for conveyance, principle that the debtor cannot be chap. VIII, §§ 57, 59, infra. forced to apply his labor to the ex- 84. Trapnell v. Conklyn, 37 W. Va. tinguishment of his creditor's claim. 242, 16 S. E. 570, 38 Am. St. Rep. Minn. — Eilers v. Conradt, 39 Minn. SOjAtwood V. Dolan, 34 W. Va. 563, 242, 39 N. W. 320, 12 Am. St. Rep. 12 S. E. 688 ; Rush v. Vought, 55 Pa. 641. St. 437, 93 Am. Dec. 769. Jfiss.— Buckley v. Dunn, 67 Miss. 85. See chap. IV, § 8, supra. 710, 7 So. 550, 10 Am. St. Rep. 334. 86. Pioneer Printing Co. v. San- Mo.— Gruner v. Scholz, 154 Mo. born, 3 Minn. 413. 415, 55 S. W. 441. 87 V. r.— Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. V. J.—Txeseh v. Wirtz, 34 N. J. 343. ^4- 124. Xj, jSf.— Voorhees v. Bonesteel, 16 Pa.— Rush v. Vought, 55 Pa. St. Wall. 16, 31, 21 L. Ed. 268. 437, 93 Am. Dec. 769. 112 Featjdtilent Conveyances. The property of a debtor, by the laws of all commercial countries, belongs to his creditors. He must be just before he is generous. He must pay before he gives. Not so with his talents and his industry. Whether he has much, or little, or nothing, his first duty is the support of his family. The instinctive impulse of every just man holds this to be the first purpose of his industry. The application of the debtor's property is rigidly directed to the payment of his debts. He cannot transport it to another country, transfer it to his friend, or conceal it from his creditor. Any or all of these things he may do with his industry. He is at liberty to transfer his person/ to a foreign land. He may bury his talent in the earth, or he may give it to his wife or friend. No law, ancient or modem, has ever held to the con- trary.^ But a debtor may not conduct a business in the name of another, which he uses as a subterfuge to cover his property from the claims of creditors, and by his labor and skill in that undertaking accumulate property for himself and thus defraud his creditors.^' But whether or not a business conducted in the name of another is fraudulent is a question of fact for the jury." § 13. Services rendered by husband for wife One cannot by doing business in the name of another defraud his creditors." An insolvent debtor cannot use his wife's name as a mere de- Tenn. — Leslie v. Joyner, 2 Head. 88. Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343, 514. 347. ^(.—Webster v. Hildreth, 33 Vt. 89. Niekle v. Emerson Mercantile, 457, 78 Am. Dec. 632. etc., Co. (Ark.) 13 S. W. 78, where ya.-Penn. v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. Property was purchased from funds 503 94 Am. Dec. 478. '*'"^* ^™'° " ""^'"^^^ «° conducted; „ „. , , „„,^ Wilson V. Loomis, 55 111. 352; Hamil- W. ya.-Boggess v. Richards 39 W. ^^^ ^ UgUn^T, 53 Iowa, 470, 5 N. W. Va. 567, 20 S. E. 599, 45 Am. St. g^g^ ^^ ^^ ,^^^^^ ^^ ^.^^ ^^^ Rep. 938, 26 L. R. A. 537; Trapnell ^^^^ ^^^ originally invested V. Conklyn, 37 W. Va. 242, 16 S. E. .^ ^^^ ^^^.^^^^ 570, 38 Am. St. Rep. 30. g^ j.^^^ ^ ^.^^^ 30 j^^ ^^ Can.—Bahy v. Ross, 14 Ont. Or. 1278 ; Dunham-Buckley v. Halberg, 69 440. Mo. App. 509. See also chap. IV, § 8, supra. 91. Fass v. Rice, 30 La. Ann. 1278. PbopeetYj etc., which Ceeditobs may Reach. 113 vice tx) cover up and keep from his creditors tihe assets and profits of a business whicli is in fact his own. He cannot de- fraud his creditors by conducting a business in his wife's name but for hia own benefit, thus keeping his property out of the reach of his creditors.'^ But a husband may donate his services to his wife, in working for or assisting her in a business owned and conducted by her as her separate property, or as her agent in executing a contract made by her with a third person, and, with stronger reason, where the husband is employed by the wife on a salary, and the husband's creditors cannot by reason of such donation of his services or employment reach and subject the property or claims thereby acquired by the wife to the payment of their claims.'' A wife may employ her husband or accept his 92. N. r.— Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343; O'Leary v. Walter, 10 Abb. Pr. N. S. 439. Ark. — ^Nickle v. Emerson Mercan- tile, etc., Co. (1890), 13 S. W. 78. III. — Lachman v. Martin, 139 III. 450, 28 N. E. 795; Robinaon v. Brems, 90 111. 351; Mattingly v. Ob- ley, 1 111. App. 626. Iowa. — ^Hamill v. Augustine, 81 Iowa, 302, 46 N. W. 1113; Hamilton V. liightner, 53 Iowa, 470, 5 N. W. 603. Ky. — Gross v. Eddinger, 85 Ky. 168, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 829, 3 S. W. 1; Moran v. Moran, 75 Ky. 301; Farm- ers' Bank v. Marshall, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 249, 35 S. W. 912. Mo. — Johnson v. Christie, 79 Mo. App. 46. jfeb. — Wedgwood v. Withers, 35 Keb. 583, 53 N. W. 576. y. J. — ^Talcott V. Arnold, 54 N. J. Eq. 570, 35 Atl. 532 ; Metropolis Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13. OAto.— Glidden v. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. 509, 91 Am. Dec. 98. Pa.— Blum V. Ross, 116 Pa. St. 163, 10 Atl. 32; Keeney v. Good, 21 Pa. 8 St. 349. Compare Vowinkle v. John- ston, 9 Pa. Cas. 85, 11 Atl. 634. Cam.— Campbell v. Cole, 7 Ont. 127; In re Gearing, 4 Ont. App. 173; Le- vine V. Claflin, 31 U. C. C. P. 600; Meakin v. Samson, 28 U. C. C. P. 355 ; Foulds V. Curtelett, 21 U. C. C. P. 368; Lett v. Commercial Bank, 24 U. C. Q. B. 552 ; Harrison v. Douglass, 4 U. S. Q. B. 410. Eng. — Lovell v. Newton, 4 C. P. D. 7, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 609, 27 Wkly. Rep. 366; Laporte v. Costick, 31 L. T. Rep. N. S. 434, 23 Wkly. Rep. 131. 93. N. r.— Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343; Gage v. Dauehy, 34 N. Y. 293; Buckley v. Wells, 33 N. Y. 518; Kluender ,v. Lynch, 2 Abb. Dec. 538. U. 8. — Gamer v. Second Nat. Bank, 151 U. S. 420, 14 Sup. Ct. 390, 37 L. Ed. 218; Aldridge v. Muir- head, 101 U. S. 397, 25 L. Ed. 1013; Voorhees v. Bonesteel, 16 Wall. 16, 21 L. Ed. 268; Hyde v. Frey, 28 Fed. 819. AJo.- Hoot V. Sorrell, 11 Ala. 386. Ark. — Niekle v. Emerson Mercan- tile, etc., Co., supra. 114 Feaudtjlent Conveyances. services in running her business without subjecting the property to the claims of his creditors.'* The personal skill and labor of a husband, expended in making valuable improvements on his wife's property, cannot be reached or subjected by his creditors to the satisfaction of their claims.'' Inventions perfected by a husband and patents therefor, where a salary and expenses are paid by the wife out of her separate estate, and the husband acts merely as her employee, are her separate property and not subject to his debts.'^ Where a husband has no interest in his wife's business, which he is managing as her agent, her, title to the property, as against claims of his creditors, is not impaired by Del. — ^Kirkley v. Larcey, 7 Houst. 213, 30 Atl. 994. III. — ^Lachman v. Martin, supra; Sexton V. Martin, 37 111. App. 537; Olsen V. Kern, 10 111. App. 578. 7nd.— Cooper v. Ham, 49 Ind. 393. Iowa. — McCormick Harvester Maeh. Co. V. Pouder, 123 Iowa, 17, 98 N. W. 303; King v. Wells, 106 Iowa, 649, 77 N. W. 338. Minn. — Eilers v. Conradt, 39 Minn. 242, 39 N. W. 320, 12 Am. Rep. 641 ; Ladd V. Newell, 34 Minn. 107, 24 N. W. 366; Hosfeldt v. Dill, 28 Minn. 469, 10 N. W. 781. Miss. — Buckley v. Dunn, 67 Miss. 710, 7 So. 550, 19 Am. St. Rep. 334. Mo. — ^Tipton V. Adair, 172 Mo. 156, 72 S. W. 510; Seay v. Hesse, 123 Mo. 450, 20 S. W. 1017, 27 S. W. 633; Wolfsberger v. Mort, 104 Mo. App. 257, 78 S. W. 817; Hibbard v. Heck- art, 88 Mo. App. 544; Baer v. Pfaff, 44 Mo. App. 35. N. J.— Arnold t. Talcott, 55 N. J. Eq. 519, 37 Atl. 981; Taylor v. Wands, 55 N. J. Eq. 491, 37 Atl. 315; Tresch v. Wirtz, 34 N. J. Eq. 124. N. C. — Osborne v. Wilkes, 108 N. C. 651, 13 S. E. 285. Pa. — Rush V. Vought, 55 Pa. St. 437, 93 Am. Dec. 769. S. 0.— Hodges V. Cobb, 8 Rich. 50. F*.— Webster v. Hildreth, 33 Vt. 457, 78 Am. Dee. 632. W. Ta. — Board of Education v. Mitchell, 40 W. Va. 431, 21 S. E. 1017; Trapnell v. Conklyn, 37 W. Va. 242, 16 S. E. 570, 38 Am. St. Rep. 30. Wis. — ^Mayers v. Kaiser, 85 Wis. 382, 55 N. W. 688, 39 Am. St. Rep. 849, 21 L. R. A. 623; Second Nat. Bank v. Merrill, 81 Wis. 151, 50 N. W. 505, 29 Am. St. Rep. 877; Day- ton V. Walsh, 47 Wis. 113, 2 N. W. 65, 33 Am. Rep. 757. Can. — Baby v. Ross, 14 Ont. Pr. 440; Plows V. Maughan, 42 U. C. Q. B. 129; Arnoldi v. Stewart, 17 Que- bec Super. Ct. 252. Eng. — Lovell v. Newton, 14 C. P. D. 7, 39 L. T. Rep. N. S. 609, 27 Wkly. Rep. 366. 94. Gruner v. Scholtz, 154 Mo. 415, 55 S. W. 441. 95. Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, 4 So. 699, 5 Am. St. Rep. 378. 96. Arnold v. Talcott, 55 N. J. Eq. 519, 37 Atl. 891. Pbopebtt, etc., which Ckeditoks may Eeaoh. 115 (.he fact that a portion of the income is applied to his support." The wife may carry on business through her husband as agent, and the fact that she employs him and supports him does not raise a presumption of fraud, although it is competent in trying the issue to show his manner of conducting the business."' So the. fact that the husband is paid a salary by the wife does not of itself establish that the business belongs to the wife.*' The fact that the wife had neither experience in the business nor a separate estate when she contracted to purchase a stock of goods, although a circumstance to be considered in determining the question of fraud, is insufficient in itself to show fraud sufficient to subject the profits of the business and property purchased therewith to the claims of creditors of the husband.^ It is held in some jurisdictions, however, that if a husband engages in business with his wife's capital and in her name, and owing to his skill and labor large profits accrue therefrom over and above the n«;essary expenses and indebtedness of the business, includ- ing the support of himself, wife, and family, a court of equity will justly apportion such profits between his wife and his exist- ing creditors.^ In other jurisdictions it is held that if a mar- ried woman advances money from her own separate estate and places the same in the hands of her husband for the purpose of carrying on. any general trade, although in the wife's name, and the husband by his labor and skill in that undertaliing increases the fund, the entire capital embarked in the enterprise, togetlier with the increase, will not constitute the separate estate of the wife, but will be liable for the debts of the husband.' 97. Abbey v. Deyo, 44 N. Y. 343; 0. Johnson v. Christie, supra,; Voorhees v. Bonesteel, 16 Wall. (U. Talcott v. Arnold, 54 N. J. Eq. 570, S.) 16, 21 L. Ed. 268. 35 Atl. 532; Catlett v. Alsop, supra; 98. Stanley v. National Union Penn v. Whitehead, 17 Gratt. (Va,.) Bank, 115 N. Y. 122, 22 N. E. 29; 503, 94 Am. Dec. 478; Boggess v. Osborne v. Wilkes, 108 N. C. 651, 13 Eiehards, 39 W. Va. 567, 20 S. E. S. jj. 285. 599, 45 Am. St. Rep. 938, 26 L. R. A. 99. Johnson v. Christie, 79 Mo. 537. App. 46. 3. Robinson v. Brems, 90 111. 351; 1. Catlett V. Alsop, 99 Va. 680, 3 Patton v. Gates, 67 111. 164; Wilson Va. Sup. Ct. Rep. 491, 40 S. E. 34. v. Loomis, 55 111. 352; Wortman v. il6 Fbaudulent Conveyances. § 14. Services rendered by parent for child A parent may not, as against creditors, conduct a business in his child's name, but in fact for his own benefit, using such device as a cloak to cover up his property and earnings and put them out of the reach of creditors,^ although he may donate his services to his child the same as to his -wife or to a friend.^ But a debtor will not be permitted to donate the services and earnings of teams belong- ing to him to his infant son, to avoid payment of his debts to a creditor for whom such infant son, with such teams, performs labor.* § 15. Earnings of debtor's property. — A debtor may not do- nate the use of his property to another in fraud of his creditors, and if he does so the earnings of such property may be reached and subjected by his creditors,^ except where the property is exempt from the claims of creditors.* § 16. Good will of a business. — The good will of a business has been held to be the subject of a fraudulent conveyance, and to be assets available to creditors.' Price, 47 111. 22; Brownell v. Dixon, 7. Tuckey v. Lovell, 8 Ida. 731, 71 37 111. 197; Pease v. Barkowsky, 67 Pac. 122. 111. App. 274; Card v. Robinson, 2 8. Leslie v. Joyner, 2 Head 111. App. 19; Guill v. Hanny, 1 111. (Tenn.) 514. See also Exempt prop- App. 490; Brooks- Waterfield Oo. v. erty, chap. IV, § 41, infra. Frisble, 99 Ky. 125, 35 S. W. 106, 59 9. French v. French, 6 De G. M. & Am. St. Rep. 452; Gross v. Eddinger, G. 95, 2 Jur. N. S. 169, 25 L. J. Ch. 85 Ky. 168, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 829, 3 S. 612, 4 Wkly. Rep. 139, 55 Eng. Ch. W. 1; Moran v. Moran, 75 Ky. 301; 74, 43 Eng. Reprint, 1166; Neale v. Shields v. Lewis, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 822, Day, 4 Jur. N. S. 1225, 27 L. J. Ch. 70 S. W. 51; Blackburn v. Thomp- 45, 7 Wkly. Rep. 45, where an attor- son, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1723, 66 S. W. 5, ney, being in insolvent circumstances, 56 L. R. A. 938; Edelmuth v. Wy- assigned the good will of his busi- brant, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 929, 53 S. W. ness in consideration of a sum of 528; Glidden v. Taylor, 16 Ohio St. money paid down and an annuity 509, 91 Am. Dec. 98. secured by bond to be paid to his 4. Fass v. Rice, 30 La. Ann. 1278. wife for life, with remainder to him- 5. See chap. IV, §§ 12, 13, supra. self for life, the settlement of the an- 6. Tuckey v. Lovell, 8 Ida. 731, 71 nuity was void as against his cred- Pac. 122. itors. Pbopeety, etc., which Ceeditoes may Reach. 117 § 17. Membership in stock of merchant's exchange — Al- though of a character somewhat peculiar, its use restricted, its range of purchasers narrow, and its ownership clogged with con- ditions, a seat or membership, or the right to a seat or member- ship, in a stock exchange, merchant's exchange, or a board of trade, is, according to many authorities, a valuable right, capable of transfer, and correctly decided to be property, which, if fraudulently conveyed or assigned, can be reached in equity and subjected by creditors." Otiher authorities maintain, however, that a certificate of membership in a stock or a produce exchange, or a board of trade, is not property liable to be subjected to the payment of debts of the holder in legal proceedings." § 18. Patents, copyrights, and trade marks. — A patent right or the rights acquired by a patentee on the issue of a valid patent is property, which is subject to the claims of creditors, and may be reached in equity by creditors' bill, and applied to the pay- ment of the debts of the patentee.*^ But unpatented inventions, lO. If. r.— Piatt V. Jones, 96 N. Blajce, 99 Cal. 167, 33 Pac. 864, 37 Y. 24; Powell v. Waldron, 89 N. Y. Am. St. Rep. 45. 328, 42 Am. Rep. 301 ; Sprogg v. Mo. — Eliot v. Merchants' Exch., 14 Dichman, 28 Misc. Rep. 409, 59 N. Y. Mo. App. 234, 28 Alb. L. J. 512. Supp. 966; Colby v. Peabody, 52 N. 11. Barclay v. Smith, 107 111. 349, Y. Super. Ct. 394; Ritterband v. Bag- 47 Am. Rep. 437, 28 Alb. L. J. 175; gett, 42 N. Y. Super. Ct. 556, 4 Abb. Pancoast v. Gowen, 93 Pa. St. 66; N. C. 67; Grocers' Bank v. Murphy, Thompson v. Adams, 93 Pa. St. 55. 60 How. Pr. 426 ; Loudheim v. The Pennsylvania courts do not go so White, 67 How. Pr. 467. far as to hold that the seat or mem- JJ. 8. — Paige v. Edmunds, 187 U. bership is not property, but hold that S. 596, 23 Sup. Ct. 200, 47 L. Ed. it is not property subject to ordinary 318; Hyde v. Woods, 94 U. S. 523; process at law. In re Page, 5 Am. B. R. 707, 107 12. N. Y.— Gillett v. Bate, 86 N. Fed. 89, 46 C. C. A. 160; In Y. 87, and want of utility or novelty re Ketcham, 1 Fed. 840; In re is no defense to the patentee or his Gallagher, 19 N. B. R. 224; Matter fraudulent assignee; Barnes v. Mor- of Werder, 10 Fed. 275, 28 Alb. L. gan, 3 Hun, 703; McDermott v. J. 176. Compare In re Sutherland, Strong, 4 Johns. Ch. 689; Spader T. 6 Biss. 526, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,637. Davis, 5 Johns. Ch. 280, 20 Johns. Ool.— Habenicht v. Lisaak, 78 Cal. 554. 351, 20 Pac. 874, 12 Am. St. Rep. 63, 17. S.— Ager v. Murray, 105 U. S. 5 L. R. A. 713. Compare Rowe v. 126, 26 L. Ed. 942; Gorrell v. Dick- 118 Fraudulent Conveyances. in which the inventor has only an inchoate right to their exclu- sive use which he may perfect and render absolute, are not prop- erty in such sense that they can be reached by creditors." The interest of a debtor in the copyright of a book, map, or picture, when fraudulently transferred, may be reached in equity by the creditors," and likewise moneys accruing to the debtor as royalty from the sale thereof.*' The right to use trade marks, in connection with a manufacturing business, which are not per- sonal, but designate merely the place or establishment at which the goods are manufactured, passes to the assignee in insolvency under the Massachusetts statute.** § 19. Fire insurance. — A fire insurance upon property is not an incident to the insured property, but a special agreement with the insured against his own loss, not that of another as grantee, creditor, etc." Hence, the proceeds of or money due on a policy of insurance procured by or issued to a vendee in a conveyance which is void for fraud as against creditors, as to a son, 26 Fed'. 454; Mathe-ws v. Green, to the assignee in insolvency, and 19 Fed. 649, a license to use a equity will compel an insolvent to patented invention may, by a bill in execute an assignment. But see Cai- equity, be subjected to sale to pay a ver v. Peck, 131 Mass. 291, a patent judgment. Compare Ashcroft v. right is not an interest which can be Walworth, 2 Fed. Caa. No. 580, reached by a creditor of the owner in Holmes, 152. equity und^r the Massachusetts stat- Cal. — Pacific Bank v. Robinson, 57 ute. Cal. 520, 40 Am. Rep. 120. B. /.—In re Keach, 14 R. I. 571, Conn. — Vail v. Hammond, 60 Conn. a patent right passes to the receiver 374, 22 Atl. 954, 25 Am. St. Rep. of an insolvent debtor, although, 330, a patent may be sold in equity being incorporeal, it cannot be at- for the payment of a debt. tached at law. Moss.— Wilson v. Martin- Wilson 13. Gillett v. Bate, 86 N. Y. 87, Automatic Fire Alarm Co., 149 94. Mass. 24, 20 N. E. 318, 151 Mass. 14. Bryan v. University Pub. Co., 515, 24 N. E. 784, 8 L. R. A. 309, 112 N. Y. 382, 2 L. R. A. 638, 19 N. letters patent may be sold and trans- E. 825; Stephens v. Cady, 14 How. ferred by a court of equity through (U. S.) 528, 14 L. Ed. 528. its master for the benefit of cred- 15. Lord v. Harte, 118 Mass. 271. itors of their owner; Barton v. 16. Warren v. Warren Thread Co., White, 144 Mass. 281, 10 N. E. 840, 134 Mass. 247. 69 Am. Rep. 84, letters patent pass 17. Nippes' Appeal, 75 Pa. St. 472. Peoperxy, etc., which Cbeditobs mat Keaoh. 119 Twife upon property conveyed to her by her husband or otherwise in fraud of her husband's creditors, are not proceeds of the prop- erty conveyed which creditors can subject to the payment of his debts, or follow, under the rule elsewhere stated," in lieu of such property." This has been held to be the rule although the debtor paid the premiums,^* but it has been held that the creditors have a claim upon the money to the extent of the premiums.^* Where a policy on the goods of a debtor was more payable to the mort- gagee of the goods as his interest might appear, and a loss oc- curred, it has been held that a creditor of the debtor might garnish the insurance money in the hands of the insurance com- pany, and, the mortgagee coming in as a claimant, the creditor might attack the mortgage as in fraud of creditors.^ § 20. Life insurance policies and proceeds thereof* — ^The interest of an insolvent debtor in a policy of insurance on his life taken out for the benefit of the estate of the debtor, or pay- able to himself or his legal representatives, cannot be assigned, surrendered, or otherwise disposed of so as to place it beyond the reach of his creditors, but may be reached in equity and sub- jected by creditors the same as other choses in action, either dur- ing his lifetime or after his death, if fraudulently assigned, sur- rendered, or otherwise disposed of by him.** This rule has been 18. See Following proceeds of prop- XJ. S. — ^Aetna Nat. Bank v. Manhat- erty fraudulently conveyed, chap. IV, tan Life Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 769; Cen- § 48, infra. tral Nat. Bank v. Hume, 128 U. S. 19. Forrester v. Gill, 11 Colo. App. 195, 9 Sup. Ct. 41, 32 L. Ed. 370. 410, 53 Pac. 230; Lerow v. Wilmarth, 4«.— Friedman v. Fennell, 94 Ala. 9 Allen (Mass.), 382; Bornheim v. 570, 10 So. 649. Beer, 56 Miss. 149; Nippes' Appeal, Conn.— Barbour v. Connecticut supra. See also McLean v. Hess, 106 jj^^ ^ Ins. Co., 61 Conn. 240, 23 At!. Ind. 555, 7,N. B. 567. I54, 20. Forrester v. Gill, supra. Xy.-Stokes v. Coffey, 8 Bush, 533, 21. Nippes' Appeal supra ^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^ exchanged a policv 22. Coykendall v. Ladd 32 Minn. ^^ ^.^^^^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ J^ ^^^ 529; North Star Boot & Shoe Co. v. ^J ^o his wife. Ladd, 32 Minn. 381, 20 N. W. 334. *" ' 23. N. Y.— Leonard v. Clinton, 26 Me.—Wyma.n v. Gay, 90 Me. 36, ;£j„„ 288 37 Atl. 325, 60 Am. St. Rep. 238. 120 Feaudulent Conveyances. held not to apply where the assignment or other disposition of the policy is within the provisions of a statute permitting in- surance for the protection of wife or children and exempting it from the claims of creditors,"* but other cases hold that a statute Mass. — Anthracite Ins. Co. v. Sears, 109 Mass. 383. Mich. — Ionia County Sav. Bank v. McLean, 84 Mich. 625, 48 N. W. 159. Uiss. — Catchings v. Manlove, 39 Miss. 656. N. C— Burton v. Farinholt, 86 N. C' 260. Ohio. — Child v. Graham, 8 Ohio Dee. (Reprint) 294, 7 Cine. L. Bui. 43. Po.— In re McKown, 198 Pa. St. 96, 47 Atl. 1111, a voluntary assignment by one, when insolvent, to his wife, of a policy on his life, is presumptively fraudulent; McCutcheon's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 133; Elliot's Appeal, 50 Pa. St. 75, 88 Am Dec. 525, an assign- ment in trust for benefit of wife. Tenn. — Walter v. Hattmaa { Tenn. ) , 67 S. W. 476. Can. — ^Prentice v. Steel, 4 Montreal Super. Ct. 319. Eng. — Stokoe v. Cowan, 29 Beav. 637, 7 Jur. N. S. 901, 4 L. T. Eep. N. S. 695, 9 Wkly. Rep. 801, 54 Eng. Re- print, 775; Taylor v. Coenen, 1 Ch. Div. 636, 34 L. T. Rep. N. S. 18; Freeman v. Pope, L. R. 9 Eq. 206, 39 L. J. Ch. 148, L. R. 5 Ch. 538, 39 L. T. Ch. 689, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 816, 18 Wkly. Rep. 906; Sehondler v. Waee, 1 Camp. 487; Jenkyn v. Vau- ghan, 3 Drew, 419, 2 Jur. N. S. 109, 25 L. J. Ch. 338, 4 Wkly. Rep. 214 (since the statutes of 1 and 2 Vict., chap. 110, § 12, bringing insurance policies within 13 Eliz., chap. 5. 24. Cole V. Marple, 98 111. 58, 38 Am. Rep. 83, the wife may hold the proceedB of a policy which the hus- band has procured on his own life and assigned to her, less premiums, with interest, paid by him within the statutory period of limitation with intent to defraud creditors; More- head's Adm'r v. Mayfield, 109 Ky. 51, 58 S. W. 473, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 580, the assignment of a policy to the wife of insured is not fraudulent as to his creditors, except as to premiums paid by him when he was insolvent; Thompson v. Cundiff, 74 Ky. 567; Eamshow v. Stewart, 64 Md. 513, 2 Atl. 734; Elliott V. Bryan, 64 Md. 368, 1 Atl. 614; Judson v. Walker, 155 Mo. 166, 55 S. W. 1083, a policy assigned in favor of his wife by an insolvent husband entitles her to such insurance to the extent to which, un- der the statute, it is exempt front the claims of creditors where he pays the premiums; McCutcheon's Appeal,. 99 Pa. St. 133; Sebrine v. Brickley, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 198, 42 Wkly. Notes Cas. 189. But see Child v. Graham, 8 Ohio Dec. 294, 7 Wkly. Law Bui. 43, where an assignment of a life insur- ance policy by a husband to his wife was held invalid as to creditors under § 6344 of the Revised Statutes, be- cause made with actual intent to de- fraud them, the entire proceeds of the policy were subject to the claims of the creditors, and not merely the premiums paid, as provided by § 3629. Thongh not acknowledged or recorded, the assignment of a policy is valid under a statute providing that " a gift, transfer or assignment of personal property between husband Pbopebxy, bxo., which Ceeditobs may Reach. 121 protecting as against creditors money payable on a life insurance policy taken out by a husband or father for the benefit of his wife or children, does not cover an assignment to them of a policy payable to himself, his executors, administrators, or as- signs.^ 'Not does this rule apply where the assignment is within the rule maintained by the courts in some jurisdictions, in the absence of statute, that a debtor may make reasonable provision for his wife and children by life insurance, where there is no intent to defraud creditors.^' Where the contract of insurance was made solely for the benefit of another, although made pay- able to the debtor or his estate, and an assignment of it was de- livered simultaneously with the policy to such other person, the rule has been held not to apply, since the assignment did not transfer anything in which the creditors had an interest." So a policy of insurance having no surrender value, or no real value, or a merely trivial value, as an asset for creditors, is held not to be within the rule stated.^' Likewise an assignment or surrender by the beneficiary of insurance upon the life of another, as by a wife of an insurance on the life of her husband during hia and wife shall not be valid as to third the wife, except as to the premiums persons unless the same be in writing paid by the husband in excess of $500 and acknowledged and recorded as annually. See also Judson v. Walker, chattel mortgages are required by supra. law to be recorded, since the statute 26. Johnson v. Alexander, 125 Ind. does not a/pply to a policy of insur- 575^ 25 N. E. 706, 9 L. R. A. 660; ance which at the time of its assign- state v. Tomlinson, 16 Ind. App. 662, ment had no surrender value. More- 45 n. E. 1116, 59 Am. St. Rep. 335; head's Adm'r v. Mayfield, supra; Chapman v. Mcllwrath, 77 Mo. 38, 46 Steeley v. Steeley, 23 Ky. L. Rep. Am. Rep. 1 ; David Adier, etc., Cloth- 966, 64 S. W. 642; Cole v. Marple, i^g Co. v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266, 75 supra. N. W. 877. 25. Friedman v Fennell, 94 Ala. ^^ ^^^^^^ ^ ^ 35 ^.^ 570, 10 So. 649; loma County fv. ^^ Bank v. McLean, 84 Mich. 625, 48 N. ^ ' ' ^'^ W. 159; Burton v. Farinholt, 86 N. C. 28. Barbour v. Connecticut Mut. L. 260. But see Cole v. Marple, supra, Ins. Co., 61 Conn. 240, 23 Atl. 154; holding to the contrary, and Tuthill Steeley v. Steeley, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 996, V. Goss, 89 Hun (N. Y.), 609, 35 N. 64 S. W. 642; Provident L., etc., Co. Y. Supp. 136, holding that such an as- v. Fidelity Ins., etc., Co., 203 Pa. St. signed policy inures to the benefit of 82, 52 Atl. 34. 122 Feaudulent Cohvetascbs. life,^' or by a husband of insurance payable to his wife," may not be attacked by the creditors of the beneficiary as fraudulent, since the beneficiary has no vested rights or interest in the insurance which a creditor could seize. It is like the dis- position of property exempt from execution of which creditors cannot complain. An attempted assignment or transfer of an insurance policy being set aside as fraudulent and void as against; creditors, and the insurance having become payable, by the death of the decedent before the judgment annulling the transfer, it has been held that, upon both principle and authority, the full value of the policy having become fixed by the death, the entire insurance insures to the benefit of the creditors, and not merely the cash value thereof.'^ § 21. Payment of premiums for life insurance. — In the ab- sence of actual fraud, it is held, as a general rule, that tihe premiums paid by an insolvent debtor for insurance upon his life, in favor of his -wife and children, or either, cannot be re- covered by creditors, ■whether existing or subsequent, as made in fraud of their rights, or the proceeds of the policy subjected to the payment of his debts, to the amount of the premiums paid by the insolvent debtor during insolvency, where the provision for the family is reasonable and not excessive.^'' On the other 29. Smillie v. Quinn, 90 N. Y. 492, 32. U. fif.— Central Nat. Bank t. aff'g 25 Hun (N. Y.), 332. Hume, 128 U. S. 195, 9 Sup. Ct. 41, 30. Schillinger v. Boes, 85 Ky. 357, 32 L. Ed. 370. 3 S. W. 427, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 18. Colo.— Hendrie, etc., Mfg. Co. t. 31. Continental Nat. Bank v. Piatt, 13 Colo. App. 15, 56 Pac. 209. Moore, 83 App. Div. (N. Y.) 419, 82 /n(i.— Johnson v. Alexander, 125 N. Y. Supp. 302, an assignment in Ind. 575, 25 N. E. 706, 9 L. R. A. contemplation of suicide; In re Mc- 660; Pence v. Makepeace, 65 Ind. Kown, 198 Pa. St. 96, 47 Atl. 11; 345; Foster v. Brown, 65 Ind. 234. Catchings v. Manlove, 39 Miss. 655; Xy.— Hise v. Hartford Life Ins. Co., Ionia County Sav. Bank V. McLean, 84 90 Ky. 101, 13 S. W. 367, II Ky. L. Mich. 625, 48 N. W. 159; Stokoe v. Rep. 924, 29 Am. St. Rep. 358; Thom- Cowan, 29 Beav. 637, 7 Jur. N. S. son v. Cundiflf, 74 Ky. 567; Stokes r. 901, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 695, 6 Wkly. Coffee, 71 Ky. 533, the amount of the Rep. 801, 54 Eng. Reprint, 775; policy ought to be no more than will Schondler v. Waoe, 1 Campb. 487. be sufficient to provide reasonable Pbopebtt, etc., which Cbeditoes may Keach. 123 hand, it is held in some jurisdictions that payments made by an insolvent debtor on a policy of insurance on his own life, for the benefit of his wife or children, arer voluntary gifts to tha beneficiary and are fraudulent and void as to creditors existing at the time of suoh payments.'' In some jurisdictions it is held that where an insolvent debtor voluntarily pays premiums on a policy of insurance on his life for the benefit of his wife, or children, or another, in fraud of his creditors, the latter" may in equity reach and subject the full amount of the insurance in the hands of the insurance company,'* the policy or insurance which it represents being regarded as the subject of the gift, and not the premiums paid.'^ More generally, however, the ride is mainr tained, in such cases, that the creditors of the debtor may reach and subject the insurance to the payment of their claims only to the extent of the premiums so paid, with interest,'* the insur- support for the wife and family and the education of the children. Taid, being the interest of the beneficiary.'' But the rules stated above do not apply where the transaction is authorized and made law- ful by a statute of exemption or by a statute permitting a debtor, as against his creditors, to pay premiums for insurance upon his life for the benefit of his wife and children, or other dependent relatives, except where such a statute expressly ex- cepts from its provisions oases in which the premiums are paid with intent to defraud creditors.** Such statutes being in the OoJo.— Hendrie, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Piatt, supra. D. C. — Central Nat. Bank v. Hume, 3 Mackey, 360, rev'd on other grounds, 128 U. S. 195. Ind. — ^Peace v. Makepeace, supra. Miss. — Jones v. Patty, 73 Miss. 179, 18 So. 794. Ohio. — ^Hoffman v. Kiefer, 10 Ohio Cir. Ct. 401, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 304. Ta. — Stigler v. Stigler, supra. 37. Aetna Nat. Bank v. U. S. Life Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 770. 38. y. r. — Baron v. Brummer, 100 N. Y. 372, 3 N. E. 474; Brummer v. Cohn, 86 N. Y. 11, 40 Am. Eep. 503, it need not appear from the terms of the policy or extrinsic evidence that it was the intention of the insured to avail himself of the provisions of the statute, nor need the policy provide for the disposition of the fund in case of the vrife's death before the hus- band; Brick V. Campbell, 8 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 98. V. S.— In re Jordan, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,511, 2 Hask. 362, under Maine statute; Smith v. Missouri Valley L. Ins. Co., 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,083, 4 Dill. 353, under Missouri statute. Ala.— 'WeXtsMi v. Sehonfield, 76 Ala. 199, 52 Am. Rep. 319. Conn. — Continental L. Ins. Co. v. Palmer, 42 Conn. 60, 19 Am. Rep. 530. /H.— Cole v. Marple, 98 111. 58, 38 Am. Rep. 83; Wagner v. Koch, 45 111. App. 501. Ky. — Hise v. Hartford L. Ins. Co., 90 Ky. 101, 13 S. W. 367, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 924, 29 Am. St. Rep. 358; Thompson v. Cundiflf, 11 Bush. 567. MA— Elliott V. Bryan, 64 Md. 368, 1 Atl. 614. Mo. — Judson V. Walker, ^ 155 Mo. 166, 55 S. W. 1083; Pullis v. Robin- son, 73 Mo. 201, 39 Am. Rep. 497; Charter Oak. L. Ins. Co. v. Brant, 47 Mo. 419, 4 Am. Rep. 328; Kiely v. Hickcox, 70 Mo. App. 617. J?. J. — ^Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. V. Borland, 53 N. J. Eq. 282, 31 Atl. 272. Ohio. — ^Weber v. Paxton, 48 Ohio St. 266, 26 N. E. 1051. Such a sUtute applies to a policy issued by a foreign insurance company as well as to one of those issued by domestic com- panies. Cross V. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St. 613, 10 N. E. 160. Pa. — ^Appeal of McCutcheon, 99 Pa. St. 133. Tenn. — Rose v. Wortham, 95 Tenn. 605, 32 S. W, 458, 30 L. R. A. 609, Pbopebty, etc., which Cbeditobs may Reach. 125 nature of exemption laws are liberally construed by the courts in favor of those intended to be benefitted thereby.'' Where policy exempt by statute, although taken out by the husband before his marriage, and although payable to his legal representatives; Harvey v. Harrison, 89 Tenn. 470, 14 S. W. 1083. Va. — Mahoney v. James, 94 Va. 176, 26 S. E. 384. Bmp.— Holt v. Everall, 2 Ch. D. 266, 45 L. J. Ch. 433, 34 L. T. Rep. N. S. 599, 24 Wkly. Rep. 471. Traaisactleiis covered by sta> tnte. — It has been held that a policy procured by a, debtor in favor of one of his children only was not trithin the protection of a statute authoriz- ing a married woman to cause the life of her husband to be insured for the benefit of herself and children, free from the claims of the representa- tives of the husband or any of his creditors. Fearn v. Ward, 65 Ala. 33, 80 Ala. 555, 2 So. 114. But a statute providing that it shall be lawful for any married woman, by herself and in her own name, or in the name of any third person as her trustee, to cause the life of her husband to be insured for her sole use, and exempting such insurance from the claims of the hus- band's representatives or creditors, contemplates and includes cases where the husband procures for his wife a policy on his own life. Felrath v. Schonfield, 76 Ala. 199, 52 Am. Rep. 319; Houston v. Maddux, 179 111. 377, 53 N. E. 599. An eaidoxmient policy has been held to be within such a statute. Brummer v. Cohn, 86 N. Y. U, 40 Am. Rep. 503. Premiiima paid prior to fhe enaetmeiit of the statute are not protected. Thompson v. Cundiff, 11 Bush. (Ky.) 567. Death of wife before husband. — See Tompkins v. Levy, 87 Ala. 263, 6 So. 346j 13 Am. St. Rep. 31. Intent to defrand creditors. — Under a statute permitting the insur- ance of a husband's life for his wife's sole use, and exempting such insur- ance from the claims of the hus- band's representatives or creditors, but providing that if the premium on such a policy is paid by any person "with intent to defraud his credit- ors,'' an amount of the insurance equal to the premiums so paid shall inure to the benefit of such creditors, it has been held that voluntary pay- ment by a husband of the premiums on a policy in favor of his wife while he is insolvent, since it results in hindering, delaying or defrauding creditors, is fraudulent, within the meaning of the proviso, without refer- ence to the motive or actual intention in making the payments. Houston v. Maddux, 179 111. 377, 53 N. E. 599. See also Marmon v. Harwood, 124 111. 104, 16 N. E. 236, 7 Am. St. Rep. 345; Cole v. Marple, 98 111. 58, 38 Am. Rep. 83; Wagner v. Koch, 45 111. App. 501; Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Borland, 53 N. J. Eq. 282, 31 Atl. 272; Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. V. Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 528, 6 Am. L. Rec. 452. Compare, however, Weber v. Paxton, 48 Ohio St. 266, 26 N. E. 1051. Under the Kentucky statute of 1870, which provides in substance that insurances made by husbands, whether insolvent or not, for the bene- fit of their wives and children, are 126 Fbattdulent Conveyances. tihe debtor expends for insurance more than the statute au- thorizes, or where there is an intent to defraud his creditors, the latter, ill some jurisdictions, may subject the insurance to the extent of such excess payments only/" In other jurisdictions, valid as against creditors, unless the insurance is made with intent to de- fraud creditors, in which case the premiums paid shall be subject to their claims, it has been held that if the husband be insolvent and the amount of the insurance unreasonable, this will be sufficient evidence of fraud. Hise v. Hartford L. Ins. Co., 90 Ky. 101, 13 S. W. 367, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 924, 29 Am. St. Rep. 358. See also Morehead v. May field, 109 Ky. 51, 58 S. W. 473, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 580; Thompson v. Cundiff, 11 Bush. (Ky.) 667. Beierration of benefit to baa- band. — Where the husband takes out a policy of insurance on his own life, in favor of his wife, " her heirs, execu- tors or assigns," paying the premiums with his own funds, a provision to the effect that, after the expiration of fif- teen years, on surrender of the policy, none of its provisions having been vio- lated, the company would pay to him, his heirs, executors or assigns, the equitable value of the policy, "as an endowment in cash," is the reserva- tion of a benefit to himself, and ren- ders the policy fraudulent as against his creditors. Tompkins v. I.evy, 87 Ala. 263, 6 So. 346, 13 Am. St. Rep. 31. Payment of preminm by note of debtor. — ^It has been held that it is immaterial, so far as the claims of existing creditors are concerned, whether a debtor who takes out a policy of insurance on his life pays the premium in cash or executes his note therefor, since the fund to which the creditors have a right to look for the payment of their claims may be diminished by the fraudulent creation of additional claims against it, as well as by the improper diversion of assets which constituted it. Lehman v. Gunn, 124 Ala. 213, 27 So. 475, 82 Am. St. Rep. 159, 51 L. R. A. 112. 39. N. r.— Brummer v. Cohn, 86 N. Y. 11, 40 Am. Rep. 503. Ala. — ^Tompkins v. Levy, 87 Ala. 263, 6 So. 346, 13 Am. St. Rep. 31; Felrath v. Schonfield, supra. III. — ^Houston V. Maddux, supra; Cole V. Marple, supra; Ramsey v. Nichols, 73 111. App. 643. Mo. — Judson v. Walker, .supra; Charter Oak L. Ins. Co. v. Brant, supra. Term. — Rose v. Wortham, supra. 40. — ff. Y. — Stokes v. Araerman, 121 N. Y. 337, 24 N. E. 819; Tuthill V. Goss, 35 N. Y. Supp. 136. TJ. S. — ^Ingles v. New England Mut. L. Ins. Co., 27 Fed. 249, Massachu- setts statute; In re Jordan, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,511, 2 Hask. 362, Maine statute. In a federal case it was held that where policies on the life of a husband were made for the benefit of his wife, but the premiums were paid " from the property of the husband in fraud of the rights of his credit- ors," his creditors could subject the insurance to the amount of the pre- miums so paid. Although this deci- sion was made in New York, there was no reference in the opinion to the New York statute allowing insurance to a limited extent on the life of the husband for the benefit of his wife. Peopeett, etc., which Ceeditoes may Reach. 127 however, the creditors, may subject the entire insurance, or such proportion of the insurance as the excees of premiums paid bears to the total amount of premiums paid.** § 22. Payment of premiums not voluntary or fraudulent. — The premiums paid by an insolvent debtor for life insurance policies taken out in favor of his wife or for another's benefit, or the proceeds of such policy, are not, in the absence of fraudu- lent intent, liable for his debts and subject to the claims of creditors, where the payment of the premiums was not volun- tary but based on adequate consideration, or the insurance was effected, or the policy was assigned, as security for, or in pay- ment of, bona fide indebtedness due to the assignee or beneficiary of the policy.** The proceeds of life insurance policies on the Aetna Nat. Bank v. United States L. Ins. Co., 24 Fed. 770. A quarterly premium not ex- ceeding the statutory annual limita- tion, no other premium being paid, cannot be reached by creditors. In re Jordan, supra. Membership in a benevolent aisociation is life insnrance within the meaning of the Illinois statute providing for recovery by creditors of an insolvent of life in- surance premiums paid by such insol- vent with intent to defraud his creditors. Ramsey v. Nichols, supra. Excess premiums paid before contracting of debt. — Under the New York statute limiting the ex- emption of insurance policies on a husband's life from the claims of his creditors by declaring that where the amount of the annual premium paid out of the husband's funds or prop- erty exceeds a certain sum, the ex- emption shall not apply to such por- tions of the premiums as are in excess of the sums specified, it has been held that where the premiums so paid. after the contracting of a debt by a husband, do not exceed the sum lim- ited, the creditor can acquire no lien, although prior to the contracting of the debt premiums were so paid in excess of the statutory limitation. Baron v. Brummer, 100 N. Y. 372, 3 N. E. 474. A policy is not void because ex- cessive premiums have been paid. Smith V. Missouri Valley L. Ins. Co., supra. 41. Stone v. Knickerbocker L. Ins. Co., 52 Ala. 589. Excess of insurance not assets of estate. Jones v. Patty, 73 Miss. 179, 18 So. 794. See supra, note 34. 42. Fearn v. Ward, 80 Ala. 555, 2 So. 114; Hendrie, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Piatt, 13 Colo. App. 15, 56 Pac. 209, where the debtor was indebted to his wife in a sum more than sufficient for the payment of such premiums, and the insurance was affected under an express agreement with his wife to keep his life insured in an amount sufficient to repay such indebtedness, and to provide a fund for the sup- 128 Feaudulekt Convetances. life of a debtor, payable to or assigned to his wife or another, aje not subject to the payment of his debts, where the premiums thereon were paid by the debtor while he was solvent and there was no intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors." And it has been held in some states that the proceeds of such a policy are not subject to the claims of the creditors of the debtor or assignor, where there is no fraudulent intent, merely because the debtor was insolvent at the time when the insurance was effected or the assignment was made." § 23. Premiums not paid by debtor. — \^ere premiums on insurance policies on the life of a debtor for the benefit of or assigned to his wife or another were not paid by the debtor but by his wife out of her separate estate or by another person, the proceeds thereof or premiums paid on such insurance can- not be reached and subjected by creditors of the debtor or as- signor.^^ But since the right of existing creditors to proceed port of herself and children after hia death; First Nat. Bank v. White, 60 N. J. Eq. 487, 46 Atl. 1092, where the insured agreed to take out a life insurance policy in favor of his wife in consideration of heing allowed the income from her estate during the life of the policy, and such income exceeded the amount of premium paid by, him; Sebring v. Briekley, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 198, 42 W. N. C. 189. Asslgiuuent of policy In oon- sideration of maorriage. — ^Where an insolvent debtor assigned a policy of insurance on hia life in considera- tion of the assignee's promise to marry him, which she subsequently did, and she took the assignment without notice of his insolvency and without knowledge of any intent on his part to defraud his creditors, it was held that she took a good title as a purchaser for a valuable consid- eration as against his creditors. Provident I/., etc., Oo. v. Fidelity Ins., etc., Co., 203 Pa. St. 82, 52 Atl. 34. 43. Foster v. Brown, 65 Ind. 234; Langford v. Freeman, 60 Ind. 46; King V. Cram, 185 Mass. 103, 69 N. E. 1049; First Nat. Bank v. Simp- son, 152 Mo. 638, 54 S. W. 506; Trough's Estate, 8 Phila. (Pa.) 214. 44. McCutchoen's Appeal, 99 Pa. St. 133; Chapman v. Mcllwrath, 77 Mo. 38, 46 Am. Eep. 1; Weber t. Paxton, 48 Ohio St. 266, 26 N. E. 1051. 45. y. T. — Baron v. Brummer, 100 N. Y. 372, 3 N. E. 474, where no premium in excess of the statutory amount was paid by the debtor after the contracting of the plaintiff's debt. 17. S. — In re Murrin, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,968, 2 Dill. 120. Ky. — Stokes v. Coffey, 8 Bush. 533. Mo. — First Nat. Bank r. Simpaoo, supra. Property, etc., which Creditors may Reach. 129 against the fund arising from an insurance policy of their debtor arises upon the death of the debtor, their right cannot be af- fected by the fact that another person pays, after the death of the debtor, as an act of generosity to the beneficiaries named in the policy, the premium note given by the debtor.*" § 24. Improvements, rents, and profits of real estate. — Judg- ment creditors, "with executions returned unsatisfied and their remedies at law exhausted, may by bill in chancery assail any fraudulent dispositioni of their debtor's real or personal prop- erty, and reach either legal or equitable assets of their debtor. Any beneficial interest of the debtor in real property, as well as in personal estate, rights which do not necessarily pertain to the absolute fee or ownership of real property but which grow out of such ownership, acquisitions which are the mere fruit and outgrowtb of the property, may be thus reached and sub- jected by creditors.*^ Thus rents and j^rofits may be recovered by a creditor from a fraudulent grantee of the debtor. The debtor can no more give away the rents and profits of bis real estate than he can give away the real estate itself, and the fraudulent grantee has no more right, as against creditors of the grantor, to hold the former than he has to hold the latter.*^ But the grantee of lands by a fraudulent conveyance is not accountable to the creditors at large for the rents and profits prior to the time when a receiver is appointed,*' nor is a trustee, under an assignment of land which is declared fraudulent at the suit of a creditor, bound to account for the rents received and in good Ohio. — Jacob v. Continental L. Ins. Farnham v. Campbell, 10 Paige (N. Co., 1 Cine. Super. Ct. 519. Y.) 598; Edward v. Entwisle, 2 Tenn. — ^Roberts v. Winton, 100 Mackey (D. C), 43; State v. Mo- Tenn. 484, 45 S. W. 673, 41 L. E. A. Bride, 105 Mo. 265, 15 S. W. 72. 275. 48. Loos v. Wilkinson, supra; Eng. — Holt v. Everall, supra. Marshall v. Croom, 60 Ala. 121; 46. Lehman v. Gunn, 124 Ala Kipp v. Hanna, 2 Bland (Md.) 26. 213, 27 So. 475, 82 Am. St. Rep. 159, See also Rents, issues and profits, 51 L. R. A. 112. chap. XIV, § 38, infra. 47. Loos V. Wilkinson, 110 N. Y. 49. Robinson v. Stewart, 10 N. Y. 195, 18 N. E. 99, L. E. A. 250; 189. 9 130 Fraudulent Conveyances. faith applied, according to the terms of the trust, before the commencement of the suit, or the attaching of any specific lien upon the lands.^" Improvements placed by a debtor upon the real property of another, whether his wife, child, or other third person, acting in concert or collusion with him to defraud credi- tors, or money or property of a debtor expended in improvements upon the real property of any such person, without consideration and with intent to defraud creditors, the owner of the property participating in and having knowledge of such intent, can be followed, and the real estate, or the rents or profits thereof, charged in favor of creditors with the value of such improve- ments, and creditors can reach and subject the real estate, or the rents and profits, to the satisfaction of their claims' to the extent of the value of such improvements.^' The rule does not apply, however, as to subsequent creditors in the absence of an intent to defraud them participated in by or known to the 50. Collumb V. Read, 24 N. Y. 505. 51. N. r.— Isham v. Schafer, 60 Barb. 317, "where no debt has been created between the parties to the fraudulent transaction, and the per- sonal property of the judgment debtor has merged in and become part of the real estate of another in this way, the appropriate, if not the only remedy is to fasten the judg- ment upon the real estate to the ex- tent of the judgment debtor's prop- erty thus made part of the realty;" Bachs V. Tomlinson, 1 St. Bfip. (N. Y.) 484. Ala. — Ware v. Seasongood, 92 Ala. 152, 9 So. 138. III.— Dietz V. Atwood, 19 111. App. 96. /nd.— Blair v. Smith, 114 Ind. 114, 15 N. E. 817, 5 Am. St. Rep. 593; Moore v. Lampton, 80 Ind. 301. Xy. — Brooks-Waterfield Co. v. Frisbie, 99 Ky. 125, 35 S. W. 106, 59 Am. St. Rep. 452; Heck v. Fisher, 78 Ky. 643; Athey v. Knotts, 6 B. Mon. 24. Me. — Trefethen v. Lynam, 90 Me. 376, 38 Atl. 335, 60 Am. St. Rep. 271,. 38 L. R. A. 190. Mass. — liynSe v. McGregor, 13' Allen, 182, 90 Am. Dec. 188, the amount of the increase in value, for which no consideration has been paid by a, wife, and which has been added to her estate by the husband in fraud of his creditors, in equity be- longs to them, and may be made a charge upon the land for their bene- fit. Minn. — Christian v. Klein, 77 Minn. 116, 79 N. W. 602. Mo. — Kirby v. Bruns, 45 Mo. 234, 100 Am. Dec. 376. N. iff.— Caswell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407. Pa. — Peoples Nat. Bank v. Loef- fert, 184 Pa. St. 164, 38 Atl. 996. W. Va. — Humphrey v. Spencer, 36 W. Va. 11, 14 S. E. 410; Burt v.. Peopertt, etc., which Ceeditoes mat Eeach. 131 owiier of the property.^^ Temporary or perishable improvements which do not add to the permanent value of the land, cannot be reached.^' I 26. Crops, ores, and other products of the land — ^Where a conveyance of land is fraudulent and void as to creditors, the growing crops on the lands so fraudulently conveyed are subject to execution in favor of the grantor's creditors and may be reached and subjected by creditors of the grantor.^* The same rule applies to ores and similar products of the land.^^ A judg- ment creditor is also entitled to resort to crops growing upon the land of his debtor after its conveyance in fraud of creditors, so far at least as the fraudulent grantor retains an interest in them by an understanding with the grantee,^* notwithstanding Timmons, 29 W. Va. 441, 2 S. E. 780, 6 Am. St. Rep. 664; Rose v. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122. See also Vandervoart v. Fouse, 52 W. Va. 214, 43 S. E. 112. Contra. — Webster v. Hildreth, 33 Vt. 457, 78 Am. Dec. 632; White v. Hildreth, 32 Vt. 265. 52. Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. (U. S.) 229, 5 L. Ed'. 603; Robinson V. Huffman, 15 Mon. (Ky.) 80, 61 Am. Dec. 177; Caswell v. Hill, 47 N. H. 407. 53. Dick V. Hamilton, 1 Deady (U. S.) 322. 54. Dodd V. Adams, 125 Mass. 398, hay cut on such land is subject to execution to satisfy a debt of the grantor contracted subsequent to the conveyance; Pierce v. Hill, 35 Mich. 194, 24 Am. Rep. 541, and it is not necessary to have the conveyance set aside in a direct proceeding for that purpose; Erickson v. Paterson, 47 Minn. 525, 50 N. W. 699, growing crops subject to levy, upon exempt land, may be so levied upon, although as between the grantor and grantee they pass with the land; Merchants', etc., Sav. Bank v. Lovejoy, 84 Wis. 601, 55 N. W. 108; Stehdman v. Huber, 21 Pa. St. 260. 55. State, Mastin v. McBride, 105 Mo. 265, 15 S. W. 72, 32 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. 616, ores taken out by the purchaser at a trustee's sale of lands of a mining company are sub- ject to execution against the com- pany, where the purchaser is a mere figurehead and nominal purchaser as- sisting the company to defraud its; creditors. 56. Fury v. Strohecker, 44 Mich. 337, 6 N. W. 834, and where there is reason to suppose that collusion exists all doubts should be solved in the creditor's favor. Crops on land purchased in wife's name by an insolvent debtor, with the intention of paying therefor by his labor and skill, and the pro- ceeds of the property, are subject to the payment of his debts. Turner- Looker Co. V. Garvey, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1205, 43 S. W. 202. Crops severed and gathered by a grantor, who is left in pos- session of the property by the laches 132 Ebaudtjlent Conveyances. such crops had not been sown at the time of the fraudulent con- veyance." But if the fraudulent grantee enters into possession, and cultivates the land upon his own account, the creditors of the grantor cannot attach the annual crops. They can only attach and levy upon what their debtor owns and fraudulently oonveyed.^^ They cannot seize the products of the land, pro- duced by the industry of the grantee, as the goods of the grantor ; as, for example, gypsum or plaster, where the rock was dug from the soil by the grantee and made into plaster at his own ex- pense.^* An absolute conveyance intended as a mortgage, whereby a debtor conveys to one of his creditors all crops to be raised by him during succeeding years on the mortgaged premises, of which he maintains possession, is void as to other creditors of the mortgagor, whether prior or subsequent to its date or to the time when a crop is raised, unless before their rights attach thereto the property is delivered to the mortgagee, or a subse- quent act necessary to make it valid is performed.^" But a sale by a landlord of his rental interest in growing crops on the land leased is valid as against his creditors, where it is made in good faith and for a valuable consideration, and with the in- tention of a present vesting of title.'^ The bona fides of a pur- ported sale of an immatured crop, and the question of title to the property, may be, however, for the determination of the jury under certain circumstances.^^ Where a fraudulent conveyance of the grantee, are subject to attach- 61. Hood v. Gibson, 8 Kan. App. ment against the grantor. Wolcott 588, 56 Pac. 148. V. Hamilton, 61 Vt. 79, 17 Atl. 39. 62. Haines v. McKinnon, 35 57. Fury v. Strohecker, supra. Oreg. 573, 57 Pac. 903, where there But see Jones v. Bryant, 13 N. H. 53. was an apparent ambiguity in the 58. Jones v. Bryant, 13 N. H. 53; purported bill of sale, arising from a Kilbride v. Cameron, 17 U. C. C. P. provision requiring the grain to be 373. delivered at the vendee's warehouse 59. Garbutt v. Smith, 40 Barb. at the time of threshing, and the lat- (N. Y.) 22, a creditor cannot thus ter testified that he bought the prop- attack an alleged fraudulent convey- erty at the time the bill of sale was ance collaterally. executed, and that, although the 60. Merchants', etc., Sav. Bank v. property was to be so delivered to Lovejoy, 84 Wis. 601, 55 N. W. 108. him, it was understood between the Peopeety, etc., which Ceeditoes may Reach. 133 of a farm has been made, the grantee has the title to the crops, as against the creditors of the grantor, until the conveyance is impeached, unless he acts as agent of the grantor,^' and is en- titled, so long as the conveyance is not set aside, to Hie crops vyhich he raises on the land for his own benefit.** § 26. Equitable estates, rights, and interests. — The transfer by a debtor of any equitable estate, right or interest in prop- erty, not subject to be levied on at law, without consideration or with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors, is void- able at the election of existing and subsequent creditors, and such estate, right, or interest may be reached and subjected by creditors, in equity, in the hands of the fraudulent transferee.*' By statute, in some jurisdictions, such interests may be reached even at law.** A debtor, however, may sell his equitable in- terest in property, if it be done without fraud, before a bill is parties that the title had already 63. Hartman v. Weiland, 36 Minn. 223, 30 N. W. 815. 64. Cain v. Mead, 66 Minn. 195, 68 N. W. 840. 65. N. Y. — ^Loos V. Wilkinson, 110 N. Y. 195i 18 N. E. 99, 1 L. R. A. 250. U. 8. — Watson v. Bonflls, 116 Fed. 157, 53 C. C. A. 535; Sanford v. Lackland, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,312, 2 Dill. 6, if property was given to trus- tees to hold for A. until he reached a, certain age, when it was to be paid over to him, and A. became bankrupt before he arrived at that age, his as- signee in bankruptcy was entitled to the property. N. C— Frost v. Reynolds, 39 N. C. 494. Pa. — ^Mackason's Appeal, 42 Pa. St. 330, 82 Am. Dec. 517, one sui juris cannot, as against creditors, either prior or subsequent, settle his property, in trust for his own use for life, and over to his appointees by will, and, in default of such ap- pointment, to the use of his lawful heirs-in-f ee ; property so settled is assets in the hands of the trustees for the payment of debts, whether contracted prior or subsequent to the execution of the deed of trust. 8. 0.— McNair v. Moore, 64 S. C. 82, 41 S.. E. 829, where a debtor transferred his equitable interest in land to his wife without considera- tion, and she paid the balance of the purchase money and took the legal title, the conveyance was fraudulent as to her husband's creditors to the extent the transfer was above the homestead exemption. Tenn. — Planters' Bank v. Hender- son, H. Humphr. 75. Eng. — Barston v. Vanheythuysen, 11 Hare, 126, 45 Eng. Ch. 127, 18 Jur. 344, 1 Wkly. Rep. 429. 66. See Remedies, chap. XV, infra. 134 FeATTDULENT CoNVETAUCEa. filed by a creditor to enforce the payment of his judgment out of such equitable interest.*' It is a settled rule of law that the beneficial interest of a cestui que trust,- whatever it may be, is liable in equity for the payment of his debts.** This rule ap- plies to the interest of a cestui que trust in the income of a trust estate or fund.*' In some jurisdictions, by statutory provisions, the surplus income of a trust estate belonging to a debtor, beyond what is necessary for the suitable education, support, and main- tenance of the cestui que trust and those dependent upon him, is liable in equity to the claims of creditors, whether the trust is 'created to receive and pay over the rents and profits of land or the income of personal property.™ But where an equitable ; interest or fund held in trust has proceeded from some person other than the cestui que trust, and the founder of the trust has secured the enjoyment of it to the object of his bounty, by some valid provision in the deed, Avill, or other instrument creating the trust that it shall not be alienable by him, or be subject to be taken by his creditors, the interest of the cestui que trust in the property or the income thereof is rendered inalienable and can- not be charged for his debts or reached in equity by his credi- tors." 67. Eussell v. Houston, 5 Ind. Y. 529, 44 N. E. 169, 52 Am. St. Rep. 180. 752, 33 L. E. A. 708; Tolles v. Wood, 68. Nichols v. Levy, 5 Wall. (U. 99 N. Y. 616, 1 N. E. 251; Williams S.) 433, 441, 18 L. Ed. 596, "it can- v. Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270; Graif v. not be so fenced about by inhibitions Bonnett, 31 N. Y. 9, 88 Am. Dec. and restrictions as to secure to it 236; Sillick v. Mason, 2 Barb. Ch. the inconsistent characteristics of 79; Hardenburgh v. Blair, 30 N. J. right and enjoyment to the bene- Eq. 645. ficiary and immunity from his cred- 71. Potter v. Couch, 141 U. S. itors." 296, 11 Sup. Ct. 1005, 35 L. Ed. 721; 69. Sparhawk v. Cloon, 125 Mass. Spindle v. Shreve, 111 U. S. 542, 4 263, this quality is so inseparable Sup. Ct. 522, 28 L. Ed. 512 ; Hyde v. from the estate, that no provision, Woods, 194 U. S. 523; Nichols v. however express, which does not Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, 23 L. Ed. 254; operate as a cesser, or limitation of Spindle v. Shreve, 4 Fed. 136, 9 the estate itself, can protect it from Biss. 199; Broadway Nat. Bank v. his debts. Adams, 133 Mass. 170, 43 Am. Rep. 70. Wetmore v. Wetmore, 149 N. 504; Arnwine v. Carroll, 8 N. J. Eq. Peopeett, etc., which Ceeditoes may Keaoh. 135 § 27. Equity of redemption An equity of redemption in lands or chattels mortgaged is an equitable right which may be reached by creditors in equity," if it have any value." It has been held that the court will not enter into any nice calculation of the absolute value of the right so reserved, and that suoh equity in lands mortgaged to their full value is a valuable right, which may be reached by creditors.'* But an equity of redemp' tion in an exempt homestead cannot be thus reached by credi- tors.'^ § 28. Interest under contract of purchase. — .An assignment of a debtor's interest, by virtue of a contract for the conveyance of land, which assignment is made and received for the pur- pose of defrauding the creditors of the assignor, is void against subsequent creditors, as well as those whose debts were con- tracted prior to the assignment, and may be reached in equity and subjected by creditors to the satisfaction of their debts.'° § 29. Property purchased in name of third person — ^Where a debtor purchases or advances the purchase money of land, and the conveyance is made to another, for example, to his wife, child, or other third person, the law impresses a trust upon the land, ini favor of the creditors of the debtor, which may be en- 620; Eife v. Geyer, 95 Pa. St. 393; County Bank v. Risley, 19 N. Y. Brown v. Williams, 36 Pa. St. 338; 369. Holdship V. Patterson, 7 Watts 73. See chap. IV, § 4, supra. (Pa.), 542; White v. White, 30 Vt. 74. Sims v. Gaines, 64 Ala. 392. 338; Guernsey v. Lazear, 51 W. Va. 75. Winter v. Eitchie, 57 Kan. 328, 41 S. E. 405. 212, 45 Pac. 595, 57 Am. St. Rep. 72. Campbell v. Fish, 8 Daly (N. 331. See also Homestead, ehap. IV, Y.), 162; Watson v. Bonfils, 116 Fed. § 42, infra. 157, 33 C. C. A. 535; Johnson v. 76. Whitmore v. Woodward, 28 Burnside, 8 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. Me. 392; Frost v. Reynolds, 39 N. 0. 412, 7 Ohio N. P. 74; Pleury v. (4 Ired. Eq.) 494, after payment of Pringle, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 67. the purchase price; McNair v. Moore, Compare Potter v. Skiles, 114 Ky. 64 S. C. 82, 41 S. E. 829; Barton t. 132, 70 S. W. 301, 71 S. W. 627, 24 Vanheythuysen, 11 Hare, 126, 45 Ky. L. Rep. 910, 1457, under Ken- Eng. Ch. 127, 18 Jur. 344, 1 WHy. tucky statute. See Chautauqua Rep. 429. 136 Feaudulent Convetances. forced in a court of equity." Personal property purchased by a debtor with his own money and for his own benefit, although the bill of sale is made to a third person, can be reached by the debtor's creditors.''* § 30. Reservations by debtor. — Any provision in a transfer of property by a person indebted at the time whereby he re- serves or secures a personal benefit to himself or family, at the expense of his creditors, may be avoided by his creditors and the property reached by' them." A debtor cannot place his property 77. N. T. — McCartney v. Bost- wick, 32 N. Y. 53, 31 Barb. 390; Wood V. Robinson, 22 N. Y. 564; Donovan v. Sheridan, 5 J. & Sp. 256. Colo. — Fox V. Lipe, 14 Colo. App. 258, 59 Pac. 850. Del. — ^Newell v. Morgan, 2 Harr. 225. Oa.— Field v. Jones, 10 Ga. 229. Ind. — ^Demaree v. Driskill, 3 Blackf. 115; Kipper v. Glancey, 2 Blackf. 356. Ky. — ^McLeod's Trustee v. McLeod, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 284, 667, 89 S. W. 199, 90 S. W. 5; Mathews v. Ar- britton, 83 Ky. 32; Doyle v. Sleeper, 1 Dana, 531. Me. — ^Augusta Savings Bank v. Crossman, 7 Atl. 396; Gray v. Chase, 57 Me. 558. Md. — Trego v. Skinner, 42 Md. 426. Mass. — Bresnihan' v. Sheehan, 125 Mass. 11. Minn. — Sumner v. Sawtelle, 8 Mirni. 309. Miss. — Simmons v. Ingram, 60 Miss. 886; Bemheim v. Beer, 56 Miss. 149. Mo. — Gutzwiller v. Lackman, 23 Mo. 168. Neh. — Cochran v. Cochran, 62 Neb. 450, 87 N. W. 152. N. J. — ^Haggerty v. Nixon, 26 N. J. Eq. 42. N. C. — Gentry v. Harper, 55 N. C. 177. 8. C. — Godbold v. Lambert, 8 Rich. Eq. 155, 70 Am. Dec. 192. Tenn. — Goff v. Dabbs, 4 Baxt. 300. y«.— Corey v. Morrill, 71 Vt. 51, 42 Atl. 976; Waterman v. Cochran, 12 Vt. 699. W. Va. — Lookhard v. Beckley, 10 W. Va. 87. Can. — O'Doherty v. Ontario Bank, 32 U. C. C. P. 285. Eng. — Barton v. Vanheythuysen, 11 Hare, 126, 18 Jur. 344, 1 Wkly. Rep. 429, 45 Eng. Ch. 127. See also Purchase of property in name of third person, chap. II, § 5, supra. 78. Godding v. Brackett, 34 Me. 27, although the debtor pretended to buy for and the seller supposed he was selling to such third person. 79. N. r.— Schenck v. Barnes, 156 N. Y. 316, 50 N. E. 967, 41 L. R. A. 395, aif'g 25 App. DJv. (N. Y.) 153, 49 N. y. Supp. 222; Young v. Hear- mans, 66 N. Y. 374; Elias v. Farley, 2 Abb. Dec. 11, 3 Keyes 398, 2 Transcr. App. 116, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 39; Harris v. Buchner, 35 App. Div, Peopeett, etc., which Ceeditoes mat Reach. 137 in trust, witli remainder ovei*, reserving to himself the beneficial interest for his life, subject to the expenses of the trust, and thereby put his life interest beyond the reach of his creditors. The entire reserved interest is a fund to which his creditors can • resort.*" A conveyance in consideration of an agreement to furnish a suitable home and support to the grantor during his natural life, amounts to a mere gift, with agreement back for life support, and is not effectual if made to defraud creditors.*^ § 31. Property conveyed by debtor to equitable owner — Where no question, of estoppel is involved, a conveyance by a debtor who holds property in trust, or holds the bare legal title to property for another but has no beneficial interest therein, m not fraudulent as against his creditors, when made by the debtor to the equitable owner or one already having the beneficial title to the property, or to a third person at the request of the equita- ble owner, and the property so conveyed cannot be reached in equity and subjected to the payment of the debts of the debtor or grantor.'^ The rule applies where property purchased by or (N. Y.) 594, 55 N. Y. Supp. 172; ason's Appeal, supra. And see Reser- Todd V. Monell, 19 Hun, 362. vations and trusts for grantor, chap. U. 8. — De Hierapolis v. Lawrence, X, mfra. 115 Fed. 761. 81. Bowlus v. Shanabarger, 19 2f. (7.— Webb v. Atkinson, 124 N. C. Ohio Cir. Ct. 137, 10 Ohio Cir. Dee. 447, 32 S. E. 737. 167. See Cloud v. Malvin, 108 Iowa, Pa. — ^Mackason's Appeal, 42 Pa. St. 52 ; Webb v. Atkinson, 124 N. C. 447, 330, 82 Am. Dec. 517. 32 S. E. 737. See also Support or See also Reservations and trusts for care of grantor and family, chap. X, grantor, chap. X, infra. § 7, infra; Future support of grantor, SO. Sehenck v. Barnes, supra, but chap. X, § 20, infra. where the property is held in trust 82. W. Y. — First Nat. Bank of for a debtor and the fund proceeds Amsterdam v. Miller, 24 App. Div. from a third party, the creditor can (N. Y.) 551, 49 N. Y. Supp. 981, only reach the surplus income, after rev'd on other grounds in 163 N. Y. providing for the proper support of 164, 57 N. E. 308, a trustee of a the cestui que trust; Williams v. fund for the support of himself and Thorn, 70 N. Y. 270; Graff v. Bon- family during life, at his death the nett 31 N. Y. 9, 88 Am. Dec. 236; residue to go to his children, has no Kaymond v. Harris, 84 App. Div. (N. personal interest in the fund which Y.) 546, 82 N. Y. Supp. 689; Mack- his creditors can reach, and Ms as- 138 Fraudulent Conveyances. belonging to one person is conveyed to another by mistake, the legal title thus conveyed to the one being held in trust for the other. The subsequent conveyance by the one thus holding the legal title to the equitable awner is not fraudulent as against signment thereof to his children can- not be questioned by them. V. S.— Schreyer v. Seott, 134 U. S. 405, 10 Sup. Ct. 579, 33 L. Ed. 955. Conn. — Jarvis v. Prentice, 19 Conn. 272. /J«.— Seeders v. Allen, 98 111. 468. Ind, — Bremmerman v. Jennings, 101 Ind. 253; Robertson v. Huffman, 92 Ind. 247. Iowa. — ^McGregor Bank v. Hostet- ter, 61 Iowa, 395, 16 N. W. 289; Cot- trell V. Smith, 63 Iowa, 181, a convey- ance made in consideration of a moral obligation will not be set aside at the instance of a creditor whose judgment was not a lien on the land when the conveyance was made. Xj/.— Clark V. Rucker, 7 B. Mon. 583; M'andy v. Mason, 4 Bush. 339. Me. — First Nat. Bank v. Dwelley, 72 Me. 223, where the debtor received the title for the specific purpose of conveying it to another; Carter v. Porter, 55 Me. 337. Mich. — Victor Sewing Mach. Co. v. Jacobs, 46 Mich. 494, 9 N. W. 532. Miss. — Gallman v. Perrie, 47 Miss. 131, where one purchased land for another through an agent, in whose name as trustee title was taken, a conveyance of the land by the trustee • to the beneficiary originally intended, when judgment was about to be ren- dered against the trustee, was not fraudulent as to the trustee's credi- tor. Mo. — Perkins v. Meighan, 147 Mo. 617, 49 S. W. 498, 71 Am. St. Rep. 586; Dermott v. Carter, 109 Mo. 21, 18 S. W. 1121; Caffee v. Smith, 101 Mb. 229, 13 S. W. 1050; Erwin v. Holderman, 92 Mo. 333, 5 S. W. 36. Nev. — Stanton v. Crane, 25 Nev. 114, 58 Pac. 53. y. J.— Carver v. Todd, 48 N. J. Eq. 102, 28 Atl. 943, 27 Am. St. Rep. 466, a conveyance of trust property by the trustee to the beneficiary is not fraud- ulent as to the creditors of the trus- tee, though their debts accrued before the conveyance was made. IS. C— Buie V. Kelly, 27 N. C. 169; Runyon v. Leary, 20 N. C. 373. Pa. — ^Brown v. Williamson, 36 Pa. St. 338; Bancord v. Kuhn, 36 Pa. St. 383; Holdship v. Patterson, 7 Watts, 547; Ashurst v. Given, 5 Watts & S. 323. Tenn. — ^AUen v. Holland, 3 Yerg. 343. Tew. — ^Bicocchi v. Casey-Swasey Co., 91 Tex. 259, 42 S. W. 963, 66 Am. St. Rep. 875. V*.— White V. White, 30 Vt. 338. Wash. — Samuel v. Kittenger, 6 Wash. 261, 33 Pac. 509. Eng. — Middleton v. Pollock, 45 L. J. Ch. 293, 2 Ch. Div. 104; Houghton V. Tait, 3 Y. & J. 486. See also Moral obligation as con- sideration, chap. VIII, § 6, infra; Conveyance in execution of prior agreement, chap. VIII, § 24, infra. A reconTeyance of land by a debtor, to whom it had been con- veyed for the purpose of qualifying him to vote at a public election, is not void under the statute. Jackson v. Ham, 15 Johns. 261. The retransfer of bank stock by a debtor, to whom it had been Pbopeett, etc., which Ceeditoes mat Reach. 139 the creditors of the former." If the conveyance by a debtor in< eludes property of the debtor, as, for example, where a judg« ment debtor conveys lands held in trust, upon which he has erected a building of his own, to one designated by the cestui que tiiistj the conveyance, as against judgment creditors, is fraudulent pro tanto, that is to say, it is valid as to the land, but fraudulent and void as to the improvements made thereon by the debtor.'* § 32. Conveyance in pursuance of parol trust — ^Where the consideration for real or personal property is paid by one person and the deed or title to the property is taken in the name of another, and the latter, in recognition of an express parol trust or agreement to hold the property in trust for the former and upon request to convey the property to the former, conveys the property or makes a declaration of trust in accordance with the parol trust or agreement, in the absence of any question of estoppel, the creditors of the latter cannot assail and set aside the conveyance as in fraud of creditors and subject the prop- erty to the payment of their claims.^' The equitable duty rest- transferred to enable him to qualify U. S. — ^Moore v. Crawford, 130 U. as a director in a bank, although S. 122, 32 L. Ed. 878; Mills v. Scott, without consideration, is valid, and 43 Fed. 452. protects the stock from garnishment Ind. — ^Hayes v. Eeger, 102 Ind. 524, by a creditor of the debtor. Citizens' 1 N. E. 386. Nat. Bank v. Sturgis Nat. Bank (Tex. Iowa. — De Vore v. Jones, 82 Iowa, Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 550. 66, 47 N. W. 885; Caflfal v. Hale, 49 83. Fairhurst v. Lewis, 23 Ark. Iowa, 53. 435, deed of land purchased by a son Mich. — Desmond v. Myers, 113 executed to his father by mistake; Mich. 437, 71 N. W. 877, 4 Det. L. N. Petit V. Hubbell, 105 Mich. 405, 63 356. N. W. 407, where land belonging to a Mo. — ^DeBeriy v. Wheeler, 128 Mo. principal has been conveyed to his 84, 30 S. W. 338, 49 Am. St. Rep. agent by mistake. 538; Aultman v. Booth, 95 Mo. 383, 84. Bachs v. Tomlinson, 1 St. Rep. 8 S. W. 742. (N. Y.) 484. ^®^- — Cresswell v. McCaig, 11 Neb. 85. Sr. r.— Dunn v. Whalen, 21 N. 222, 9 N. W. 52. Y. Supp. 869; Holden v. Burnham, 2 N. J.— lauch v. De Socarras, 56 N. Hun 678, 63 N. Y. 74; Davis v. J. Eq. 538, 39 Atl. 211; Pitney v. Bol- Graves, 29 Barb. 480. ton, 45 N. J. Eq. 639, 18 Atl. 211; 140 Feaudulent Conveyances. ing on. the latter is sufficient consideration for the transfer.'* But where the circumstances are such that the debtor cannot be regarded as an equitable trustee, the conveyance is invalid.*' § 33. Conveyance by husband to or for wife — In the ab- sence of actual fraud or circumstances establishing an estoppel, where the legal title to property purchased with the means of the wife or with her separate estate is in the husband, and he con- veys it to his wife, directly or through a third person, the con- veyance is valid as against the creditors of the husband and the property cannot be reached in equity, and subjected to the satis- faction of their claims.'* And where he CKchanges it for other Jamison v. Miller, 27 N. J. Eq. 586. N. C— Briaco v. Norris, 112 N. O. 671, 16 S. E. 850. Or. — Richmond v. Bloch, 36 Or. 590, 60 Pac. 385. Pa. — Sackett v. Spencer, 65 Pa. 89. Tea;. — Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Stur- gis Nat. Bank (Civ. App.), 81 S. 'W. 550. Eng. — Gardner v. Eowe, 3 L. J. Ch. O. S. 220, 2 Sim. & St. 346, 25 Rev. Rep. 214, 1 Eng. Ch. 346, 57 Eng. Reprint, 378, aff'd 7 L. J. Ch. O. S. 2, 5 Russ. 258, 5 Eng. Ch. 258, 38 Eng. Reprint, 1024. But see Smith v. Lane, 3 Pick. (Mass.) 205, where a husband con- veyed his life estate in his wife's lands to her father, who, being insol- vent, afterwards conveyed it to the wife, to avoid it being taken by cred- itors, the conveyance to the wife was fraudulent as against creditors, and could not be rendered valid by parol evidence showing the first conveyance to have been made in trust for her benefit. 86. Davis v. Graves, 29 Barb. (N. Y.) 480. 87. Champlin v. Seeber, 56 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 46, where land volun- tarily conveyed by a mother to her daughter was inherited by the mother from her intestate father, but it was claimed that the conveyance was, in pursuance of his request to the mother shortly before his death, as- sented to by her. 88. N. Y.— Syracuse Chilled Plow Co. V. Wing, 85 N. Y. 421; Holden v. Burnham, 5 Thomp. & C. 195; Bald- win V. Ryan, 3 Thomp. & C. 251; Wickes V. Clark, 3 Edw. Ch. 58. V. 8. — Voorheis v. Blanton, 89 Fed. 885, 32 C. C. A. 384, 83 Fed. 234. Fla.— mil V. Meinhard, 39 Fla. Ill, 21 So. 805. Ga. — Rutherford v. Chapman, 59 6a. 177. 7JZ.— Phillips V. North, 77 111. 243; McLaurie v. Partlow, 53 111. 340; Torrey v. Dickinson, 111 111. App. 524; Fleming v. Magley, 32 111. App. 183. Ind. — Taylor v. Duesterberg, 109 Ind. 165, 9 N. E. 907; Lord v. Bishop, 101 Ind. 334; Heaton v. White, 85 Ind. 376; Leonard v. Bar- nett, 70 Ind. 367; Eagan v. Downing, 55 Ind. 65; Summers v. Hoover, 42 PeopertYj etc., which Cbeditoes mat Keach. 141 property, and has the deeds of the latter made to her, equity ■will uphold her title as against creditors not misled by the title standing iu him/' The right of the wife as against her husband's creditors may be determined by laches in asserting her right, although the conveyance may have been taken in her husband's name by mistalce.'" The title to property purchased in his own name during coverture by one "who has reduced his wife's personal property to possession, in a state where the title to such property rests by law in the husband when reduced to his Ind. 153; Simms v. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181, 9 Am. Rep. 679. Iowa. — Devore v. Jones, 82 Iowa, 66, 47 N. W. 885; Payne v. Wilson, 76 Iowa, 377, 41 N. W. 45. Ky. — Campbell v. Campbell, 79 Ky. 395. Md.— Hinman v. Silcox, 91 Md. 576, 46 Atl. 1017. Mass. — Bancroft v. Curtis, 108 Mass. 47; Stetson v. O'SuUivan, 90 Mass. 321. Minn. — Farnham v. Kennedy, 28 Minn. 365, 10 N. W. 20. Miss. — Citizens' Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foster, 64 Miss. 288, 1 So. 238. Mo. — Cooper v. Standley, 40 Mo. App. 138; Bangert v. Bangert, 13 Mo. App. 144. ]Ve5.— Jayne v. Hymer, 66 Neb. 785, 92 N. W. 1019, where property conveyed to the wife was conveyed in payment of money advanced by her to her husband, the proceeds of which had been used in the purchase of her property, which was the con- sideration of the conveyance; Hews V. Kenney, 43 Neb. 815, 62 N. W. 204; Goldsmith v. Fuller, 30 Neb. 563, 46 N. W. 712. N. J. — Dresser v. Zabriskie, 39 Atl. 1066; Beck v. Schultz, 32 Atl. 695; Providence City Nat. Bank v. Hamilton, 34 N. J. Eq. 158. N. C. — Brisco v. Norris, 112 N. C. 671, 16 S. E. 850. Pa. — Heath v. Slocnm, 115 Pa. St. 549, 9 Atl. 259. Tenn. — ^Rosenbaum v. Davis (Ch. App.), 48 S. W. 706; Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 1 Head. 305. Tex. — Matador Land, etc., Co. v. Cooper (Civ. App. 1905), 87 S. W. 235; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Sturgis Nat. Bank (Civ. App.), 81 S. W. 550; McKamey v. Thorp, 61 Tex. 648; Aultman v. George, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 34 S. W. 652. Fo. — Spence v. Repass, 94 Va. 716, 27 S. E. 583. Wash. — ^Kemp v. Folsom, 14 Wash. 16, 43 Pac. 1100. W. Va. — Prim v. Mcintosh, 44 W. Va. 790, 28 S. E. 742; Hamilton v. Steele, 22 W. Va. 348; McGinnis v. Curry, 13 W. Va. 29, but a convey- ance will not be sustained where the property had been given by the wife to the husband. Wis. — Marsten v. Dresen, 85 Wis. 530, 55 N. W. 896. See Appropriation of wife's estat^, chap. VIII, § 48, infra; Laches of wife in asserting claim, chap. VIII, § 52, infra. 89. Sweeney v. Damron, '47 111. 450. 90. Hinman v. Silcox, 91 Md. 576, 46 Atl. 1017. 142 Feaudulent Conveyances. possession, is not affected with any implied trust in favor of the wife J and a subsequent conveyance of the property so purchased by him to his wife in consideration of a supposed implied trust will be treated as a voluntary conveyance, or post-nuptial settle- ment.'^ A husband has a right to decline to assert absolutely his marital rights to the personal property of his wife, and the equitable right of a wife to a settlement of her separate estate, not reduced to possession by her husband, is a consideration sufficiently valuable to support, as against creditors, a deed to her or in trust to her from her husband, relinquishing such estate for her sole and separate use.'^ And where money is received by a husband as his wife's and to be accounted for or secured by him to her, he waiving his marital rights thereto, she has an equitable right to the fund sufficient to sustain a conveyance or mortgage which he subsequently gave to re-imburse or secure her.'* But in order to support a conveyance to the wife, by the husband, on the ground of a previous application of her separate property to his use, it must appear that the advances were made by her on the faith of the anticipated conveyance, and that the convey- ance had reference to the previous advances by the wife.'* 91. American Freehold Land, etc., Mon. 462; Hurdt v. Cburtenay, 5 Co. V. Maxwell, 39 Fla. 489, 22 So. Mete. 139. 751, oitmg Coleman v. Burr, 92 N. Y. Mass. — Gassett v. Grout, 4 Mete. 17, 45 Am. Rep. 160; Boulton v. 486. Hahn, 58 Iowa, 518; Meredith v. Eng. — White r. Sansom, 3 Atk. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 92 Ind. 343; 410, 26 Eng. Reprint, 1037; Moore v. Boiling V. Jones, 67 Ala. 508; Joiner Rycault, Prec. Ch. 22, 24 Eng. Re- V. Eranklin, 12 Lea (Tenn.), 420; print, 12; Turnley v. Hooper, 3 Hart V. Leete, 104 Mo. 315; Super v. Smale & G. 349; In re Home, 54 L. Chandler, 36 S. C. 344; Clarke v. T. Rep. N. S. 301; Dundas v. Dutens, King, 34 W. Va. 631. See also Hus- 2 Cox. Ch. 235, 30 Eng. Reprint, 109, band's curtesy or other interest in 1 Ves. Jr. 196, 30 Eng. Reprint, 298, wife's property, chap. IV, § 37, infra. 1 Rev. Rep. 112. 92. U. S.— Gallego v. Chevallie, 9 93. Syracuse Chilled Plow Co. v. Fed. Cas. No. 5,200, 2 Brock. 285. Wing, 85 N. Y. 421; Jaycox v. Cald- AJo.— Bradford v. Goldsborough, well, 51 N. Y. 395; Ellis v. Myers, 4 15 Ala. 311. Silv. (N. Y.) 323, 8 N. Y. Supp. 139. Ky. — ^McClanahan v. Beasley, 17 B. 94. Wickes v. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. Mon. Ill; McCauley v. Rodes, 7 B. (N. Y.) 58. Peopebty, etc., which Ceeditoes may Eeaoh. 143 § 34. Reconveyance by fraudulent grantee. — A court of equity will afford no relief to a debtor "who has transferred his property for the purpose of defrauding his creditors, and who subsequently seeks, as against the transferees, to recover back the same.'' Such a conveyance vests the title to the property transferred in the fraudulent grantee,'* and the property in his hands is subject to a lien as against him and to the claims of his creditors, the same as his other property." But where the grantee of a conveyance made to defraud creditors without con- sideration reconveys the property to his grantor, or a fraudulent assignee accounts for and pays over to the debtor the proceeds of the property assigned, before any creditor obtains a lien thereon, the reconveyance is valid as against his creditors and he is discharged from liability to them. A creditor at large is not within the protection of the statute in relation to fraudulent conveyances, and the grantee's creditors, who have no lien, can- not attack the conveyance as fraudulent as to them.'* In some> jurisdictions, however, the rule is maintained that a reconvey- ance by a fraudulent grantee or assignee, who is in failing cir- 95. See Right to recover property 684, 75 S. W. 155; C. Aultman & Co. fraudulently conveyed, chap. XIV, § 8, v. Booth, 95 Mo. 383, 8 S. W. 742. infra. N. G. — Powell v. Ivey, 88 N. C. 96. See Property rights, chap. 256. XIV, § 4, mfra. Ohio — Swift v. Gtoldridge, 10 Ohio, 97. See Rights of creditors of 230, 36 Am. Dec. 85. grantee, chap. XIV, § 23, infra. Term. — Stanton v. Shaw, 3 Baxt. 98. m. Y.— Cramer v. Blood, 48 N. 12. Y. 684; Davis v. Graves, 29 Barb. Tex. — Biococchi v. Casey-Swaaey 480; Jackson v. Ham, 15 Johns. 261. Co., 91 Tex. 259, 42 S. W. 963, 66 In^_ — Lafayette Bank v. Brady, 96 Am. St. Rep. 875, where there was an Ind. 498. actual fraudulent intent known to Iowa. — Davidson v. Dwyer, 62 and participated in by the grantee; Iowa, 332, 17 N. W. 575; First Nat. Peek v. Jones, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 335, Bank v. Hostetter, 61 Iowa, 395, 16 30 S. W. 382, where the intent to de- N. W. 289. fraud did not appear but the convey- ^y_ — Clark V. Rucker, 7 B. Mon. ance was voluntary. gg3_ W. Va. — Farmers' Bank v. Gould, JIfe.— Matthews v. Buck, 43 Me. 48 W. Va. 99, 35 S. E. 878, 86 Am. 265. St. Rep. 24. J/o.— Schneider v. Fatten, 174 Mo. Wis.— Fargo v. Ladd, 6 Wis. 106. 144 Feaudulent Conveyances. cumstances, without consideration, to his grantor or assignor, is fraudulent and void as to the creditors of the former, since he could not, on becoming insolvent, reconvey property the title to which had vested in him absolutely as against the original grantor or assignor.^' § 35. Property subject to power of appointment. — It is a rule of equity in the courts of England,^ and in this country, where it has not been abrogated by statute,^ that where a pep- son has a general power of appointment by will over property, and has exercised the power, the property thus appointed form? a part of his assets, and is subject to the claims of his creditors, in preference to those of a legatee or of the gratuitous appointee. The principle upon which the right of the creditor rests is that the absolute power of conveying or disposing of property for one's own. benefit, makes the person to whom it is given the owner. The power of absolute and beneficial control cannot and ought not to be separated from the ownership.' The power of appoint- ment must, however, be a general power,* and a court of equity 99. Ala.— Keel v. Larkin, 83 Ala. 2. N. Y. — Tallmadge v. Sill, 21 142, 3 So. 296, 3 Am. St. Bep. 702. Barb. 34. Conn. — Ohapin v. Pease, 10 Conn. U. 8. — ^Brandies v. Cochrane, 112 69, 25 Am. Dec. 56. U. S. 344, 5 Sup. Ct. 194, 28 L. Ed. Mass. — Smith v. Lane, 3 Pick. 205. 760. Miss. — Walton v. Tusten, 49 Miss. Mass. — Olney v. Baleh, 154 Mass. 569. 318, 28 N. E. 258; Clapp v. Ingra- Pa. — Gerker v. Bowen, 6 Phila. ham, 126 Mass. 200. 548. N. B. — Johnson v. Ctishing, 15 N. Can. — Johnson v. Kline, 16 Ont. H. 298, 41 Am. Dee. 694. 129. Pa. — Commonwealth v. Duffield, 12 1. In re Harvey, 13 Qh. D. 216, 49 Pa. St. 277. L. J. Ch. 3, 28 Wkly. Rep. 73; Shat- 3. Tallmadge v. Sill, 21 Barb. (N. took V. Shattock, L. R. 2 Eq. 182, 35 Y.) 34, 53. Beav. 489, 12 Jur. N. S. 405, 35 L. J. 4. Tallmadge v. Sill, supra, " by a Ch. 509, 14 L. T. Rep. N. S. 452, 14 general power we imderstand a right Wkly. Rep. 600, 55 Eng. Reprint, to appoint whomsoever the donee 986; Pack v. Bathurst, 3 Atk. 269, pleases; by a particular power it is 26 Eng. Reprint, 957; 4 Kent Com. meant that the donee ia restricted to 339; 2 Sugd. Powers, 29, § 7, 173, some objects designated in the deed § 2. creating the power, as to his own Peopeety, etc., which Ceeditoes may Keach. 145 ■will not interfere, unless the donee of the power has done some act indicating an intention to execute it.^ In New York the rule of English equity subjecting property subject to a general power of appointment to the debts of the donee of the power, after its exercise, has been abrogated by statute, and this assei has been withdrawn from creditors. The general purpose of the Wew York statute is stated to have been to place the doctrine of powers on rational grounds. The rule of English equity which made tlie estate embraced in a power to appoint generally by will liable to the claims of creditors, if the power was executed, but exempt therefrom if it was not executed, seemed so refined a distinction that sound logic would not tolerate it. The English rule was based upon the proposition that the right to dispose of property was equal to the ownership of the property. The New York statute recognizes that there is no distinction between the absolute power of disposition and the absolute ownership, but it confines the absolute power of disposition to a power by which the grantee is enabled in his lifetime to dispose of the entire fee for his own benefit, and does not include therein a power to appoint by will. There is no provision that a general and bene- ficial power, like a power of appointment generally by will, shall subject the estate embraced in it to the claims of creditors.* § 36. Separate estate or property of debtor's wife. — Neither the equitable nor the statutory separate property or estate of a wife can be subjected by the creditors of her husband to the payment of their claims, since they have no interest in the property, and a conveyance of such property, by the wife or by the husband and wife jointly, is not fraudulent as to the husband's creditors and cannot be avoided by them.'' The act of children;" Johnson v. Gushing, 15 N. Y. 4S0, af'g 2 Thomp. & C. 318; H. 298, 41 Am. Dec. 694. Strong v. Skinner, 4 Barb. 546. 5. Johnson v. Gushing, supra. V. 8. — Davis v. Fredericks, 104 U. 6. Grooke v. Kings County, 97 N. S.- 618, 26 L. Ed. 849; Stewart v. Y. 421; Cutting v. Cutting, 86 N. Y. Piatt, 101 U. S. 731, 25 L. E. 816, 522. where the property was appropriated 7. y. T. — ^Mapes v. Snyder, 59 N. to the payment of one of the hus- 10 146 Featjdttlent Conveyances. the husband in joining in the conveyance by his wife of her separate property is not a fraud on creditors, although he re- ceives no consideration for the act.' Equity will uphold the title of the wife, as against creditors of the husband, and the validity of a conveyance of such property bj the wife jointly with her husband, although the legal title to lands purchased with the means of the wife was in the husband,' or was taken in the names of the husband and wife jointly," or, without the knowledge or consent of the wife, was taken in the husband's name," or the property was acquired through the husband acting as the agent of his wife and otherwise assisting her.*^ Property which is purchased by a husband, the title to which is taken in his wife's name, cannot be reached by his creditors, where none of his property or money goes to pay for it, but it is purchased with the wife's separate estate." band's creditors; Vorheea v. Blanton, 83 Fed. 234, 89 Fed. 885, 32 C. C. A. 384. Ala. — ^Wing v. Eoswald, 74 Ala. 346. Ga. — Sperry v. Haslam, 57 Ga. 412. Ky. — ^Marshall v. Marshall, 2 Bush. 415; Eversole v. Bullock, 2G Ky. L. E^p. 1098, 83 S. W. 556. Me. — Hubbard v. Remick, 10 Me. 140; Wilson v. Ayer, 7 Me. 173. Jfos«.— ^Stetson v. CSuUivan, 8 Allen, 321. Mo. — Cox V. Cox, 91 Mo. 71, 3 S. W. 585; Ault v. EUer, 38 Mo. App. 598. 'Neb.—Ja.yne v. Hymer, 66 Neb. 785, 92 N. W. 1019. N. J. — Dresser v. Zabriskie (Ch.), 39 Atl. 1066; Quidort v. Pergeaux, 18 N. J. Eq. 472. i8. C. — Davidson v. Graves, Riley Eq. 232. Term. — Smith v. Greer, 3 Humph. 118. Tea!.— McKamey v. Thorp, 61 Tex. 648; Aultman & Co. v. George, 12 Tex. Civ. App. 457, 34 S. W. 652; Cavil V. Walker, 7 Tex. Civ. App. 305, 26 S. W. 854. Wash. — ^Kemp v. Folsom, 14 Wash. 16, 43 Pac. 1100. W. Va. — Guernsey v. Lazear, 51 W. Va. 328, 41 S. E. 405; Hamilton v. Steele, 22 W. Va. 348. See Purchase of property by hus- band in name of wife, chap. II, § 6, supra. 8. Besser v. Joyce, 9 Or. 310. 9. Sweeney v. Damron, 47 111. 450; McClanahan v. Beasl^r, 56 Ky. III. See also chap. IV, § 33, supra. 10. MeConnell v. Martin, 52 Ind. 434. 11. Eagan v. Downing, 55 Ind. 65; Snyder v. Martin, 52 Ind. 434; MeConnell v. Martin, 52 Ind. 434. 12. Bank of Tipton v. Adair, 172 Mo. 156, 72 S. W. 510; Eagan v. Downing, 55 Ind. 65. See Services rendered by husband for wife, chap. IV, § 13, supra. 13. Popfinger v. Yutte, 102 N. Y. 38, 6 N. E. 259; McLean v. Hess, 106 Peopeety, etc., which Ceeditoes may Keach. 147 § 37. Husband's curtesy or other interest in wife's property. — The voluntary conveyance, release, or surrender by a husband of his inchoate estate or interest in his wife's real estate as ten- ant by the curtesy, either initiate or consummate, is fraudulent and void as against the e:^isting creditors of the husband, and such estate or interest may be reached by creditors," except in those jurisdictions where the common law rule has been changed by statute so that tenancy by the curtesy is abolished,^^ or the hus- band has no interest in the wife's separate estate by curtesy until the death of the wife,^° or the interest of the husband in his wife's land is made exempt during covertute from attach- ment or levy of execution for the sole debts of the husband." A husband's consent to his wife's devise of her real estate to others or his acquiescence therein after her death does not estop him from claiming his statutory dower interest therein, or defeat the right of the husband's creditors to reach this interest.^* But an agreement by a husband to relinquish all interest in his wife's estate in consideration of her executing her will in a designated manner and permitting it to become her last will, is valid as against his judgment creditors; " Where the husband while indebted, releases his dower interest in the lands of his deceased wife to his children, such release, being in fraud of creditors, will be set aside, and the interest subjected to the satisfaction of his creditors.^" In Iowa a husband may waive and relinquish his right of dower in lands devised by his wife Ind. 555, 7 N. E. 567. See also 15. Shieds v. Keys, 24 Iowa, 298. Property purchased by husband in 16. Besser v. Joyce, 9 Or. 310; name of wife, chap. 11, § 6, supra. Guernsey v. Lazear, 51 W. Va. 328, 14. N. r.— Wickes v. Clarke, 8 41 S. E. 405. Paige, 161. I'''- Ault v. Eller, 38 Mo. App. J). c. — National Metropolitan 598; Besser v. Joyce, supra. Bank v. Hitz, 1 Maekey, 111. 18. Eoaoh v. White, 94 Ind. 510; 72?.— Gay v. Gay, 123i 111. 221, 13 O'Harra v. Stone, 48 Ind. 417. N. E. 813. 1^- Huffman v. Copeland, 139 Ind. /nd.— Huffman v. Copeland, 139 221, 38 N. E. 86; Wright v. Jones, Ind. 221, 38 N. E. 861. 105 Ind. 17, 4 N. E. 281. y. C. ^league v. Downs, 69 N. C. 20. Maolaren v. Stone, 18 Ohio 280. Cir. Ct. 854, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 794. 148 Feaudtjlent Conveyances. to another, so that the title thereto will be unaffected by anyi liens of his creditors.^^ The fact that by virtue of the marriage a husband acquired property of his wife is not suflBcient to sup- port a conveyance to her or for her use made by the husband in fraud of creditors, and where the property of the wife has been reduced to possession by the husband and becomes his ab- solute property, such property, if fraudulently transferred or invested in other property, in his own or his wife's name, may be reached and subjected by creditors of the ihusband to the payment of their claims.^^ But a husband may waive or decline jto assert his marital right to the interest given him by law in ; his wife's personal property and consent to her retaining and dis- ! posing of the same, and a transfer of such property where it -i has never been reduced to his possession by the husband is not 21. Shields v. Keys, 24 Iowa, 298. 22. V. S.— Lee v. HoUister, 5 Fed. 752; Dick V. Hamilton, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,890, Deady, 322; but such a conveyance is valid, if the husband was solvent at the time, and it was not made with intent to defraud creditors. Ala. — Boiling v. Jones, 67 Ala. 508. Fla. — America Freehold Land, etc., Co. V. Maxwell, 39 Fla. 489, 22 So. 751, there is no implied trust for the wife which will support, as against creditors, a conveyance by the hus- band to the wife. Ga. — Sayre v. Flournoy 3 Ga. 541. 7H.— Bridgford v. ReddfeU, 55 111. 261. Ind. — Meredith v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 92 Ind. 343; Westerfield v. Kimmer, 82 Ind. 365 ; Brookville Nat. Bank v. Kimble, 76 Ind. 195; Bu- chanan V. Lee, 69 Ind. 117; Holland v. Moody, 12 Ind. 170. Iowa. — Boulton v. Hahn, 58 Iowa, 518, 12 N. W. 560. Ky. — ^Lyne v. Commonwealth Bank, 28 Ky. 545; Davis v. Justice, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 741, 21 S. W. 529; Topp v. Todd, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 382; Gravey v. Moore, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 732, 15 S. W. 136. ilfd.— Wylie V. Basil, 4 Md. Ch. 327. Mass. — Pierce v. Thompson, 17 Pick. 391. Mo.— Hart v. Leete, 104 Mo. 315, 15 S. W. 976. ff. C— Allen v. Allen, 41 N. C. 293. Pa. — Gicker's Adm'rs v. Martin, 50 Pa. St. 138. S. (7.— Suber v. Chandler, 36 S. C. 344, 15 S. E. 426. Tenn. — Joiner v. Franklin, 12 Lea, 420. W. Va.— Clarks v. King, 34 W. Va. 631, 12 S. E. 775. TTis.— Howe v. Colby, 19 Wis. 583. Eng:—ln re Holland, 70 L. J. Ch. 625, 2 Ch. 145, 85 L. T. Rep. N. S. 304, 8 Munson, 266, 49 Wkly. Rep. 476. Peopeety^ etc., which Ceeditobs may Eeaoh. 149 fraudulent as to Ms creditors.'* Al husband has no vested in- terest in the choses in action, or other personal property of his wife, until he reduces them into his possession by virtue of his marital rights, and his failure to do so is not fraudulent asi against his creditors.^* Creditors of the husband who claim to be subrogated to his rights can have no other rights than the husband as against the wife's property.^ § 38. Wife's dovi^er or other interest in husband's property. — The dower right of a widow prior to its assignment or ad- measurement on the death of her husband is a complete right which is a chose in action within the contemplation of a statute, or the rule in equity in certain jurisdictions, making choses in action applicable to the payment of debts, and a release of dower right without consideration, to avoid payment of debts, is fraudulent, and may be set aside at the instance of the credit- ors of th© widow.^* But an unassigned or unadmeasured right 23. N. T. — Jayeox v. Caldwell, 51 N. y. 395. Ala. — Wing v. Roswald, 74 Ala. 346. Ky. — ^Louisville City Nat. Bank v. Wooldridge, 116 Ky. 641, 76 S. W. 542, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 869; George v. Bussing, 15 B. Mon. 558; McCauley V. Rhodes, 7 B. Mon. 462 ; Bowling v. Winslow, 5 B. Mon. 29. Mo.— Hart V. Leete, 104 Mo. 315, 15 S. W. 976; Cox v. Cox, 91 Mo. 71, 3 S. W. 585. N. J. — Peterson v. Mulford, 36 N. J. L. 481, gift by husband to wife of the avails of her own labor. 24. N. T. — Woodworth v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 8, aif'g 44 Barb. 268; Jay- eox V. Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 395, aff'g 37 How. Pr. 240. j7_ s. — Gallego v. Chevalie, 9 Fed. Cas. No. 5,200, 2 Brock. 285. Aid.— Bradford v. Goidsborough 15 Ala. 311. Ga. — Sperry v. Haslam, 57 Ga. 412; Sayre v. Flournoy, 3 Ga. 541. Ky. — ^McClanahan v. Beasley, 17 B. Mon. 11. Md. — Drury v. Briscoe, 42 Md. 154, wife's distributive share of her father's estate. Mass. — Gassett v. Grout, 4 Mete. 486, wife's distributive share of her father's estate. Mo. — Terry v. Wilson, 63 Mo. 493; Hart V. Leete, supra; Cox v. Cox, supra. Pa. — Donnelly v. Public Ledger, 2 Phila. 51; Smethurst v. Thurston, Brightly, 127. 8. C. — Durr v. Bowyer, 2 McCord, 368; Higgenbottom v. Peyton, 3 Rich. Eq. 398; Perryclear v. Jacobs, 2 Hill Eq. 504. 25. Sayre v. Flournoy, 3 Ga. 541. 26. Tenbrook v. Jessup, 60 N. J. Eq. 234, 46 Atl. 516. See Choses in action, chap. IV, § 7, supra. 150 Feaddulent Conveyances. , .-n of dower cannot be reached by a creditor's bill in those juris- dictions where choses in action cannot be reached by creditors, in the absence of any provision therefor by statute.^^ Under the Indiana statute an interest in land equal to one-third its value is, as to the wife of the owner, free from a judgment against the latter, and a conveyance thereof by her is not fraudulent as to the judgment creditor.^' A creditor, therefore, is not harmed by an alleged fraudulent conveyance made by the debtor to his wife, if the value of her inchoate interest in the property together with the debtor's statutory exemption, and all liens senior to that of the creditor, equal or exceed the value of the property trans- ferred.^' § 39. Conununity property. — .The transfer of community property from a husband to his wife is not even evidence of fraud as to the separate creditors of the husband, as no one but the community creditors can question the good faith of such transfer and subject such property to the payment of debts.^" In Texas a married woman has the right to convey her property in trust for herself and her children, so as to withdraw the rents from the community estate, and such conveyance will not be fraudulent as to her husband's creditors.^^ § 40. Property of adopted child ^In Kentucky where a statute places one who adopts a child under the same responsi- bilities as if the person so adopted were his own child, the property of an adopted child cannot be reached by creditors of a parent on the ground that the child's maintenance has beeo borne by the parents, the provision made for the child not being unreasonable.'^ 27. Harper v. Clayton, 84 Md. 346, 30. Reed Bros. v. Nicholson, 189 35 Atl. 1083, 57 Am. St. Rep. 407, 35 Mo. 396, 88 S. W. 71; Deering v. Hol- L. E. A. 211. comb, 26 Wash. 588, 67 Pac. 240. 28. Isgrigg v^Pauley, 148 Ind. 436, ^^ ^^^^^_^ ^_ ^^^^^^ ^^ ^^^ ^^ 47 N. B. 821; Taylor v. Dueaterberg, 109 Ind. 165, 9 N. E. 907 App. 374, 32 S. W. 559. 29 Marmon v. White, 151 Ind. 445, 32. Anderson v. Mundo & McGraw, 51 N. E. 930. 25 Ky. L. Hep. 1644, 77 S. W. 926. Peopeety^ etc., which Ceeditoes may Keaoh. 151 § 41. Exempt property in general As exempt property cannot be taken and is not subject to sale by creditors in satis- faction of debts, it is evident that creditors cannot be hindered, delayed, or defrauded by the transfer of property whioh can- not be made to contribute, either at law or in equity, to the satisfaction of their debts. The object of the statute of Eliza- beth and similar statutes being to prevent debtors from dealing with their property to the prejudice of their creditors, it is obvious that dealing -with that which creditors, irrespective of such dealing, could not have touched, is not within either the letter or the spirit of such statutes.'' Hence the general rule that property which is, by statute, exempt from execution, is not susceptible of fraudulent alienationi, and a conveyance thereof is not invalid because voluntary, nor because it was executed with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors.^^ It is also 33. Central Nat. Bank v. Hume, 128 U. S. 195, 9 Sup. Ct. 41, 32 L. Ed. 370; McLeod's Trustee v. McLeod, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 284, 667, 89 S. W. 199, 90 S. W. 5. 34. N. Y.— Smillie v. Quinn, 90 N. Y. 493; McGivney v. Childs, 41 Hun, 607; Whiting v. Barrett, 7 Lana. 106; Spauldlng v. Keyes, 1 Silv. Sup. 203, 5 N. Y. Supp. 227 ; Youmans v. Boom- iower, 3 Thomps. & C. 21. V. 8.— In re Wilson, 123 Fed. 20, 59 C. C. A. 100; Daugherty v. Bogy, 104 Fed. 938, 44 C. C. A. 266. Ala. — Skinner v. Jennings, 137 Ala. 295, 34 So. 622; Cross v. Berry, 132 Ala. 92, 31 So. 36; Brinson v. Ed- wards, 94 Ala. 447, 10 So. 219; Myers v. Conway, 90 Ala. 109, 7 So. 639; Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, 4 So. 699, 5 Am. St. Rep. 378; Alley v. Daniel, 75 Ala. 403; Wright v. Smith, 66 Ala. 514; Garner v. Bridges, 38 Ala. 276. A.rk. — ^Hinkle v. Broadwater, 84 S. W. 510; Wilks V. Vaughan, 83 S. W. 913; Sims v. Phillips, 54 Ark. 193, 15 S. W. 461; Sannor v. King, 49 Ark. 299, 5 S. W. 327, 4 Am. St. Rep. 49, where the total valuation of a judg- ment debtor's property, including property fraudulently transferred to his wife, is less than the amount ex- empt by law, his creditors cannot seize the transferred property in the hands of the transferree; Bennett v. Hutson, 33 Ark. 762. Conn. — Ketchum v. Allen, 46 Conn. 414; Patten v. Smith, 4 Conn. 450, 10 Am. Dec. 166. D. G. — Cassin v. Bozzle, 6 D. C. 260. ZM.— -Berry v. Hanks, 28 111. App. 51; Vaughan v. Thompson, 17 111. 78; Vinton v. Felts, 71 111. App. 630, a conveyance by a husband to his wife of property exempt from execu- tion, when no execution exists against him, is not fraudulent as to subse- quent execution creditors. See also Washburn v. Goodheart, 88 111. 229. /nrf.— Hedrick v. Hall, 155 Ind. 371, 152 Fraudulent Conveyances. generally maintained that a fraudulent conveyance, or an at- tempted fraudulent conveyance, of personal property, does not defeat the debtor's right to claim his exemptions therein and 58 N. E. 257; Marmon v. White, 151 Ind. 445, 51 N. E. 930; Fulp v. Bea- ver, 136 Ind. 319, 36 N. E. 250; Phe- nlx Ins. Co. v. Fulder, 133 Ind. 557, 33 N. E. 270; Citizens Bank v. Bolen, 121 Ind. 301, 23 N. E. 146; Ray v. Yarnell, 118 Ind. 112, 20 N. E. 705; Goudy V. Werbe, 117 Ind. 154, 19 N. E. 764, 3 L. R. A. 114; Phelps v. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, 17 N. E. 602, 19 N..E. 156; Dumbould v. Rowley, 113 Ind. 253, 15 N. E. 463; Barnard v. Brown, 112 Ind. 53, 13 N. E. 401; Burdge v. Bolin, 106 Ind. 175, 6 N. E. 140; Kolb v. Raisor, 17 Ind. App. 551, 47 N. E. 177. As a general rule, a voluntary conveyance, made by an insolvent debtor who has not suffi- cient other property subject to execu- tion to pay his debts, is construc- tively fraudulent as against existing creditors ; but this is true only where the property so disposed of was not at the time exempt from execution, but such as the creditor might have reached in the hands of the debtor. Faurote v. Carr, 103 Ind. 123, 9 N. E. 350. Iowa. — Foreman v. Citizens' State Bank, 128 Iowa, 661, 105 N. W. 163; Gollobitsch V. Rainbow, 84 Iowa, 567, 51 N. W. 48; Beyer v. Thoeming, 81 Iowa, 517, 46 N. W. 1074; Payne v. Wilson, 76 Iowa, 377, 41 N. W. 45; Brainard v. Simmons, 67 Iowa, 646, 25 N. W. 844. ifaw.— Mull v. Jones, 33 Kan. 112, 5 Pac. 388; Arthur v. Wallace, 8 Kan. 267. Ky. — ^McLeod's Trustee v. McLeod, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 284, 667, 89 S. W. 199, 90 S. W. 5; Morton v. Reagan, 68 Ky. 334; Anthony v. Wade, 64 Ky. 110; Berry v. Ewen, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 467, 85 S. W. 227, under a statute exempting certain moneys of the husband from execution for his debts, a creditor of the husband can- not complain if the husband gives such exempt money to his wife, or in- vests it in land, the title to which is taken in her name; Minor v. Sharp, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 992, 33 S. W. 411. Me. — Pulsifer v. Waterman, 73 Me. 233; Legro V. Lord, 10 Me. 161. Com- pare Nason v. Hobbs, 75 Me. 396. Mass. — ^Mannan v. Merritt, 11 Al- len, 582; Bean v. Hubbard, 4 Ctish. 85. Compare Tuealey v. Robinson,, 103 Mass. 558, 4 Am. Rep. 575. Mich. — Bresnahan v. Nugent, 92 Mich. 76, 52 N. W. 735; Dull v. Mer- rill, 69 Mich. 49, 36 N. W. 677; Fisher v. Melntyre, 66 Mich. 6^1, 33, N. W. 762; Emerson v. Bacon, 58 Mich. 526, 25 N. W. 503 ; Buckley v. Wheeler, 52 Mich. 1, 17 N. W. 216; Anderson v. Odell, 51 Mich. 492, 16 N. W. 870; Rosenthal v. Scott, 41 Mich. 632, 2 N. W. 909. Minn. — Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn.. 193, 41 N. W. 1031 ; Furman v. Tenny, 28 Minn. 77, 9 N. W. 172. Miss. — Williamson v. Wilkinson, 81 Miss. 503, 33 So. 282; O'Connor v. Ward, 60 Miss. 1025; Smith v. Allen,. 39 Miss. 469. jifo.— Stam V. Smith, 183 Mo. 464,. 81 S. W. 1217; Versailles Bank v. Buthrey, 127 Mo. 189, 29 S. W. 1004; 48 Am. St. Rep. 621; Davis v. Land, 88 Mo. 436; Megehe v. Draper, 21 Mo. 510, 64 Am. Dec. 245; Kiely V. Hickox, 70 Mo. App. 617; Stotes- Pbopebty, etc., which Cbeditoes mat Eeach. 163 to establish and enforce them.^' A contrary rule, however, pre* vails in some , jurisdictions/^ and it is held by some authorities tury V. Kirtland, 35 Mo. App. 148; Hombs V. Corbin, 34 Mo. App. 393; Kulage V. Schueler, 7 Mo. App. 250. Neb. — Munson v. Carter, 40 Neb. 417, 58 N. W. 931; Bloedom v. Jewell, 34 Neb. 649, 52 N. W. 367; Gillespie v. Brown, 16 Neb. 457, 20 N. W. 632; Boggs v. Thompson, 13 Neb. 403, 14 N. W. 393. Fraud is an immaterial issue in an action by the vendee of exempt property to quiet his title, as against judgment cred- itors of the vendor. Smith v. Neu- feld, 61 Neb. 699, 85 N. W. 898. Nm. — ^Bailey v. Littell, 24 Nev. 294, 53 Pac. 308. N. J. — ^Dresser v. Zabriskie (C!h.), 39 Atl. 1066. N. Jf.— Heisch v. Bell, 70 Pao. 572. N. C— Arnold v. Estis, 92 N. C. 162; Gaster v. Hardie, 75 N. C. 460; Montgomery County v. Riley, 75 N. C. 144; Winchester v. Gaddy, 72 N. C. 115; Duvall v. Rollins, 71 N. C. 218. N. Dak.— Kvello v. Taylor, 5 N. D. 76, 63 N. W. 889. Ohio. — Tracy v. Cover, 28 Ohio St. 61. 8. O.— Bridgers v. Howell, 27 S. C. 425, 3 S. E. 790. S. D.— Noyes v. Belding, 5 S. D. 603, 59 N. W. 1069; First Nat. Bank V. North, 2 S. D. 480, 51 N. W. 96. Term. — ^Leslie v. Joyner, 2 Head. 514; Layman v. Denton (Ch. App.), 42 S. W. 153. Tex. — Conner v. Hawkins, 66 Tex. 639, 2 S. W. 520; Wood v. Chambers, 20 Tex. 247, 70 Am. Dec. 382; Mc- Clelland V. Barnard, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 118, 81 S. W. 591; Heidelbaeh V. Carter, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 79 S. W. 346; Eaves v. Williams, 10 Tex. Civ. App. 423, 31 S. W. 86. y*.— Darling v. Ricker, 68 Vt. 471, 35 Atl. 376; Wolcott v. Hamilton, 61 Vt. 79, 17 Atl. 39; Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 362; Leavitt v. Jones, 54 Vt. 423, 41 Am. Rep. 849; Prout v. Vaughn, 52 Vt. 451; Hayward v. Clark, 50 Vt. 612; Jewett v. Guyer, 38 Vt. 209; Foster v. McGregor, 11 Vt. 595, 34 Am. Dec. 713. Wis. — Chicago Coffin Co. v. Max- well, 70 Wis. 282, 35 N. W. 733; Al- len V. Perry, 56 Wis. 178, 14 N. W. 3; Carhart v. Harshaw, 45 Wis. 340, 30 Am. Rep. 752; Pike v. Miles, 23 Wis. 164, 99 Am. Dec. 148; Dreutzer v. Bell, 11 Wis. 114; Bond v. Sey- mour, 2 Pinn. 105, 1 Chandl. 40. See Reservation of exempt property, chap. X, § 13, in/ro. 35. U. 8. — ^Naumburg v. Hyatt, 24 Fed. 898. Ark. — ^Sannoner v. King, 49 Ark. 299, 5 S. W. 327, 4 Am. St. Rep. 49. Mich. — ^Rosenthal v. Scott, 41 Mich. 632, 2 N. W. 909. Mo. — Megehe v. Draper, 21 Mo. 510, 64 Am. Dec. 245; State, Nie- mann V. Koch, 47 Mo. App. 269. N. C— Gaster v. Hardie, 75 N. C. 460; Duvall v. Rollins, 71 N. C. 218. Ohio. — Tracy v. Cover, 28 Ohio St. 61. Tex. — King v. Harter, 70 Tex. 579, 8 S. W. 308. 36. /H.— Bohn v. Weeks, 50 HI. App. 236. Ind. — Chandler v. Jessup, 132 Ind. 351, 31 N. E. 1109, where a convey- ance of land is set aside as fraudu- lent, and the property sold, the debtor cannot claim a portion of the 154 Feaudulent Conveyances. that the debtor may lose the benefit of the exemption laws, bjf concealment of his property or other fraud, as against his credi- tors." The disposition of property exempt from execution of which creditors cannot complain, and to which the general rule stated above applies, includes the assignment or transfer of life insurance policies,^ in some jurisdictions pension or bounty • checks, drafts, or moneys,'' and exempted earnings or wages.*" proceeds as exempt from execution; Holman v. Martin, 12 Ind. 553; M'and- love V. Burton, 1 Ind. 39. See also Jones V. Dipert, 123 Ind. 594, 23 N. E. 944. Jfe.— Wyman v. Gay, 90 Me. 36, 37 Atl. 325, 60 Am. St. Eep. 238; Nason V. Hobbs, 75 Me. 396. Mass. — Stevenson v. White, 5 Allen, 148. M}iss. — Williamson v. Wilkinson, 81 Miss. 503, 33 So. 282. N. H. — Tilton v. Sanborn, 59 N. H. 290. Pa. — ^Moore v. Baker, 2 Pa. Dist. 142; Carl v. Smith, 8 Phila. 569. 37. 7U.— Cassell v. Williams, 12 111. 387; Cook v. Scott, 6 111. 333. Pa.— Kreider's Estate, 135 Pa. St. 584, 19 Atl. 1073; Imhoff's Appeal, 119 Pa. St. 350, 13 Atl. 279; 'Smith V. Emerson, 43 Pa. St. 456; Strouse V. Beeker, 38 Pa. St. 190; Gilleland V. Rhoads, 34 Pa. 187; Freeman v. Smith, 30 Pa. St. 264; Dieffenderfer V. Fisher, 3 Grant, 30; Carl v. Smith, 8 Phila. 569; Larkin v. Mc- Annally, 5 Phila. 17. To. — Rose V. Sharpless, 33 Gratt. 153. 38. N. r.— Smillie v. Quinn, 90 N. Y. 492. Fla. — ^Eppinger v. Canepa, 20 Fla. 262. Me. — Pulsifer v. Hussey, 9 Am. B. R. 657, 97 Me. 434, 54 Atl. 1076, con- struing certain sections of the Fed- eral Bankruptcy Act of 1898 and Me. Rev. St., chap. 49, § 75, chap. 75, § 10. But see Wyman v. Gay, 90 Me. 36, 37 Atl. 325, 60 Am. Rep. 238. MA— Elliott v. Bryan, 64 Md. 368, 1 Atl. 614. S. C— Barron v. Williams, 58 S. C. 280, 36 S. E. 561, 79 Am. St. Rep. 840. Tenn. — Rose v. Wortham, 95 Tenn. 505, 32 S. W. 458, 30 L. R. A. 609; Harvey v. Harrison, 89 Tenn. 470, 14 S. W. 1083. See also chap. IV, § 20, supra. 39. N. T. — A pension granted by the United States for military ser- vice is exempt by Code Civ. Proc, § 1393, until it ceases to be a pen- sion, although it is not protected by the TJ. S. Rev. Stat., except while in course of transmission. Hence, it has been held to be exempt when it has been deposited in a bank on interest, after having been received into the possession of the pensioner. Stock- well V. National Bank of Malone, 36 Hun, 583. And when deposited subject to check. Burgett v. Fanchcr, 35 Hun, 647. Where the receipts from a pension can be directly traced to the purchase of property necessary or convenient for the support and main- tenance of the pensioner and his fam- ily, such property is exempt from ex- ecution to the amount of the pension money put into the property. Yates County Nat. Bank v. Carpenter, Pbopeety, etc., which Ceeditoes may Eeach. 155 And it has also been held to include the transfer of growing 119 N. Y. 550, 23 N; E. 1108, 16 Am. St. Rep. 855, 30 St. Rep. 121, 7 L. R. A. 557; Countryman v. Country- man, 28 N. Y. Supp. 258, 23 Civ. Pro. 161. But where the proceeds of a pension have been embarked in trade, commerce or speculation, and become mingled with other funds so as to be incapable of identification or separation, the pensioner loses the benefit of the statutory exemption. Id. The pensioner may relinquish the pension by transfer to another. Fritz V. Worden, 20 App. Div. 241, 46 N. Y. Supp. 1040; Burgett v. Fancher, 35 Hun, 647. Neither under the State or the Federal statute is pension money exempt, after the pensioner's death, from liability for his debts, in favor of descendants other than a family for whom the pensioner pro- vided. In re Winans, 5 Dem. 138. Bounty money received by a debtor for enlistment in the army, being exempt from the claim of creditors under § 1393, Code Civ. Proc, may be given to the wife with- out any fraud on them. Spaulding V. Keyes, 1 Silv. Sup. 203, 5 N. Y. Supp. 227; Whiting v. Barrett, 7 Lans. 106; Youmans v. Boomhower, 3 Thomps. & C. 20. Iowa. — ^Under Iowa acts, exempt- ing pension moneys from execution, one who invests pension money in colts, in paying for the services of a stallion, has a property interest in them which is, to that extent, ex- empt. Diamond v. Palmer, 78 Iowa, 578, 44 N. W. 819. Such laws have no application to the money of a pen- sioner who died before the enactment. Baugh V. Barrett, 69 Iowa, 495. Ky. — A check received by a veteran as a pension for his military services is absolutely free from the claims of his creditors, and may be disposed of by him in such manner as he deems proper. Falkenburg v. Johnson, 102 Ky. 543, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1606, 44 S. W. 80, 80 Am. St. Rep. 369. Land in which a pensioner has invested his pension is not exempt from seiz- ure for his debts, and a conveyance thereof made to the pensioner's wife does not exempt it from liability for his debts, under U. S. Rev. Stat, § 4747. Johnson v. Elkins, 90 Ky. 163, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 967, 13 S. W. 448, 8 L. R. A. 552; Robion v. Walker, 82 Ky. 60, 56 Am. Rep. 880; Sims v. Walsham, 9 Ky. L. Rep. 912, 7 S. W. 557; Hudspeth v. Harrison, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 304. Me. — ^Pension money actually in the hands of the pensioner is not ex- empt from execution. Friend v. Garcelon, 77 Me. 25, 52 Am. Rep. 739; Crane v. Linnens, 77 Me. 59. Pa. — Under Pension Laws U. S. Rev. St., § 4747, providing that " no sum of money due or to become due to any pensioner shall be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, whether the same remains with the pension office, or any officer or agent thereof, or is in course of transmission to the pensioner en- titled thereto, but shall inure wholly to the benefit of such pensioner," it is not a fraud upon creditors for the pensioner to give his pension money to his wife for the purpose of pur- chasing a home, in her name, for their joint benefit. Holmes v. Tal- lada, 125 Pa. St. 133, 17 Atl. 238, 11 Am. St. Rep. 880, 3 L. R. A. 219, 23 Wkly. Notes Cas. 463. Pension money cannot be attached on the 156 FBAtrnuLENT Conveyances. crops," and exempt improvements on Indian agricultural lands ground that it has been fraudulently assigned by the pensioner. Clark v. Ingraham, 15 Phila. 646, 36 Leg. Int. 393. The proceeds of a pension check deposited with a. bank for col- lection are not liable to attachment. Eeiff V. Mack, 160 Pa. St. 265, 28 Atl. 699, 40 Am. St. Rep. 720. Real estate bought by a pensioner in the name of his wife, with his pension money, is liable to seizure and sale for his debts. Burteh v. Burtch, 14 Pa. Co. Ct. 482, 11 Lane. L. Rev. 237. Vt. — A pension draft, being ex- empt from execution, may be made the subject of a gift by the pensioner without fraud upon his creditors. Hayward v. Clark, 50 Vt. 612. Can. — ^Money received by a. debtor from the crown for contract work cannot be garnisheed before being paid by the crown, but a gift of them after payment is fraudulent under the statute of Elizabeth. Nicholson V. Shannon, 28 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 378. 40. Ida. — Elliot v. Hall, 3 Ida. 421, 31 Pac. 796, 35 Am. St. Eep. 285, 18 L. R. A. 586. Imioa. — ^Ehlers v. Blumer (1905), 105 N. W. 406; Nash v. Stevens, 96 Iowa, 616, 65 N. W. 825; Robb v. Brewer, 60 Iowa, 539, 15 N. W. 420; Patterson v. Johnson, 59 Iowa, 397, 13 N. W. 416. Ky. — Wallace v. Mason, 100 Ky. 560, 38 S. W. 887, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 935. Mo. — Jarboe v. Jarboe, 106 Mo. App. 459, 79 S. W. 1162; Furth v. March, 101 Mo. App. 329, 74 S. W. 147. Mont. — Gushing v. Quigley, 11 Mont. 577, 29 Pac. 337. "Seb. — ^Union Pac. R. Co. v. Smersh, 22 Neb., 751, 36 N. W. 139, 3 Am. St. Rep. 290. v. H. — Provencher v. Brooks, 64 N. H. 479, 13 Atl. 641. Ohio. — Stump v. Prary, 13 Ohio Cir. Ct. 619, 6 Ohio ar. Dec. 357, it is not fraudulent as to creditors for a husband to give his exempt wages to his wife, who applies thenu in part to paying for a home, taking the title in her name. Wis. — Bloodgood v. Meissner, 84 Wis. 452, 54 N. W. 772, moneys of a debtor in his wife's hands are not exempt under the Wisconsin statute exempting the earnings of a married person with dependent family for three months next preceding the is- suing of garnishment process, to the amount of $60 for each month, where they have been accumulated for three years in payments of less than $60 per month, although they were ex- exempt at the time they were paid over to her. 41. Layman v. Denton (Tenn. Ch. App.), 42 S. W. 153, creditors can- not complain of a mortgage given by a debtor to secure another creditor on a growing crop before November 15, but which creditors under the Tennessee statute are not allowed to levy upon, as fraudHilent as a matter of law. Crops gro\ni on lands pur- chased xritli pension money are, however, not exempt from execution, under the Iowa statute, providing that the homestead of a pensioner purchased and paid for with pension money, or the proceeds and accumu- lations of such pension money, shall be exempt from execution or attach- ment. Haefer v. MuUison (Iowa), PeopeetYj etc., which Ceeditoes may Reach. 157 ■when conveyed by a citizen of an Indian tribe.*^ The rule does not apply, however, where the right to an exemption arises after a fraudulent conveyance, or the property was not exempt at the time of the conveyance.*' For example, where the exemption does not attach to the particular property until it is claimed or selected," or where exempt property designed and procured, and necessary for carrying on the debtor's trade or business, and intended to be used therein, and no part of which has been set aside for that purpose, is conveyed, by the debtor because he has changed his original design and abandoned such intended use of the property,*' or where the debtor never intended or made 57 N. W. 893. See also Crops grown on homestead, chap. IV, | 44, infra. 42. Daugherty v. Bogy, 104 Fed. 938, 44 C. C. A. 266. 43. Fritz v. Worden, 20 App. Div. (N. Y.) 241, 46 N. Y. Supp. 1040; Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Fielder, 133 Ind. 557, 33 N. E. 270; Luce v. Bamum, 19 Mo. App. 359; Alt v. Lafayette Bank, 9 Mo. App. 91; Martin v. Crosby, 11 Lea (Tenn.), 198. 44. N. Y. — Field v. Ingreham, 15 Misc. Eep. 529, 37 N. Y. Supp. 1135. AZa.— Cross v. Berry, 132 Ala. 92, 31 So. 36, where the value of prop- erty mortgaged exceeded the amount of exemption allowed, the rule that a conveyance of exempt property is not fraudulent as to creditors being ap- plicable "only in cases where the property conveyed constitutes all that is owned and possessed by the grantor, and does not exceed in value his exemption under the law." Skin- ner V. Jennings, 137 Ala. 295, 34 So. 622, but where the property conveyed was worth less than the exemption allowed, the creditors are not in a position to question the debtor's right to convey; Alley v. Daniel, 75 Ala. 403. OoJ.— Barton v. Brown, 68 Cal. 11. III.— Boim V. Weeks, 50 111. App. 236. Me. — ^Wyman v. Gay, 90 Me. 36, 37 Atl. 325, 60 Am. St. Rep. 238, the debtor waives a personal privilege when he conveys exempt property to another, and if the conveyance works a fraudulent preference under the in- solvent law, the assignee may recover the property or its value; Nason v. Hobbs, 75 Me. 396. Mo. — Garrett v. Wagner, 125 Mo. 450, 28 S. W. 762; Stewart v. Stewart, 65 Mo. App. 663; Stotes- bury V. Kirtland, 35 Mo. App. 148; Hombs V. Corbin, 34 Mo. App. 393; Alt V. Lafayette Bank, 9 Mo. App. 91. Po.— Huey's Appeal, 29 Pa. St. 219; Larkin v. McAnnally, 5 Phila. 17. 45. Eayner v. Whicher, 6 Allen (Mass.), 292; Stevenson v. White, 5 Allen (Mass.), 148, if made and re- ceived with intent to defraud cred- itors. But see Ketchum v. Allen, 46 Conn. 414, the fact that, if the sale was fraudulent as to creditors, the property would be no longer pro<- tected by the statute as the seller's, because not now used by him in his business, does not affect the case. 158 Feaudulent Conveyances. such, use of lihe property as was required to render it exempt,^* the conveyance of the property is fraudulent as against creditors. So, a conveyance of exempt property -which a statute provides shall not be exempt from execution issued upon a judgment for the purchase money thereof is fraudulent as against a judgment for the purchase price, and the failure of the vendor to file a notice required by the statute will not prevent him from follow- ing the property into the hands of a fraudulent transferee.*'' The owner of property exempt from execution may sell it or give it away ; and if the transfer is fully completed, the property will not thereafter be liable to his creditors, whatever may have been his motive in making the gift;*^ and the fact that, after a sale or gift of exempt property, valid when made, the debtor, from some change in his circumstances, could no longer hold the prop- erty as exempt, if the sale or gift were avoided, is immaterial." But though one may give away exempt property, his creditors may attack as fraudulent a transaction by which he sells exempt property and with the proceeds buys non-exempt property, taking title in another to put it beyond the reach of creditors.^" It is not a fraud upon creditors for an insolvent debtor to purchase with his own money property exempt from levy on execution, even though he does so with the purpose of putting it beyond their reach." He exercises a privilege, which the law gives him and wrongs no one. If he buys provisions for his family, or a 46. Conners v. Hawkins, 66 Tex. 346, where the debtor purchased a 639, 2 S. W. 520. homestead in the name of his wife; 47. Lillibridge v. Walsh, 97 Mich. O'Donnell v. Segar, 25 Mich. 367, the 459, 56 N. W. 854. fact that the debtor had disposed of 48. Colbert v. Sutton, 5 Del. Ch. all the property he had which was 294 ; Pearson v. Quist, 79 Iowa, 54, subject to the execution, for the very 44 N. W. 217. purpose of investing the proceeds in, 49. Carhart v. Hershaw, 45 Wis. or converting them into, that kind of 340, 30 Am. Rep. 752, sale of his property which was exempt under library by a professional man. the statute, does not deprive him of 50. McLeod's Trustee v. McLeod, the exemption, so long as his occupa- 28 Ky. L. Rep. 284, 667, 89 S. W. tion is really such as the statute re- 199, 90 S. W. 5. quires, and the particular property 51. Cipperly v. Rhodes, 53 111. is needed in that occupation. PeOPEETT, etc., which CEBmTOES MAY Eeach. 159 cow, or necessary clothing, he merely puts his property in a shape which the humanity of the law authorizes.''^ But if an insolvent debtor sells property subject to execution and with the proceeds immediately purchases exempt property, the only rem- edy of the creditor is by attacking and overturning the sale of the non-exempt property.^ :§! 42. Homesteads in general. — ^As a debtor's exempt home- stead is not subject to the demands or remedies of his creditors, a conveyance thereof, whether made with or without considera- tion, and irrespective of the intent of the parties, or whether the conveyance be to the wife or to a third person, is not fraudu- lent, and cannot be set aside as fraudulent, as against creditors, and the property so conveyed reached in the hands of the grantee.'* And a fraudulent conveyance or an attempted fraudu- 52. Tucker v. Drake, 11 Allen (Mass.), 145. 53. Comstock v. Bechtel, 63 Wis. 656, 24 N. W. 465. 54. 17. S.— In re Wilson, 123 Fed. 20, 59 C. C. A. 100; Thomson v. Crane, 73 Fed. 327; Green v. Root, 62 Fed. 191 ; Farwell v. Kerr, 28 Fed. 345; Volentine v. Hurd, 21 Fed. 749; Cox V. Wilder, 6 Fed. Cas. No. 3,308, 2 Dill. 45; Smith v. Kehr, 22 Fed. Cas. No. 13,071, 2 Dill. 50. Ala. — Steiner v. Berney, 130 Ala. 289, 30 So. 570; First Nat. Bank v. Browne, 128 Ala. 557, 29 So. 552, 86 Am. St. Uep. 156; Fuller v. Whit- lock, 99 Ala. 411, 13 So. 80; Hodges V. Winston, 95 Ala. 514, 11 So. 200, 36 Am. St. Rep. 241; Lehman v. Bryan, 67 Ala. 558; Fellows v. Lewis, 65 Ala. 343, 39 Am. Rep. 1. Ariz. — Luhrs v. Hancock (1899), 57 Pac. 605. ^rfc.— Isbell V. Jones (1905), 88 S. W. 593; Hinkle v. Broadwater (1905), 84 S. W. 510; Wilks v. Vaughan (1904), 83 S. W. 913; Gray v. Paterson, 65 Ark. 273, 46 S. W. 730, 1119, 67 Am. St. Rep. 937; Pipkin V. Williams, 57 Ark. 242, 21 S. W. 433, 38 Am. St. Rep. 241; Campbell v. Jones, 52 Ark. 493, 12 S. W. 1016, 6 L. R. A. 783; Stanley V. Snyder, 43 Ark. 429; Flask v. Tin- dall, 39 Ark. 571 ; Bennett v. Hutson, 33 Ark. 762. Cal. — Wetherly v. Strauss, 93 Cal. 283, 28 Pac. 1045. Colo. — Bamett v. Knight, 7 Colo. 365, 3 Pac. 747, the sale of a home- stead entirely exempt from execu- tion, in consideration of the future support of the insolvent grantor, cannot be set aside at the suit of his creditors, since they were not injured thereby. Fla. — ^Murphy v. Farquhar, 39 Fla. 350, 22 So. 681. ZiZ.— First Nat. Bank v. Rhea, 155 111. 434, 40 N. E. 551; Moore v. Flynn, 135 111. 74, 25 N. E. 844; Boyd V. Bamett, 24 III. App. 199; 160 Fbaudulent Conveyances. lent conveyance of lands does not defeat the homestead right of Shaekleford v. Todhunter, 4 111. App. 271; Lytle v. Scott, 2 111. App. 646. Ind. — Isgrigg v. Pauley, 148 Ind. 436, 47 N. E. 821; Nichols, etc., Co. V. Burch, 128 Ind. 324, 27 N. H. 737; Blair v. Smith, 114 Ind. 114, 15 N. E. 817, 5 Am. St. Kep. 593; Taylor v. Duesterberg, 109 Ind. 165, 9 N. E. 907. Iowa. — Richards v. Orr, 118 Iowa, 724, 92 N. W. 655; Sstate Ins. Co. v. Prestage, 116 Iowa, 466, 90 N. W. 62; Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Bjel- land, 97 Iowa, 637, 66 N". W. 885; Clark V. Raymond, 86 Iowa, 661, 53 N. W. 354; Officer v. Evans, 48 Iowa, 557; Hugunin v. Dewey, 20 Iowa, 368. Kan. — ^Winter v. Ritchie, 57 Kan. 212, 45 Pac. 595, 57 Am. St. Rep. 331 ; Wilson v. Taylor, 49 Kan. 774, 31 Pac. 697. Ky. — Deweese v. Deweese, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 726, 90 S. W. 256; Roark v. Bach, 116 Ky. 457, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 699, 76 S. W. 340; Davis v. H. Felt- man Co., 112 Ky. 293, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 1510, 65 S. W. 615, 95 Am. St. Rep. 289 ; Morrow v. Bailey, 109 Ky. 359, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 861, 59 S. W. 2, 95 Am. St. Rep. 382; Carroll v. Daw- son, 103 Ky. 736, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 349, 46 S. W. 222; Baker v. Hines, 102 : Ky. 329, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 1354, 43 S. • W. 452 ; Snapp v. Snapp, 87 Ky. 554, ' 10 Ky. L. Rep. 598, 9 S. W. 705. La. — Cottingham's Succession, 29 La. Ann. 669. Me. — Legro v. Lord, 10 Me. 161. Mass. — Castle v. Palmer, 6 Allen, 401, conveyance by a husband to a third person, and by the latter to the wife. Mich. — Gasser v. Crittenden, 140 Mich. 301, 103 N. W. 601; Michigan Trust Co. V. Comstoek, 130 Mich. 572, 90 N. W. 331; Dickey v. Con- verse, 117 Mich. 449, 457, 76 N. W. 80, 72 Am. St. Rep. 568; Nash v. Geraghty, 105 Mich. 382, 63 N. W. 437; Riggs v. Sterling, 60 Mich. 643, 27 N. W. 705, 1 Am. St. Rep. 564; Vermont Sav. Bank v. Elliott, 53 Mich. 256, 18 N. W. 805. Minn. — Blake v. Boisjoli, 51 Minn. 296, 53 N. W. 637; Horton v. Kelly, 40 Minn. 193, 41 N. W. 1031; Fur- man V. Tenny, 28 Minn. 77, 9 N. W. 172; Morrison v. Abbott, 27 Minn. 116, 6 N. W. 455. Miss. — Wileher v. Thompson (1893), 12 So. 828; Hodges v. Hick- ley, 67 Miss. 715, 7 So. 404; O'Con- ner v. Ward, 60 Miss. 1025. Mo. — Reed Bros. v. Nicholson, 189 Mo. 396, 88 S. W. 71; Stam v. Smith, 183 Mo. 464, 81 S. W. 1217; Spratt V. Early, 169 Mo. 357, 69 S. W. 13; Moore v. Wilkerson, 169 Mo. 334, 68 S. W. 1035; Hart v. Leete, 104 Mo. 315, 15 S. W. 967; Grimes v. Port- man, 99 Mo. 229, 12 S. W. 792; Muenks v. Bunch, 90 Mo. 500, 3 S. W. 63; Davis v. Land, 88 Mo. 436. Neb. — ^Wheatley v. Chamberlain Banking House (1904), 101 N. W. 1135; National Bank of Commerce V. Chamberlain (1904), 100 N. W. 943; Brown v. Campbell (1903), 93 N. W. 1007 ; Plummer v. Rohman, 62 Neb. 145, 84 N. W. 600, 87 N. W. 11; Smith V. Neufeld, 61 Neb. 699, 85 N. W. 898; Mundt v. Hagadorn, 49 Neb. 409, 68 N. W. 610; Munson v. Car- ter, 40 Neb. 417, 58 N. W. 931, Nev. — Bailey v. Littell, 24 Nev. 294, 53 Pac. 308. 7f. ilf.— Heisch v. Bell (1902), 70 Pac. 572. ar. C— Dortch V. Benton, 98 N. C. Peopeety, etc., which Cbeditoes may Reach. 161 the grantor therein,^' although, in some cases, it is held that the homestead exemption may be forfeited or lost by a conveyance 190, 3 S. E. 638, 2 Am. Rep. 331; Criunmen v. Bennet, 68 N. 0. 494. 7f. D. — Dalrymple v. Security Imp. Co., 11 N. D. 65, 88 N. W. 1033; Olson V. O'Connor, 9 N. D. 504, 84 N. W. 359, 81 Am. St. Rep. 595. Ohio. — Prosek v. Kuchta, 9 Ohio Dec. 129, 11 Cine. L. Bui. 65; Stewart v. Wooley, 2 Ohio Dec. 341, 2 West. L. Month. 471. 8. C— McNair v. Moore, 64 S. C. 82, 41 S. E. 829; Barrow v. Wil- liams, 58 S. C. 280, 36 S. E. 561, 79 Am. St. Rep. 840; Aultman v. Sa- linas, 44 S. C. 299, 22 S. E. 465. S. D. — Commercial Nat. Bank v. Kendall (1906), 106 N. W. 53. Tern. — Jolly v. Diehl (Civ. App. 1905), 86 S. W. 965; King v. Barter, 70 Tex. 579, 8 S. W. 308 ; Scheuber v. Ballow, 64 Tex. 166; Martel v. Somers, 26 Tex. 551; Wood' v. Chambers, 20 Tex. 247, 70 Am. Dec. 382; Heidelbach v. Carter, 34 Tex. Civ. App. 579, 79 S. W. 346; Finn v. Kent, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 36, 34 S. W. 1013; Brown v. Moore (Civ. App. 1901), 64 S. W. 781. Ft.— Darling v. Ricker, 68 Vt. 471, 35 Atl. 376; Pease v. Shirlock, 63 Vt. 622, 22 Atl. 661 ; Premo v. Hewitt, 55 Vt. 362; Prout v. Vaughn, 52 Vt. 451; Danforth v. Beattie, 43 Vt. 138; Jewett V. Guyer, 38 Vt. 209. Va. — ^Mahoney v. James, 94 Va. 176, 26 S. E. 384; Williams v. Lord, 75 Va. 390. Wis. — Bank of Commerce v. Fowler, 93 Wis. 241, 67 N. W. 423 ; Rozek v. Redzinski, 87 Wis. 525, 58 N. W. 262; Shawano County Bank v. Koep- pen, 78 Wis. 533, 47 N. W. 723; Hoff- man v. Junk, 51 Wis. 613, 8 N. W. 11 493; Pike v. Miles, 23 Wis. 164, 99 Am. Dec. 148. Wyo.— North Platte Milling, etc., Co. V. Price, 4 Wyo. 293, 33 Pae. 664. V/Jiere tenants in common oc- cnpy land as a homestead, a con- veyance by one of them of his interest therein to his co-tenant is not void as to their creditors, though it be without consideration. Fordyee v. Hicks, 80 Iowa, 272, 45 N. W. 750. And where a, tenant in common of a homestead conveys his interest therein to his adopted children, who had lived with him and rendered him valuable service, such conveyance can- not be set aside as fraudulent as to his creditors. Eagle v. Smylie, 126 Mich. 612, 85 N. W. 1111, 86 Am. St. Rep. 562. Wliere a debtor takes title in the name of his xvife of real es- tate acquired as a homestead, the fact that other property owned by him, and more than sufficient to pay his debts, was his homestead prior to the purchase, does not render it fraudulent as to his creditors. Lang V. Williams, 166 Mo. 1, 65 S. W. 1012. Where the eqnity of redemp- tion in a homestead is worth less than one thousand dollars, its con- veyance is not fraudulent as against the creditors of the grantor. Palmer V. Bray (1904), 98 N. W. 849, 10 Det. L. N. '974; Balz v. Nelson, 171 Mo. 682, 72 S. W. 527. Where a tract of land, includ- ing a homestead, is subject to a mortgage and judgments for a sum larger than the value of the portion of the land which is not included in 162 Fbaudulent Conveyances. made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.* The title of the purchaser or grantee of a homestead, as against the creditors of his grantor, is not affected by the grantor's purpose the homestead, a voluntary convey- ance by the owner to his wife is not fraudulent. Stubblefield v. Gadd, 112 Iowa, 681, 84 N. W. 917. Eqnltalile mortgage. — Since a debtor's homestead is not subject to the claims of creditors, an absolute conveyance of it for the purpose of placing it beyond their reach does not preclude him from having the deed declared a mortgage, if the circum- stances justify such relief. Patnode V. Darveau, 112 Mich. 127, 70 N. W. 439, 71 N. W. 1095; O'Connor v. Ward, 60 Miss. 1025, 1037. Ag^cultnral homestead. — A debtor may, although not residing upon an agricultural homestead, in- crease it to the maximum area, in order to protect a conveyance from being adjudged fraudulent as against creditors. Wilks v. Vaughan (Ark. 1904), 83 S. W. 913. The good faith of a husband in deeding a homestead to his wife can- not be inquired into by a creditor of the husband. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Kopplin, 1 Kan. App. 599, 42 Pac. 263; and other cases cited above, this note. 55. U. £r.— Farwell v. Kerr, 28 Fed. 345; McFarland v. Goodman, 16 Fed. Gas. No. 8,789, 6 Biss. 111. Ala. — ^Kennedy v. First Nat. Bank, 107 Ala. 170, 18 So. 396, 36 L. R. A. 308. ^rk. — Carmack v. Lovett, 44 Ark. 180. /H.— Quinn v. People, 146 111. 275, 34 N. E. 148; Ammondson v. Ryan, 111 111. 506; Bell v. Devore, 96 111. 217; Leupod v. Krauae, 95 111. 440; Hartwell v. McDonald, 69 111. 293; Redden v. Potter, 16 111. App. 265. Ky. — ^Kuevan v. Specker, 11 Bush. 1. Mass. — Castle v. Palmer, 6 Allen, 401. Minn. — Baldwin v. Rogers, 28 Minn. 544, 11 N. W. 77. Miss. — ^Edmonson v. Meachan, 50 Miss. 34. Where, after a conveyance of land by a husband to his wife has been adjudged fraudulent as to cer- tain creditors of the husbaand, he moves on to the land with his family, and makes it his home, he is enti- tled to homestead rights therein, and a sale thereof under such judgment should be enjoined. Dulion v. Hark- ness, 80 Miss. 8, 31 So. 416, 92 Am. St. Rep. 663. Mo. — State v. Diveling, 66 Mo. 375 ; Vogler V. Montgomery, 54 Mo. 577. ffe&. — Stubendorf v. Hoffman, 23 Neb. 360, 36 N. W. 581. m. C. — Rankin v. Shaw, 94 N. C. 405; Arnold v. Estis, 92 N. C. 162. OAio.— Roig V. Schults, 42 Ohio St. 165; Bills v. Bills, 41 Ohio St. 196; Sears v. Hanks, 14 Ohio St. 298, 84 Am. Dec. 378. 8. G. — Wood V. Timmerman, 29 S. C. 175, 7 S. E. 74. Tea;.— Beard v. Blum, 64 Tex. 59. Fa.— Hatcher v. Crews, 83 Va. 371, 5 S. E. 221; Marshall v. Sears, 79 Va. 49 ; Boynton v. MeNeal, 31 Gratt. 456; Shipe v. Repass, 28 Gratt. 716. Compare Rose v. Sharpless, 33 Gratt. 153. Wis. — Murphy v. Crouch, 24 Wis. 365. 56. U. 8. — Minor v. Wilson, 58 Pbopeety, etc., which Cbeditoks mat Reach. 163 in making the conveyance." The motive may be bad but the act is not illegal.^' No fraud can be predicated of the conveyance of a homestead,™ since the creditor has no right to look to prop- erty so exempted.*" It is only by disposing of such of his prop- erty as his creditors have a legal right to look to for the satis- faction of their claims that a debtor can commit a fraud upon his creditors, and therefore he cannot defraud them by dispos- ing of his homestead." The conveyance of a homestead even though made for the purpose of avoiding the payment of the grantor's debts, and with intent to defraud creditors is not fraudulent as to creditors, since the debtor may deal as he pleases with exempt property.*^ A fraudulent conveyance does not en- large the rights of creditors, but merely leaves them to enforce their rights as if no conveyance had been made.*' The voluntary conveyance made by a husband to his wife of the proceeds of a sale of their homestead, or a gift by a husband to his wife of such proceeds as an inducement to her to join in the sale, is not fraudulent as to creditors.'* The sale of his homestead by a Fed. 616; Pratt v. Burr, 19 Fed. Cas. creditors of the husband. Fanners' No. 11,372, 2 Biss. 36. Trust Co. v. Linn, 103 Iowa, 159, 72 Arfc.— Chambers v. Sallie, 29 Ark. N. W. 496. 407. 57. Roser v. Fourth Nat. Bank, 56 yinn. — Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. Kan. 129, 42 Pac. 341. ■ j 60. 58. Bogan v. Cleveland, 52 Ark. N. ff.— Currier v. Sutherland, 54 101, 12 S. W. 159, 20 Am. St. Rep. N. H. 475, 20 Am. Dec. 143. 158. I 8. D. — ^Kettlesehlager v. Ferrick, 12 59. Gibson v. Barrett (Ark. 1905), S. D. 455, 81 N. W. 889, 76 Am. St. 87 S. W. 435. Rep. 623. 60. Nichols v. Eaton, 91 U. S. 716, Term. — ^Nichol v. Davidson County, 23 L. Ed. 254. 8 Lea, 389. Compare Ruohs v. Hooke, 61. Hixon v. George, 18 Kan. 253. 3 Lea, 302, 31 Am. Rep. 642. 62. Wilson v. Taylor, 49 Kan. 774, Wis.— Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 31 Pac. 697; JTolly v. Diehl (Tex. 367. Civ. App. 1905), 86 S. W. 965. Where money i» olitained by a 63. Keuvan v. Specker, 11 Bush loan, on the homestead standing in (Ky. ), 1. the name of the wife, a purchase of 64. Oal. — ^Wetherly v. Straus, 93 personalty in the name of the wife, Cal. 283, 28 Pac. 1045. paid for by a portion of the money so Mo.— Harris v. Meredith, 106 Mo. obtained, is not fraudulent as to the App. 586, 81 S. W. 203. 164 Feaudttlent Conveyances. debtor and. the investment of the proceeds in other lands, or the conveyance by the debtor to his wife or another of real estate received in exchange for the homestead, is not fraudulent as against creditors.^^ But where the land was not at the time of its conveyance exempt because of the debtor's failure to select, occupy, or claim the same as a homestead,*^ or because of its abandonment by the debtor as a homestead," a conveyance thereof Tex. — Blum v. Light, 81 Tex. 414, 16 S, W. 1090; Gatewood v. Scurlock, 2 Tex. CSv. App. 98, 21 S. W. 55; Montgomery v. Brown, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 1305; Allen v. Hall, 1 Tex. App. Div. Cas., § 1279. Ft.— Keyes v. Rines, 37 Vt. 260, 76 Am. Dec. 707. 65. Iowa. — Jones v. Brandt, 59 Iowa, 332, 10 N. W. 854, 13 N. W. 310; Officer v. Evans, 48 Iowa, 557. Kan. — Winter v. Ritchie, 57 Kan. 212, 45 Pae. 595, 57 Am. St. Kep. 331. JCjr.— Whitt V. Kendall, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 116, 11 S. W. 592. Mo. — Stinde v. Behrens, 81 Mo. 254. jfe6. — Scheel v. Lackner, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 221, 93 N. W. 741. 66. Ark. — Reeves v. Slade, 71 Ark. 611, 77 S. W. 54. Cal. — ^La Point v. Blanehard, 101 Cal. 549, 36 Pae. 98, and the fact that the property is of such a nature that it could, and probably would, have been set aside to the debtor as a homestead, does not render the con- veyance any the less a fraud on creditors. /nd.— Phoenix Ins. Co. v. Fielder, 133 Ind. 557, 33 N. E. 270. Mo. — Stewart v. Stewart, 65 Mo. App. 603, such selection cannot be made after the sale of the property. N. H. — Currier v. Sutherland, 54 N. H. 475, 20 Am. Rep. 143. Tex. — Gaines v. National Exch. Bank, 64 Tex. 18, and where the transfer is made before judgment on a debt existing at the time, the debtor cannot defeat the rights of a creditor by securing a reconveyance of the land. • The right of ezemption of a homestead in Alabama attaches without any act on the part of the exemptioner, as if the particular property were specially claimed and designated as exempt, where the area and value of the homestead do not ex- ceed the limit allowed as exempt, and it is not a part or parcel of a larger portion of land. Pollack v. McNeil, 100 Ala. 203, 13 So. 937. 67. U. S. — Thompson v. McConnell, 107 Fed. 33, 46 C. 0. A. 124. Ark. — Chambers v. Sallie, 29 Ark. 407. loioa. — Belden v. Younger, 76 Iowa, 567, 41 N. W. 317. Miss. — Edmonson v. Meacham, SO Miss. 34. Afe6.— Edwards v. Reid, 39 Neb. 645, 58 N. W. 202, 42 Am. St. Rep. 607. N.. E. — Currier v. Sutherland, 54 N. H. 475, 20 Am. Rep. 143. 8. B. — Kettleschlager v. Ferrick, 12 S. D. 455, 81 N. W. 889, 76 Am. St. Rep. 623, a transfer of the home- stead from husband to wife, without consideration, to prevent creditors from subjecting such premises to the satisfaction of their claims, in case the debtor should remove therefrom. Pbopeett, etc., which Ceeditobs may Keach. 165 is within the statute in relation to fraudulent conveyances and invalid as to creditors of the debtor. A debtor forfeits his rights under the homestead law by a conveyance to defraud his credi- tors, where, by statute, their judgments would be a lien on the land.^' The statutes usually permit a change of homesteads, and the owner of a homestead may acquire an entirely new home- stead on a sale of tbe old and a reinvestment of the proceeds.'' The homestead being a limited estate under certain statutes, there may be a fraudulent conveyance of the homestead by the party entitled thereto so far as the fee after the expiration of the limited estate is concerned, and the fee in the homestead may and with other funds purchase and occupy other premises as a homestead, is fraudulent as to creditors. Tex. — Taylor v. Ferguson, 87 Tex. 1, 26 S. W. 46; Baines v. Baker, 60 Tex. 139, a conveyance of homestead by husband to wife, after its abandon- ment, to protect it from the claims of creditors, is fraudulent as to the husband's creditors, and will be an- nulled at their instance; Cox v. Shropshire, 25 Tex. 113; Willis v. Pounds, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 512, 25 S. W. 715; Rives v. Stephens (Tex. Civ. App.), 28 S. W. 707. W-is.— Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 367. A homestead is not abandoned unless there is an intent to make a change of residence and an actual change. Mallard v. First Nat. Bank (Neb.), 59 N. W. 767; Edwards v. Reid, 39 Neb. 645, 58 N. W. 202, 42 Am. St. Rep. 607. See also Carroll v. Dawson, 103 Ky. 736, 46 S. W. 222, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 349 ; Willis v. Pounds, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 512, 25 S. W. 715. The legal title to a homestead descends, on the death of the owner intestate, to his widow and children, and gives such children a valuable in- terest, which they cannot convey in fraud of their creditors; and a, volun- tary conveyance of its interest therein by a child not occupying it to the widow who continues to occupy it, in fraud of creditors of such child, will be set aside. Hollinger v. Boatman's Bank, 69 Kan. 519, 77 Pac. 263. A court of equity vnW cancel a trust deed, at the instance of a creditor of one of the heirs of a grantor, where it was made without consideration and with intent to de- fraud the grantor's creditors, and was kept apparently alive after the grantor's death, with intent to de- fraud creditors of her heirs, by collu- sion between her heirs and her grantee. Dorroh v. Holberg (Miss.), 25 So. 661. 68. Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 60. 69. In re Johnson (U. S. D. C. Iowa), 118 Fed. 312; Richards v. Orr, 118 Iowa, 724, 92 N. W. 655; Greene V. Root (U. S. D. C. Iowa), 62 Fed. 191; Winter v. Ritchie, 57 Kan. 212, 45 Pac. 595, 57 Am. St. Rep. 331; Harris v. Meredith (Mo. App.), 81 S. W. 203; Scheel v. Lackner, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 221, 93 N. W. 741. 106 Fbaudtjlent Conveyances. be subjected to the payment of the debts of its owner, subject ta the homestead right.™ § 43. Homestead included in conveyance of other property. — ^Where a debtor conveys lands which include property occupied by him as a homestead and exempt as such and other property which is not exempt, the conveyance is valid as to the homestead as against the creditors of the debtor, although void in respect to such other land. The creditors may reach the property so conveyed which is not exempt, if the conveyance thereof is fraudulent as to them." Where the property conveyed by the debtor is of greater area or value than the homestead exemption to which he is entitled under the statute, the excess in area or surplus in value over the exemption may be reached and sub- jected by his creditors.'^ Where the property conveyed exceeds 70. Chambers v. Sallie, 29 Ark. 407; Younger v. Ritchie, 116 N. C. 782, 21 S. E. 911; Miller v. Leeper, 120 Mo. 466, 25 S. W. 378; Hannah V. Hannah, 109 Mo. 236, 19 S. W. 87; Schaffer v. Beldsmeier, 107 Mo. 314, 17 S. W. 797; Kirksville Sav. Bank V. Spangler, 59 Mo. App. 172. But see Bank of Versailles v. Guthrey, 127 Mo. 189, 29 S. W. 1004, 48 Am. St. Rep. 621, overruling the preced- ing Missouri cases and holding that the homestead includes the fee and that they are not two separable and devisible interests. 71. U. /S.— Thompson v. McCon- nell, 107 Fed. 33, 46 A. C. 124; Far- well V. Kerr, 28 Fed. 345. III.— Bell V. Devore, 96 111. 217. ye6.— Brown v. Campbell (1903), 93 N. W. 1007. J}, C. — Crummen v. Bennet, 68 N. C. 494. i». C— McNair v. Moore, 64 S. C. 82, 41 S. E. 829. ' Tenn.—Gihbs v. Patten, 2 Lea, 180. Tex. — Freeman v. Hamblin, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 157, 21 S. W. 1019, a part of homestead included by mistake. F*.— Danforth v. Beattie, 43 Vt. 138. 72. U. 8. — Thompson v. McOob- nell, 107 Fed. 33, 46 C. C. A. 124, ex- cess inadvertently included. Ark. — Campbell v. Jones, 52 Ark. 493, 12 S. W. 1016, 6 L. R. A. 783. III. — First Nat. Bank v. Rhea, 155 ni. 434, 40 N. E. 551; Quinn t. People, 146 111. 275, 34 N. E. 148; Muller V. Inderreiden, 79 111. 382. Ky. — Cincinnati Tobacco Ware- house Co. V. Matthews, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2445, 74 S. W. 242; Wilson t. Calvert, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 489, 24 S. W. 3. Minn. — Baldwin v. Rogers, 28 Minn. 544, 11 N. W. 77. ye6.-— Brown v. Campbell (1903), 93 N. W. 1007; Hicks v. Mack, 19 Neb. 339, 27 N. W. 230. N. 0.— Dortch v. Benton, 98 N. C. 190, 3 S. E. 638, 2 Am. St. Rep. 331. S. G. — Aultman v. Salinas, 44 S. C. 299, 22 S. E. 405. Peopekty, etc., which Ceeditoes may Keach. 167 the amount of tte homestead exemption, the creditors can subject it and sell the entire tract, if indivisible, or allot the homestead to the extent of the eKemption and subject the balance." § 44. Crops grown on homestead — .Where growing crops or crops grown on the homestead of a debtor are exempted by statute from levy and sale on execution, a conveyance of them cannot be fraudulent as against creditors." Though growing crops, unless reserved, pass under a conveyance of the land, they are subject to levy and sale the same as other personal property ; and, where a debtor conveys land which at the time is exempt as a homestead, without consideration or with intent to defraud creditors, the latter may subject to their claims the growing crops which were oui the land at the time of the conveyance, where they are not exempted by statute.'^ But, although crops grown on the homestead owned by the husband are subject to his debts, the fact that a transfer of the homestead from the hus- band to the wife passes title to subsequent crops to her does not make such transfer fraudulent as to the husband's creditors, since it merely passes title to the land, the subsequent crops having no value in law,'' §, 45. Purchase of homestead and payment of liens. — The Vt. — Danforth v. Beattie, 43 Vt. to such grantor, the amount so un- 138. lawfully paid may be credited upon To. — ^Hatcher v. Crews, 83 Vt. 371, such homestead allowance. Johnson 5 S. E. 221. V. Burnside, 7 Ohio N. P. 74, 8 Ohio ■^is, — Commerce Bank v. Fowler, S. & C. P. Dec. 412. 93 Wis. 241, 67 N. W. 423; Rozek v. 73. Wilson v. Calvert, 15 Ky. L. Redzinski, 87 Wis. 525, 58 N. W. Hep. 489, 24 S. W. 3; Doyle v. First 262. Nat. Bank (Tex. Civ. App.) 50 S. W. Purchase money credited npoB 480. homestead allowance. — Where a 74. Eaves v. Williams, 10 Tex. fraudulent grantor is unlawfully Civ. App. 423, 31 S. W. 86, unpicked paid a portion of the purchase cotton growing on homestead, money, and, in an action to marshal 75. Eriekson v. Patterson, 47 liens and for a sale on execution of Minn. 525, 50 N. W. 699. grantor's remaining interest, an al- 76. Olson v. O'Conner, 9 N. D. 604, lowance in lieu of homestead is made 84 N. W. 359, 81 Am. St. Eep. 595. 168 Feacdulent Conveyances. rule is well established that it is not fraudulent as against credi- tors, either eixisting or subsequent, for a debtor, although insol- vent, to exercise his right to create a homestead out of his prop- erty, or to purchase, with his non-exempt money or other non- exempt property, other property with the intent to hold it as a homestead," even though he procures the legal title to be in- vested in his wife.'^ The transfer by one partner, although in failing circumstances, of all his firm interest, constituting all his available assets, to his copartners, in exchange for a homestead, or other use of non-exempt partnership property in purchasing a homestead, is not a fraud upon creditors.™ The rule does not apply as to existing creditors, where the statute does not exempt 77. U. /ST.— In re Wilson, 123 Fed. 20, 59 C. C. A. 100; In re Stone, 116 Fed. 35, moving into a building after insolvency and in contemplation of bankruptcy does not defeat the right to a homestead exemption therein; Kelly V. Sparks, 54 Fed. 70. AZo.— Kelley v. Connell, 110 Ala. 543, 18 So. 9. Gal. — Simonson v. Burr, 121 Cal. 582, 54 Pac. 87; Fitzell v. Leaky, 72 Cal. 477, 14 Pae. 198. CoZo.— McPhee v. O'Rourke, 10 Colo. 301, 15 Pac. 420, 3 Am. St. E«p. 579. /ZZ.— Cipperly v. Rhodes, 53 111. 346. Kan. — ^Hixon v. George, 18 Kan. 253. Mass. — ^Tucker v. Drake, 11 Allen, 145. Mich. — Meigs v. Dibble, 73 Mich. 101, 40 N. W. 935. Minn. — Jacoby v. Parkland Distil- ling Co., 41 Minn. 227, 43 N. W. 52. Miss. — Edmonson v. Meacham, 50 Miss. 34. J?e6. — Faxton v. Sutton, 53 Neb. 81,- 73 N. W. 221, 68 Am. St. Rep. 589. , . , N. H. — Gove V. Campbell, 62 N. H. 401. Teai. — Chase v. Swayne, 88 Tex. 218, 30 S. W. 1049, 53 Am. St. Rep. 742; North v. Shearn, 15 Tex. 174; Finn v. Krut, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 36, 34 S. W. 1013. Wis. — Kapernick v. Louk, 90 Wis. 232, 62 N. W. 1057. Contra. — In re Boothroyd, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,652; Pratt v. Burr, 19 Fed. Cas. No. 11,372, 5 Biss. 36; In re Sauthoflf, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,380, 8 Biss. 35; In re Wright, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,067, 3 Biss. 359. 78. V. S.— First Nat. Bank v. Glass, 79 Fed. 706, 25 C. C. A. 151; Backer v. Meyer, 43 Fed. 702. Ala. — Reeves v. Peterman, 109 Ala. 366, 19 So. 512. /ZZ.— Cipperly v. Rhodes, 53 111. 346. Kan. — ^Monroe v. May, 9 Kan. 466. If. fl.— Gove V. Campbell, 62 N. H. 401. See also Discharge of mortgage on homestead, chap. XI, § 18, infra. Contra. — ^Rogers v. McCauley, 22 Minn. 384; Sumner v. Sawtelle, 8 Minn. 309. 79. Bell V. Beazley, 18 Tex. CSv. Peopeety, etCv which Ceeditoes may Keach, 169 the homestead from liability for debts contracted before its ac- quisition.^ On the principle of the rule first above stated, the creditors of a debtor cannot subject his homestead to the pay- meat of their claims because the debtor, while insolvent, appro- priated money or other property in his bands to the payment of a debt which was a lien on the homestead, by mortgage or other- § 46. Improvements. — ^The fact that a person, knowing him- self to be insolvent, invests money in improvements on his home- stead, so as to keep it from his creditors, will not prevent the exemption of the homestead from forced sale for payment of bis debts, or subject such improvements to the claims of his creditors, where the value does not exceed the exemption,*^ unless there is a statutory provision to the contrary.*' The head of a family, although insolvent and largely indebted, may invest his money or property in homestead improvements to any extent, and have the same exempt from execution, under the provisions of the Texas constitution, placing no limit on the value of such improvements.'* App. 639, 45 S. W. 401. See also Kan. — Sproul v. Atchison Nat. Blanchard v. Paschal, 68 Ga. 32, 45 Bank, 22 Kan. 336. Am. Eep. 474; Himnieuttv. Summey, Wash.-BraAle^y v. Gotzian, 12 63 Ga. 586. Oontra.— In re Booth- ^^^^ ^^^ ^^ p^^ g23 royd, supra; In re Sauthoff, supra, 80. Fish V. Hunt, 81 Ky. 584, a Wis.— Palmer v. Hawes, 80 Wis. debtor will not be permitted to ex- 474, 50 N. W. 341. pend his money in improving land 82. Kelly v. Sparks, 54 Fed. 70; which he has never occupied as a in re Parks, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,765 ; homestead, to the injury of cred- Chase v. Swayne, 88 Tex. 218, 30 S. itors whose claim existed prior to the W. 1049, 53 Am. St. Eep. 742, rev'g expenditure. 29 S. W. 418. 83. Fish V. Hunt, 81 Ky. 584; 81. V. S.—In re Wilson, 123 Fed, 20, 59 0. C. A. 100; In re Henkel, t^ • i= Tr t -d o^o \, , „ -VT fl oao o o onK Butler V. Davis, 15 Ky. L. Eep. 273, 11 Fed. Cas. No. 6,362, 2 Sawy. 305. „, „ ,^^ ^„^ ^„™1„„ ^t:„v„,_ „ 23 S. W. 220. Compare Nichols v. Sennitt, 78 Ky. 630 ; Thomas v. Lucas 4.rfc.— Flash v. Tindall, 39 Ark- ^^^' ^ ^1 „ ^ ^- ^ in (Ky. 1898), 45 S. W. 68. Col.— EandWl v. Buffiington, 10 ^ ' Cal. 491. ^*- Chase v. Swayne, supra. 170 Fbaudttlent Conveyances. § 47. Insurance on homestead. — It is not a fraud upon credi- tors, under the homestead law, for a debtor to use his means to procure insurance upon his hoinestead.'^ Insurance money de- rived from a policy on homestead improvements, which under the Texas constitution are exempt from forced sale, is likewise exempt, and the amount of money derived from such an in- surance policy which may be protected from the owner's debts cannot be limited to an amount reasonably sufficient to build a house for the family to live in, there being no limit on the value of improvements which shall be exempt.'* §' 48. Change in character of property and following pro- ceeds. — The property of a debtor, as a general rule, cannot be placed beyond the reach of his creditors by changing its form or character, or by substituting other property, since the sub- stituted property will stand in the place of the property fraudu- lently conveyed and be liable in the same manner to the creditors of the vendor.^' Tor example, though one may give away exempt iproperty, his creditors may attack as fraudulent a transaction by which he sells exempt property and with the proceeds buys non- exempt property, taking title in another to put it beyond tho reach of his creditors.'* Where property fraudulently conveyed has been transferred to a corporation in exchange for corporate stock, such stock is subject to the claims of the grantor's credi-" tors." The defrauded creditor may either affirm the sale and 85. Bemheim' v. Davitt, 9 Ky. L. See, as to Property purchased in Eep. 229, 5 S. W. 193. the name of a third person, chap. II, 86. Chase v. Swayne, 88 Tex. 218, § 5, supra, chap. IV, { 29, supra; as 30 S. W. 1049, 53 Am. St. Rep. 742, to Improvements on property of third . rev'g 29 S. W. 418, insurance money jjerson, chap. II, § 8, supra, chap. on costly house as a homestead held IV, § 24, supra; as to Change to ex- exempt to the extent of $60,000. cmpt property, chap. IV, § 41, supra. 87. Abney v. Kingsland, 10 Ala. „_,,^ , ,,, 355, 44 Am. Dec. 491; Brown v. Mat- 88. McLeod v. McUod, 28 Ky. L. thalts, 14 Mimi. 205; Fleury v. «*?• 284, 89 S. W. 199, 90 S. W. 5. Pringle, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 67; 89. Beidler v. Crane, 135 III. 92, and other oases cited in the following 25 N. E. 655, 25 Am. St. Eep. 349, notes. aff'g 22 111. App. 538. PbOPEETY, etc., which CEEDITOEa MAY Keaoh. 171 go for the price, or he may impeach it as fraudulent and follow the goods or their proceeds.'" A creditors' suit wiU lie to reach personal property fraudulently transferred, and it will bind other articles purchased to supply the waste of ordinary wear and tear.'' A complaining creditor has the right to follow the fund or proceeds of a fraudulent sale or conveyance into any prop- erty in which it may have been invested, so far as it can be traced, and into the possession of any person not a bona fide owner or holder thereof."^ The proceeds of sales under fraudu- 90. Nicholson v. Leavitt, 6 N. Y. Super. Ct. 252, but he cannot hold the buyer liable for the proceeds when he has received neither. 91. McCloakey v. Stewart, 63 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 137. 92. N. Y. — ^Mandeville v. Avery, 124 N. Y. 376, 29 N. E. 951, 21 Am. St. Kep. 678, rev'g 57 Hun, 78, 10 N. Y. Supp. 323; Durand v. Hankerson, 39 N. Y. 287, the court may order the payment of a mortgage, given by the grantee for the price, to a re- ceiver, to be applied on plaintiff's judgment; Lawrence v. Bank of Ke- public, 35 N. Y. 320; McConihe v. Derby, 62 Hun, 90, 16 N. Y. Supp. 474; Hedges v. Polhemus, 9 Misc. Rep. 680, 30 N. Y. Supp. 556. Com- pare McCaffrey v. Hickey, 66 Barb. 489; Henderson v. Brooks, 3 Thomps. & C. 445. V. S.— Stewart v. Piatt, 101 U. S. 731, 25 L. Ed. 816; Clements v. Nicholson, 6 Wall. 299, 18 L. Ed. 786. Ala.— Metcaif v. Arnold (1902), 32 So. 763; Weingarten v. Marcus, 121 Ala. 187, 25 So. 852; Birming- ham Shoe Co. V. Torrey, 121 Ala. 89, 25 So. 763; Dickinson v. National Bank of Eepublio, 98 Ala. 546, 14 So. 550; Bryant v. Young, 21 Ala. 264; Carville v. Stout, 10 Ala. 796. Ark. — Bryant-Brown Shoe Co. v. Block, 52 Ark. 458, 12 S. W. 1073. Colo. — Forrester v. Gill, 11 Colo. App. 410, 53 Pae. 230. Fla.—M.a.yer v. Wilkins, 37 Fla. 244, 19 So. 632. III. — French v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 199 111. 213, 65 N. E. 252, aff'g 97 111. App. 533; Hall v. Stroufe, 52 111. 421; Steere v. Hoag- land, 50 111. 377, 39 111. 264. /nA— Phelps V. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, 17 N. E. 602, 19 N. E. 156; Blair V. Smith, 114 Ind. 114, 15 N. E. 817, 5 Am. St. Kep. 593, where a husband having no property subject to execu- tion, invests his funds in his wife's lands, colluding with her to defraud his creditors thereby, and his wife afterwards sells the land, and retains the proceeds, she will be regarded in equity as trustee for the husband's judgment creditors. lovxi. — Shumaker v. Davidson, 116 Iowa, 569, 87 N. W. 441, but he can- not take both the land and the con- sideration therefor; Davis v. Gibbon, 24 Iowa, 257. Kjf. — Treadway v. Turner, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 949, 10 S. W. 816. Me. — Sparrow v. Chesley, 19 Me. 79. If OSS. — Robinson v. Bliss, 121 Mass. 428. 172 Eeatjdulent Cohvetaitces. lent judgments are within this rule.'' But if the property has been destroyed by time or accident, or sold and deliTered to an innocent person, for a valuable consideration,'^ or has been ob- tained in good faith by the creditors of the transferee on execution sale,'' or has been reconveyed or paid over to the fraudulent grantor,'^ or to his other creditors,'^ the creditor's remedy is gone. So, where the judgment creditor has a plain and adequate remedy at law,*' or his right to reach and subject the land or other Uich. — Bresnahan v. Nugent, 92 Mich. 76, 92 N. W. 735; Kinter v. Pickard, 67 Mich. 125, 34 N. W. 535. Miss. — Bemheim v. Beer, 56 M'ias. 149; Edmonson v. Meacham, 50 Miss. 34; Carlisle v. Tindall, 49 Miss. 229. We5.— Selz v. Hocknell, 62 Neb. 101, 86 N. W. 905, 63 Neb. 503, 88 N. W. 767. N. H. — Gutterson v. Morse, 58 N. H. 529; Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510. Po.— Heath v. Page, 63 Pa. St. 108, 3 Am. Rep. 533. Tenn. — ^Williamson v. Williams, 79 Tenn. 355. Tex. — Schultze v. Schultze (Civ. App. 1901), 66 S. W. 56; Heath v. First Nat. Bank, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 63, 46 S. W. 123, so far only as pro- ceeds of a fraudulent conveyance of property go to the purchase of other lands by the fraudulent grantee can such lands be subjected to the debts of the grantor. Va. — Burbridge v. Higgins, 6 Gratt. 119. Wis. — ^Bank of Commerce v. Fow- ler, 93 Wis. 241, 67 N. W. 423. Can. — ^Masuret v. Stewart, 22 Ont. 290. See also, as to Rights and lia- bilities of the grantee and those claim- ing under him, chap. XIV, § 24, infra. 93. Taggart v. Phillips, 5 Del. Ch. 237; French v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 199 El. 213, 65 N. E. 252; Phelps V. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, 17 N. E. 602, 19 N. E. 156; Kohl v. Sulli- van, 140 Pa. St.' 35, 21 Atl. 247. See also Judgments, chap. II, § 10, sujyra. 94. Mandeville v. Avery, 124 N. Y. 376, 26 N. E. 951, 21 Am. St. Rep. 678; Heath v. Page, 63 Pa. St. 108, 3 Am. Rep. 533; Richards v. Ewing; 30 Tenn. 327; Simpson v. Simpson, 26 Tenn. 275; and other cases cited in last preceding note. See also Rights and liabilities of iona flde purchas- ers from grantee, chap. XIV, § 54, infra. 95. Standard Nat. Bank v. Gar- field Nat. Bank, 70 App. Dfv. (N. Y.) 46, 75 N. Y. Supp. 28. See also Rights and liabilities of grantees as to creditors, chap. XIV, § 24, infra. ae. Schneider v. Patton, 175 Mo. 684, 75 S. W. 155. See also Rights and liabilities of grantees as to credi- tors and subsequent purchasers, chap. XIV, §§ 24-48, infra. 97. Steerav.Hoagland,50 111. 377; Kitts V. Willson, 140 Ind. 604, 39 N. E. 313. See also Rights and liabili- ties of grantees as to creditors and subsequent purchasers, chap. XXV, §? 24-48, infra. 98. Davis v. Yonge (Ark. 1905), 85 S. W. 90. See also Remedies in equity, chap. XV, § 23, infra. Pbopeett^ etc., which Cbeditoes mat Keach. 173 property conveyed in fraud of creditors is barred by bis laches or by the statute of limitations/' be cannot sue to subject other land or property purchased with the property originally con- veyed or the proceeds of said property. The creditor cannot reach and subject to the payment of his claim money or prop- erty which is the result of the capital or labor of the grantee, al-" though applied in the use of the property fraudulently trans- ferred.^ The fact that the purchase of a store and stock of goods is constructively fraudulent does not affect the title of the purchaser to other goods which he has afterwards purchased with the proceeds of sales from the store and put into the stock, and they cannot be reached and subjected by creditors.^ It has been held that the statutes of Elizabeth and similar statutes en- able creditors to subject the specific property fraudulently con- veyed, while in the hands of the fraudulent donee or vendee, to the satisfaction of their claims, but they do not enable them to subject the proceeds of a sale of the property, or othea: property purchased therewith, since the statutes only apply to property conveyed by the debtor, and, therefore, any trust resulting in favor of the creditors of the debtor must be worked out in equity, and the remedy of the creditors to reach such proceeds or prop- erty is in equity.* § 49. Stock in trade sold in bulk. — ^Where a sale of merchan- dise in bulk is not in compliance with a statute requiring notice to creditors of a proposed sale, it is void as to creditors on the ground of fraud, and a creditor of the vendor may proceed by at- tachment against his fraudulent vendor.* Such a statute has been 99. Mickel v. Walraven, 92 Iowa, N. C. 119; Richards v. Ewing, 30 423, 60 N. W. 633. Tenn. 327; Tubb v. Williams, 26 Tenn. 1. Peters v. Light, 76 Pa. St. 289. 355. See also Crops and other products, 4. W. B. Parham &, Co. v. Potts- chap. IV, § 25, supra. Thompson Liquor Co., 127 Ga. 303, 56 2. Capron v. Porter, 43 Conn. 383; S. E. 460; Carstarphen Warehouse Co. Lucas T. Birdsey, 41 Conn. 357. v. Fried, 124 Ga. 544. A sale by a. 3. Kinter T. Piokard, 67 Mich. 125, storekeeper at private sale of all but 34 N. W. 535; Henderson t. Hoke, 21 a few dollars' worth of the balance of 174 Feaudulent Conveyances. held, to apply to the sale of a stock of goods by a debtor to a creditor in extinguishment of his debt, and a sale made in dis- regard of the act to be fraudulent and void as against other creditors of the common debtor.^ On the other hand it has been held that where the stock of a debtor transferred to a creditor was insufficient to satisfy the creditor's debt, there was no occasion for the creditor's demanding an affidavit and list of creditors as provided by a statute regulating sales in bulk.* Where the sale and delivery of goods is not a sale in bulk outside of the ordinary course of business, prohibited by the statute, and the buyer is a purchaser for value and in good faith, the transaction cannot be impeached by the seller's creditors.' The purchaser of a stock of goods in bulk without complying with the provisions of the statute becomes a trustee of the property purchased and responsible to the seller's creditors for the disposition of it.* A sale of all the property belonging to a livery stable business has been held not to be a sale of goods, wares, and merchandise within the meaning of such a statute,' and a sale by a saloonkeeper, holding a lease of a saloon for a year, with the right to renew the same from year to year so long as he bought beer from the landlord who owned the building and fixtures, of his business and stock of goods, has been held not to be a sale of a stock of merchandise in bulk within the meaning of such a statute.** But the sale of a drug store and business conducted as a business separate and in- his stock, after selling at auction part though insolvent or In failing circum- of it, is within the statute. Fitz stances, is entitled to pay or secure Henry v. Hunter, 33 Wash. 629, 74 one of his creditors to the sKcIusion Pac. 1003. of others, even if in so doing he ex- A seller of goods does not be- hausts the whole of his property. come a credl*or of the buyer ,,, g^j^ ^ Brierley, 189 Mass. 598, within the meaning of the statute yg jj_ g gge. until the goods sold or a portion of ^ '^^^^ ^^ pj^^^ach, 36 Wash. 69. 78 Pac. 199. them have been delivered. Hardwick V. Gettier, 43 Wash. 644, 86 Pac. 943. „„,,-„ ^ „ „ .^u 5. Sampson V.Brandon Grocery Co., »■ Everett Produce Co. v. Smith 127 Ga. 454, 56 S. E. 488. Bros., 40 Wash. 566, 82 Pac. 905. 6. Petersen v. Doak (Wash. 1906), 10. Pritz v. Jones, 117 App. Div. 86 Pac. 663, since an individual, (N. Y.) 643, 102 N. Y. Supp. 549. Peopeety, etc., which Ceeditoeb may Eeach. 175 dependent from a general store conducted by the debtor," and the sale of the business and appliances of a boarding house and restaurant," has been held within the provisions of such a statute. Such a statute has been held not to apply to a merchant's fixtures not intended for sale in the usual course of his business,^' to a cash register which is not a part of the goods kept for sale," or to the sale of the entire product of a bakery, the business being such as to require frequent sales of the entire stock in order to prevent the product becoming stale and unsalable.^^ Such a stat- ute has no application to a sale of a stock of goods under a duly recorded mortgage of the stock, given for a valuable considera- tion and free from fraud." Such statutes apply to and protect all the creditors of the vendor," but a sale by a partnership, with- out compliance with the terms of the statute, although void as against firm creditors, is not void as against the creditors of a partner.^ Such statutes are not to be construed as simply casting the burden of proving the good faith of the transaction on the purchaser, but are to be construed as meaning that noncompliance by the purchaser with the provisions of the act shall make the sale voidable as to creditors without regard to the intent of the parties to it.*' 11. Young V. Lemieux, 79 Conn. 26 Ind. 294, 89 Amer. Dec. 463; Van 434, 65 Atl. 436, 600. Patten & Marks v. Leonard, 55 Iowa, 12. Plass V. Morgan, 36 Wash. 160, 520, 8 N. W. 334; Albrecht v. Cudihee 78 Pac. 784, and a failure to comply (Wash. 1905), 79 Pac. 628. therewith renders the sale invalid as 15. Hart v. Brierley, 189 Mass. 598, to the seller's creditors. 76 N. E. 286. 13. Gallus V. Elmer, 193 Mass. 106, ig, Wasserman v. McDonald, 190 78 N. E. 772; Kolander v. Dunn j^^^g ^^6, 76 N. E. 959; Hannah & (Minn. 1905), 104 N. W. 371, 483. jjogg v. Richter Brewing Co. (Mich. Contro, W. B. Parham & Co. V. Potts- 1907), 112 N. W. 713. But see Cal- Thompson Liquor Co., 127 Ga. 303, ^j„g ^ Howard (Cal. App. 1905), 83 56 S. E. 460, bar fixtures, desks, cash p^^, ggo registers, pool tables, refrigerators ,„ -r,,, , it 1 • na m i. , ., ,.. J • J.- -iT. 17. Eklund V. Hopkins, 36 Wash, and the like, used m connection with ,„„ _„ ^ „„_ X, .. • • I.- 1. iv 179, 78 Pac. 787. the business in which they are ap- propriate, are a part of ^ "stock of 18. Whitehouse v. Nelson (Wash, goods, wares and merchandise" 1906), 86 Pac. 174. within the meaning of the statute. 19. Wilson v. Edwards, 32 Pa. 14. Kent ▼. Liverpool, etc., Ins. Co., Super. Ct. 295. 176 Feaudulent Conveyances. CHAPTER V. Who Mat Attack Validity of Conveyancb. Section 1. Persons who may attack conveyance generally. 2. Pre-existing creditors. 3. Subsequent creditors. 4. Effect of fraud as to pre-existing creditors. 5. Effect of prior and continuing indebtedness. 6. Knowledge or notice of fraudulent transactions. 7. Creditors whose claims are barred or satisfied. 8. Nature of claims of creditors. 9. Claims for torts. 10. Claims for alimony. 11. Persons representing creditors. 12. Receivers in supplementary proceedings. 13. Sureties and endorsers. 14. Purchasers at judicial sales. 15. Officers levying attachment or execution. 16. Personal representatives. 17. Estoppel and waiver. 18. Knowledge or assent. 19. Affirmance or ratification. 20. Participation. 21. Eeceipt of benefit under conveyance. 22. Subsequent purchasers in general. 23. Who are subsequent purchasers. 24. Bona fide purchasers for value. 25. Effect of notice. Section 1. Persons who may attack conveyance gen^-ally. — Since tJie statute of 13 Elizabeth' and statutes based thereon avoid conveyances made to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors only as against those intended to be hindered, delayed, or de- frauded, and no others are within its protection, a conveyance made in fraud of creditors is valid as to all other parties,^ and can be attacked and impeached only by creditors, or those who hold the rights of creditors.^ A creditor cannot maintain an 1. See ■ Rights and liabilities of 2. N. Y. — Graser v. Stellwagen, 25 parties and purchasers — original par- N. Y. 315, the question of fraud can- ties, chap. XIV, infra. not be raised by one claiming ad- Who Mat Attack Validity of Conveyance. 177 action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, unless he shows that he has been injured thereby by losing his remedy at law, or by the fact that the same has been rendered unavailing or versely to the sale, who does not by the pleadings show himself to be a creditor or purchaser; Newton v. Manwarring, 56 Hun, 645, 10 N. Y. Supp. 347; Butler v. Viele, 44 Barb. 166 ; Clute v. Fitch, 25 Barb. 428. U. S.— Voorheis v. Blanton, 89 Fed. 885, 32 C. C. A. 384. Ala. — Grisham v. Bodman, 111 Ala. 194, 20 So. 514; Anderson v. Ander- son, 64 Ala. 403, the term "credi- tors," as used in the Alabama statute, construed. ^rJfc.— King v. Clay, 34 Ark. 291; Jordan v. Fenno, 13 Ark. 593. Co?.— -Brown v. Cline, 109 Cal. 156, 41 Pac. 862; Sexey v. Adkinson, 34 Cal. 346, 91 Am. Dee. 698; Labish v. Hardy, 23 Pac. 123. III. — City of Chicago v. McGraw, 75 111. 566; Currier v. Ford, 26 111. 488. /nd.— Clendening v. Ohl, 118 Ind. 46, 20 N. E. 639; Etter v. Anderson, 84 Ind. 333; Bentley v. Dunkle, 57 Ind. 374; O'Neil v. Chandler, 42 Ind. 471. K-y.— Jones V. Hill, 72 Ky. 692; Warren v. Hall, 36 Ky. 450; Ander- son V. Bradford, 28 Ky. 69. La. — Johnson v. Mayor, 30 La. Ann. 1203; Keane v. Goldsmith, 14 La. Ann. 349. afe.— Hatch v. Bates, 54 Me. 136; Thompson v. Moore, 36 Me. 47; Woodman v. Bodfish, 25 Me. 317. Mass. — Perry v. Hayward, 66 Mass. 344. ;ific^._Kiehardson v. Welch, 47 Mich. 309, 11 N. W. 172; McAuliflfe 12 V. Farmer, 27 Mich. 76; Morey v. For- syth, Walk. 465. Miss. — Shaw v. Millsaps, 50 Miss. 380; Whitney v. Freeland, 26 Miss. 481. Mo. — Larimore v. Tyler, 88 Mo. 661; McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 16 Mo. 242. Neb. — Baldwin v. Burt, 43 Neb. 245, 61 N. W. 601. N. J. — Evans v. Herring, 27 N. J. L. 243; Garretson v. Kane, 27 N. J. L. 208. N. C— Smith v. Bowen, 3 N. C. 296, there must be a creditor to be defrauded. Ohio. — Burgett v. Burgett, 1 Ohio, 469, 13 Am. Dec. 634 ; Union Cent. L. Ins. Co. V. Eckert, 5 Ohio Dec. 528, 6 Am. L. Rec. 452. Pa. — Phipps V. Boyd, 54 Pa. St. 842 ; Brown v. Scott, 51 Pa. St. 357. R. /.—Hudson v. White, 17 E. I. 519, 23 Atl. 57. 8. C. — Swanzy v. Hunt, 2 Nott &. M. 211 ; Kid v. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M. 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702. Tenn. — Bayless v. Elcan, 41 Tenn. 96. Tea!.— Shields v. Ord (Civ. App. 1899), 51 S. W. 298; Texarkana Nat. Bank v. Hall (Civ. App. 1895), 30 S. W. 73. yt. — Boutwell v. McClure, 30 Vt. 674, must be a bona fide creditor. Wis. — ^Remington v. Willard, 15 Wis. 646; Norton v. Kearney, 10 Wis. 443; Sehettler v. Brunette, 7 Wis. 197 ; Eaton v. White, 2 Wis. 292. Eng. — Strong v. Strong, 18 Beav. 408, 52 Eng. Reprint, 161. 178 Fraudulent Conveyances. otherwise.' But the fact that the complainant had not expended money or altered his situation on the strength of defendant hav» ing any ownership in the property conveyed is not in itself sufficient to defeat complainant's right to relief.* Since a fraud- ulent conveyance is voidable by those who are injured thereby, the only persons who can avoid a fraudulent conveyance are 3. Jf. Y. — Cushman v. Addison, 52 N. Y. 628 ; Fidelity Trust, etc., Co. v. Bell, 63 App. Div. 523, 71 N. Y. Supp. 651; Spicer v. Ayers, 53 How. Pr. 405; King v. Clarke, 2 Hill Eq. 611. V. 8. — Providence Sav. Bank v. Huntington, 10 Fed. 871. Ala. — Pickett v. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 520. Cal. — ^Harris v. Taylor, 15 Cal. 348. Gonn. — Graves v. Atwood, 52 Conn. 512, 52 Am. Rep. 610; Barney v. Cut- tier, 1 Root, 489. Fla. — Howse v. Judson, 1 Fla. 133. Ga. — Weed v. Davis, 25 Ga. 684. iH.— Mullen v. O'Shay, 85 111. App. 385. Ind. — Emerson v. Opp, 139 Ind. 27, 38 N. E. 330; Brumbaugh v. Rich- creek, 127 Ind. 240, 26 N. E. 664, 22 Am. St. Rep. 649; Bentley v. Dunkle, 57 Ind. 374. Kan. — Hunt v. Spencer, 20 Kan. 126; Bradley v. Larkin, 5 Kan. App. 11, 47 Pac. 315. Kif. — ^Hanby v. Logan, 1 Duv. 242. La. — ^Mend^sohn v. Blaise, 52 La. Ann. 1104, 27 So. 707; Willis v. Scott, 33 La. Ann. 1026; Meche v. La- lamie, 30 La. Ann. 1136; Berens v. Dupre, 6 La. Ann. 494; Le Blanc v. Dubroca, 6 La. Ann. 360; Weder- strandt v. Marsh, 11 Rob. 533; La- fleur V. Hardy, 11 Rob. 493. JIfA— Christopher v. Christopher, 64 Md. 583, 3 Atl. 296. yieh. — Bodine v. Simmons, 38 Mich. 682. Minn. — Johnston v. Piper, 4 Minn. 192. Miss. — Edmunds v. Mister, 58 Miss. 765; Cowen v. Alsop, 51 Miss. 158; Henderson v. Thornton, 37 Miss. 448, 75 Am. Dec. 70; Everett v. Winne, Sm. & M. Ch. 67. Mo. — ^Updegraff v. Theaker, 57 Mb. App. 45. J/eb. — Lewis v. Holdrege, 56 Neb. 379, 76 N. W. 890; Anthes v. Schroe- der, 3 Neb. (Unoff.) 604, 92 N. W. 196. y . C— Arnett v. Wanett, 28 N. C. 41 ; Jones v. Young, 18 N. C. 352, 28 Am. Dec. 569. Ohio. — Brannon v. Pureell, 8 Ohio Dec. 159, 6 Cine. L. Bui. 67. Pa. — ^Miner v. Warner, 2 Grant, 448. S. C. — Buchanan v. McNinch, 3 S. C. 498. Tenn. — Levis Zukoski, Mercantile Co. V. Bowers, 105 Tenn. 138, 58 S. W. 287; Burkey v. Self, 36 Tenn. 121. Tex. — Walker v. Loring (Civ. App. 1896), 34 S. W. 405. Tt. — Durkee v. Mahoney, 1 Aik. 116. Wis. — ^Frei v. McMurdo, 101 Wis. 423, 77 N. W. 915. See Prejudice to creditors, chap. Ill, § 9, supra. Remedies in equity, chap. XV, infra. 4. lauch v. De Socarras, 56 N. J. ,Eq. 538, 39 Atl. 370. Who May Attack Validity or Conveyance. 179 those who might take the property from the grantor or from his heirs, if no conveyance had been made.^ It has been held also that fraud on a creditor not a party to the proceeding to set aside a conveyance cannot be set up. The question is whether, on all the facts, there was fraud as against tbe plaintiffs.' A creditor cannot annul a sale, whose avoidance would exclusively benefit another creditor having priority by an anterior seizure.' The creditors of a purchaser of personal property under a fraudulent sale cannot object thereto, the creditors of the owner being the only ones who have a right to complain.* § 2. Pre-existing creditors. — Any pre-existing or prior credi- tor, as a general rule, can take advantage of fraud in a convey- ance and has tbe right to attack a conveyance made by a debtor as having been made in fraud of his creditors.' Pre-existing creditors are those to whom the debtor 5. Cook v. Lee, 72 N. H. 569, 58 Atl. 511. 6. Burke v. Adams, 80 Mo. 504, 50 Am. Eep. 510; Steadman v. Hayes, 80 Mo. 319. 7. Lott V. Gray, 6 Rob. (La.) 152. 8. Bell V. Greenwood, 21 Ark. 249; O'Connell v. Cruise, 12 Ohio Dec. 81, 1 Handy, 164. 9. N. Y. — Dygert v. Remerschnider, 32 N. Y. 629; Wright v. Douglass, 3 Barb. 554; Botts v. Cozine, 1 Hoff. Ch. 79. U. 8. — ^Thompson Nat. Bank v. Cor- wine, 89 Fed. 774. Ala. — ^Donley v. McKicrnan, 62 Ala. 34; Jacobson v. Simmons, 60 Ala. 185; Snodgrass v. Decatur Branch Bank, 25 Ala. 161, 60 Am. Dec. 505. Ark. — Stix v. Cbaytor, 55 Ark. 116, 17 S. W. 707. /?Z,— Chicago Daily News Co. v. Siegel, 212 111. 617, 72 N. E. 810; Campbell, etc., Co. v. Ross, 187 111. 553, 58 N. E. 596; Highley v. Ameri- can Exch. Nat. Bank, 185 111. 565, 57 N. E. 436; Springer v. Bingford, 160 HI. 495, 43 N. E. 751; Croarkin V. Hutchinson, 108 111. 633, 58 N. E. 678; Wooldridge v. Gage, 68 111. 157; Moore v. Montelius, 29 111. App. 197; Ives V. Hulce, 14 111. App. 389; Shackleford v. Todhunter, 4 111. App. 271. loica. — Babcock v. Hamilton, 64 Iowa, 558, 21 N. W. 33; Day v. Ken- dall, 60 Iowa, 414, 14 N. W. 234; Fifield V. Gaston, 12 Iowa, 218; Whitescarver v. Bonney, 9 Iowa, 480. Ky. — Ahlering v. Speckman, 30 Ky. L. Rep. 940, 99 S. W. 973; John- son V. Skaggs, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 601, 2 S. W. 493. La. — ^Meche v. Lalamie, 30 La. Ann. 1136; Lopez v. Bergel, 12 La. 197. Me. — American Agricultural Chem- ical Co. V. Huntington, 99 Me. 361, 59 Atl. 515. jl/. R. 12 Eq. 158, 40 L. J. Ch. 480, 24 L. T. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyahce. 201 sault and battery," bastardy/' breach of promise to marry/* seduction/" libel or slander/^ deceit/^ trespass/' or usury penal- ties/* are regarded as creditors witliin the meaning of such statutes and may attack their debtor's fraudulent conveyance made to defeat a recovery upon such claims. A person upon "whom robbery has been committed has been held to be entitled to be considered as a creditor of the party committing the rob- bery.°^ A voluntary conveyance to defeat a claim of a third per- SOB to damages for a tort is void at common law as against such third person.^' In some cases it has been held that a claim- ant for damages arising out of a tort is not a creditor within the Rep. N. S. 607, 19 Wkly. Rep. 842; Barling v. Bishopp, 29 Beav. 417, 6 Jur. N. S. 812, 8 Wkly. Rep. 631, 54 Eng. Reprint, 689; Strong v. Strong, 18 Beav. 408, 52 Eng. Reprint, 161. But see Leukener v. Freeman, 2 Freem. 236, 22 Eng. Reprint, 1182, Prec. Ch. 105, 24 Eng. Reprint, 51. 47. Martin v. Walker, 12 Hun (N, Y.) 46; Anglin v. Conley, 114 Ky, 741, 71 S. W. 926, 24 Ky. L. Rep, 1551; Slater v. Sherman, 5 Buali (Ky.) 206; Floyd v. Martin, 4 Ky, L. Rep. 891. 48. Bishop V. Redmond, 83 Ind, 157 ; Schuster & Co. v. Stout, 30 Kan, 529, 2 Pac. 642; Leonard v. Bolton, 153 Mass. 428, 26 N. E. 1118; Pier- stofif V. Jorges, 86 Wis. 128, 56 N, W. 735, 39 Am. St. Rep. 881. 49. Thompson v. Robinson, 89 Me 46, 35 AtL 1002; McVeigh v. Rite nour, 40 Ohio St. 107; Smith v. Cul bertson, 9 Rich. (S. C.) 106; Lowry T. Pinson, 2 Bailey (S. C), 324, 23 Am. Dec. 140; Hoffman v. Junk, 51 Wis. 613, 8 N. W. 493. 50. Hunsinger v. Hofer, 110 Ind. 390, 11 N. E. 463; Bishop v. Red- mond, 83 Ind. 157; Carbiener V.Mont- gomery, 97 Iowa, 659, 66 N. W. 900 ; McKenna v. Crowley, 16 R. I. 364, 17 Atl. 354. 51. CaJ.— Chalmers v. Sheehy, 132 Gal. 459, 64 Pac. 709. 7H.— Walradt v. Brown, 6 HI. 397, 41 Am. Dec. 190. Ey.—hiaavd v. McGee, 7 Ky. 165. Me.— Hall v. Sands, 52 Me. 355. Md.— Gebhart v. Merfeld, 51 Md. 322; Cooke v. Cooke, 43 Md. 522. Terni. — Farnsworth v. Bell, 5 Sneed, 531. Contra. — Fowler v. Frisbie, 3 Conn. 320. 52. Miner v. Warner, 2 Grant (Pa.), 448. 53. Westmoreland v. Powell, 59 Ga. 256; Gebhart v. Merfeld, 51 Md. 322; Schaible v. Ardner, 98 Mich. 70, 56 N. W. 1105; Paul v. Crooker, 8 N. H. 288. 54. Heath v. Page, 63 Pa. St. 108, 3 Am. Rep. 533. 55. Reid v. Kennedy, 21 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 86. 56. Fowler v. Frisbie, 3 Conn. 320 ; Fox V. Hills, 1 Conn. 295; Lillard v. MeGee, 7 Ky. 165. 202 Feaudulent Conveyances. purview of the statute until the claim has been reduced to judg- ment." § 10. Claims for alimony. — ^A wife, having a right as against her husband to support and maintenance, is to that extent a present and continuing creditor of her husband, and within the protection of the statutes as to fraudulent conveyances, and is entitled to bring suit to set aside a conveyance of his property by her husband made to prevent the recovery of alimony, or to avoid the payment of alimony decreed to her, or to defraud her of alimony or maintenance, and to subject the property con- veyed to the satisfaction, of a judgment for alimony; and a judgment for alimony is not always held to be a necessary pre- requisite to entitle her to do so.^* A conveyance of his prop- 57. Me. — ^Meserve v. Dyer, 4 Me. 52. Mich. — ^Hill V. Bowman, 35 Mieh, 191. Miss. — Jones v. Jones, 79 Miss. 261, 30 So. 651. Ohio. — Detwiler v. Louison, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 434, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 95. Tenn. — Langford v. Fly, 7 Humphr. 585. 58. Colo. — ^Hall v. Harrington, 7 Colo. App. 474, 44 Pac. 365, a deed fraudulently executed by a husband to defeat his wife's claim for alimony in a pending suit cannot be held valid as against the judgment for alimony when rendered. /ZJ.— Scott V. Magloughlin, 133 111. 33, 24 N. E. 1030, aif'g 33 111. App. 162, equity will not foreclose a trust deed given to defraud the grantor's wife of alimony or maintenance in a divorce proceeding then pending; Tyler v. Tyler, 126 111. 525, 21 N. E. 616, 9 Am. St. Rep. 642, wife a credi- tor under Illinois statute. /ju?.— DeRuiter v. DeRuiter, 28 Ind. App. 9, 62 N. E. 100, 91 Am. St. Eep. 107. Iowa. — ^Pielcet v. Garrison, 76 Iowa, 347, 41 N. W. 38. Me. — Bailey v. Bailey, 61 Me. 361. Md. — Feigley v. Feigley, 7 Md. 537, 61 Am. Dec. 375, the words "credi- tors and others," in the statute of 13 Eliz., chap. 5, includes a wife. Mieh. — ^Holland v. Holland, 121 Mich. 109, 79 N. W. 1102, 6 Det. L. N. 379. Minn. — Cochran v. Cochran, 96 Minn. 523, 105 N. W. 183, may bring suit after decree. Ohio. — Chittenden v. Chittenden, 22 Ohio Cir. Ct. 498, 12 Ohio Cir. Dec. 526. Pa. — ^Bonslough v. Bonslough, 68 Pa. St. 495. Tex. — Schultz v. Shultze (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 56; Lott v. Kaiser, 61 Tex. 673. yt.— Green v. Adams, 59 Vt. 602, 59 Am. Rep. 761. Wis. — Damon v. Damon, 28 Wis. 515. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 203 erty by a husband made with, intent to defraud his 'Wlife of alimony or maintenance is fraudulent as to his wife, although the conveyance may have been made prior to the institution of the proceedings for divorce.^' § 11. Persons representing creditors; Assignees. — ^An as- signee for creditors may maintain a suit to set aside a fraudu- lent conveyance made by the assignor.^" An assignee in bank- ruptcy may maintain an action to annul a fraudulent transfer by the bankrupt, and recover the property or its avails for the benefit of simple contract creditors." The right to attack a conveyance as being in fraud of creditors is not personal to the original creditor, but may be exercised by his successors or assigns whenever he might have_ done so.*^ The rule that a cause of action for fraud 59. Gregory v. Pilbeck, 12 Colo. 379, 21 Pae. 489; Plainer v. Plainer, 66 Iowa, 378, 23 N. W. 764; Weber V. Rothschild, 15 Oreg. 385, 15 Pao. 650, 3 Am. St. Rep. 162; Blenkinsopp V. Blenkinsopp, 1 DeG. M. & G. 495, 16 Jur. 787, 21 L. J. Oh. 401, 50 Eng. Ch. 379, 42 Eng. Reprint, 644. 60. McMahon v. Allen, 35 N. Y. 403. 61. Southard v. Benner, 72 N. Y. 424. 62. N. Y.—In re Cornell, 110 N". Y. 351, 18 N. E. 142; Bostwick v. Scott, 40 Hun, 212. Ala. — Jones v. Smith, 92 Ala. 455, 9 So. 179 ; Ruse v. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619, 7 So. 384; Bragg v. Paterson, 85 Ala. 233, 4 So. 716; Fearn v. Ward, 80 Ala. 555, 2 So. 114. Coi.— Windhaus v. Bootz (1890), 25 Pac. 404; Hobart v. Tyrrell, 68 Cal. 12, 8 Pac. 525. CoJo.— Rose V. Dunklee, 12 Colo. App. 403, 56 Pac. 342. But see Kauf- man V. Burchinell, 15 Colo. App. 520, 63 Pac. 786. Conn. — Shipman v. Aetna Ins. Co., 29 Conn. 245. lotoa. — Searing v. Berry, 58 Iowa, 20, 11 N. W. 708. Me. — Simpson v. Warren, 55 Me. 18; Warren v. Williams, 52 Me. 343. Met. — Sehaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 565, 92 Am. Dec. 708; Waters v. Dashiell, 1 Md. 455. Mass. — Freeland v. Freeland, 102 Mass. 475; Lynde v. McGregor, 95 Mass. 172; Blake v. Sawin, 92 Mass. 340; Gibbs v. Thayer, 60 Mass. 30. Mich. — ^Noble v. McKeith, 127 Mich. 163, 86 N. W. 526 ; Sweet v. Converse, 88 Mich. 1, 49 N. W. 899. Miss. — Cook V. Liggin, 54 Miss. 368. N. J. — Wimpfheimer v. Perrine (1901), 50 Atl. 356. See Winans v. Graves, 43 N. J. Eq. 263, 11 Atl. 25. Ohio. — ^Kilbourne v. Fay, 29 Ohio St. 264, 23 Am. Rep. 741; Hallowell v. Bayliss, 10 Ohio St. 536. Pa. — ^Tams v. Bullitt, 35 Pa. St. 308; Moncure v. Hanson, 15 Pa. St. 385. B. /.—Doyle v. Peckham, 9 R. I. 21. 204 Feaudulent Conveyances. is not assignable does not apply to a contractual debt as the basis of a suit to set aside fraudulent conveyances/' Tlie assignment :by a trustee in bankruptcy, however, of the mere right to set aside a fraudulent conveyance by the bankrupt is invalid.*^ § 12. Receivers in supplementary proceedings. — It is the general rule, under statutes providing for the appointment of a receiver in proceedings supplementary to execution, that the re- ceiver appointed represents the interests of the creditors as well as those of the debtor and is a trustee for all parties, and has power to assail and set aside such acts of the debtor as are illegal and forbidden by law, and may, therefore, institute actions in his own name to avoid and set aside conveyances made by the debtor with intent to defraud his creditors.^* The receiver is Va. — Staton v. Pittman, 11 Gratt. 99; Clough v. Thompson, 7 Gratt. 26; Shirley v. Long, 6 Rand. 735. Wosfc.— Bates v. Drake, 28 Wash. 447, 68 Pae. 961. W. Va. — Highland v. Highland, 5 W. Va. 63. Wis. — Sutton V. Hasey, 58 Wis. 556, 17 N. W. 416. Compare Carrigan v. Byrd, 23 S. C. 89; Pierce v. Bowers, 67 Tenn. 353; Kearby v. Hopkins, 14 Tex. Civ. App, 166, 36 S. W. 506; Lumsden v. Scott, 4 Ont. 323. 63. Howd V. Breckenridge, 97 Mich. 65, 56 N. W. 221. 64. Annis v. Butterfield, 99 Me. 181, 58 Atl. 898. 65. N. r.— Kennedy v. Thorpe, 51 N. Y. 174, where one from whom goods have been fraudulently pur- chased sues for the price and gets judgment, a receiver in supplementary proceedings upon such judgment may not set up the fraud in the sale to defeat an assignment of the property made by the purchaser for the benefit of creditors, although the assign- ment was made in furtherance of the fraud, with full notice thereof to the assignee; Bostwick v. Menck, 40 N. y. 383; Porter v. Williams, 9 N. Y. 142, 59 Am. Dec. 519; Manley v. Kas- siga, 13 Hun, 288; Bennett v. Me- Guire, 58 Barb. 625; Gere v. Dibble, 17 How. Pr. 31. The earlier cases of Hayner v. Fowler, 16 Barb. 300, and Seymour v. Wilson, 16 Barb. 294, holding to the contrary, were over- ruled by Porter v. Williams, supra. U. S.— Olney v. Tanner, 18 Fed. 636, 21 Blatchf. 540, but such a 're- ceiver cannot maintain a suit to reach property which was transferred by a bankrupt in fraud of creditors before he was appointed receiver, and when there is an assignee in bank- ruptcy; in such cases the assignee in bankruptcy is the only person who can assail such transfer. ilficA.— Prescott v. Pfeiffer, 57] Mich. 21, 23 N. W. 477. Minn. — Dunham v. Byrnes, 36 Minn. 106, 30 N. W. 402. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 205 a trustee for all, clothed with power to set aside transfers, fraudulent as against demands represented by him, only to an extent sufficient to satisfy such demands and costs." § 13. Sureties and endorsers. — It is held in some cases that the relation of debtor and creditor between, principal and surety, so as to entitle the latter to avoid a voluntary conveyance made by the former, oommenoes at the date of the obligation or the date of signing the surety bond, and not from the time the surety m,akes payment, and in other oases that the payment by the surety of the debt of his principal relates back to the date of the bond, and constitutes the surety a creditor, who may avoid a fraudulent conveyance made by the principal during the period the claim was contingent, while other cases hold that where a voluntary conveyance, void as to a subsisting creditor, is made by a principal debtor, and afterwards the surety pays the debt, the latter becomes himself the creditor and will be substituted or subrogated to the rights of the creditor, and may subject the property so conveyed to the paymeut of his debt." So an ale- s''. J. — Miller v. Mackenzie, 29 N. J. Arh. — Williams v. Bizzell, 11 Ark. Eq. 291. But compare Higgins v. Gil- 716. lesheimer, 26 N. J. Eq. 308, a re- Oa. — Banks v. McCandless, 119 Ga. ceiver appointed under the act to pre- 793, 47 S. E. 332. vent fraudulent trusts and assign- 111. — Choteau v. Jones, 11 111. 300, ments (Nix Dig., p. 297) has no 50 Am. Dec. 460; Dunphy v. Gorman, power to impeach a grant made by 29 111. App. 132. the debtor in fraud of creditors. Ind. — Barnes v. Sammons, 128 Ind. Wis.— -Hamlin v. Wright, 23 Wis. 596, 27 N. E. 747. 491. Ky. — Partlow v. Lane, 42 Ky. 424, 66. Bostwick v. Menck, 40 N. Y. 39 Am. Dee. 473; Poynter v. Mallory, 383. 20 Ky. L. Rep. 284, 45 S. W. 1042; 67. V. y. — ^Martin v. Walker, 12 Johnson v. Harrison, 6 Ky. L. Rep. Hun, 46. 591. V. B. — ^Thompson v. Crane, 73 Fed. Me. — Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 327. 458, 50 Atl. 240; Danforth v. Robin- AM. — ^Washington v. Norwood, 128 son, 80 Me. 466, 15 Atl. 27, 6 Am. Ala. 383, 30 So. 405; Jenkins v. Lock- St. Rep. 224; Sargent v. Salmond, 27 ard, 66 Ala. 377; Cato y. Easley, 2 Me. 539; Howe v. Ward, 4 Me. 195. Stew. 214. Miss. — Ames v. Dorroh, 76 Miss. 206 Feaudulent Conveyances. commodation endorser of a note wlio has been compelled to pay it is a creditor of the maker within the statute prohibiting fraudulent conveyances, and is therefore entitled to maintain an action to vacate and set aside such a conveyance, and subject the property to his claim for reimbursement."' A surety is a creditor of his co-obligor in the same way aud the same rules apply as between co-sureties."' § 14. Purchasers at judicial sales — A purchaser at a judicial sale has the same right as the judgment creditor to attack a prior conveyance made by the judgment debtor as being fraudu- lent as against oreditors.™ He may impeach the conveyance in 187, 23 So. 768, 71 Am. St. Rep. 522; Loughridge v. Bowland, 52 Miss. 546. N. C— Tatum v. Tatum, 36 N. C. 113. Term. — ^Williams v. Tipton, 5 Humphr. 66, 42 Am. Dec. 420; Sha- pira V, Paletz (Ch. App.), 59 S. W. 774; Oneal v. Smith, 10 Lea, 340. Fa.— Curd v. Miller, 7 Gratt. 185. W. Ta. — ^Hawker v. Moore, 40 W. Va. 49, 20 S. E. 848. Wis. — ^EUis V. Southwestern Land Co., 108 Wis. 313, 84 N. W. 417, 81 Am. St. Eep. 909. 68. Lyon v. Boiling, 9 Ala. 463, 44 Am. Dec. 444; Severs v. Dodson, 53 N. J. Eq. 633, 34 Atl. 7, 51 Am. St. Rep. 641; Phelps v. Morrison, 24 N. J. Eq. -195. Compare, however. Mason V. Somers (N. J. Ch.), 45 Atl. 602, an accommodation endorser does not thereby become a creditor of the maker so as to raise a presumption that the maker's subsequent volun- tary conveyance is fraudulent. 69. Washington v. Norwood, 128 Ala. 383, 30 So. 405 ; Jenkins v. Lock- ard, 66 Ala. 377; Gibson v. Love, 4 Fla. 217; Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 Atl. 240; Pashby v. Man- digo, 42 Mich. 172, 3 N. W. 927; Smith V. Rumsey, 33 Mich. 183. 70. N. Y.— Smith v. Reid, 134 N. Y. 568, 31 N. E. 1082, aff'g 11 N. Y. Supp. 1139, 19 Civ. Proc. R. 363; Ber- ger V. Carman, 79 N. Y. 146, rev'g Snedeker v. Snedeker, 18 Hun, 355; Sands v. Hildreth, 14 Johns. 493; Hildreth v. Sands, 2 Johns. Ch. 35. U. S. — Farrar v. Bemheim, 74 Fed. 435, 20 C. C. A. 496; Middleton v. Sinclair, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,534, 5 Cranch C. C. 409. Ga. — ^Murray v. Jones, 50 Ga. 109. Ill— Murphy v. Orr, 32 111. 489. Ind. — Frakes v. Brown, 2 Blackf. 295. Ki/. — Fuller v. Pinson, 98 Ky. 441, 33 S. W. 399, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 1002; Shiveley v. Jones, 45 Ky. 274. Mass. — Gerrish v. Mace, 9 Gray, 235. Mich. — Watson v. Mead, 98 Mich. 330, 57 N. W. 181. Minn. — Millis v. Lombard, 32 Minn. 259, 20 N. W. 187. Miss. — ^Mays v. Rose, 1 Freem. Ch. 703.. Mo. — ^Lindell Real Estate Co. v. Lindell, 113 Mo. 386, 33 S. W. 466, Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 207 a suit at law to recover possession, or if he can. gain, possession defend the title thus acquired against the fraudulent grantee or those claiming under him." But a purchaser at an execution or other judicial sale, with notice, actual or constructive, of a prior conveyance by the judgment debtor, cannot assail such conveyance as fraudulent.'^ Upon a question respecting a fraudulent conveyance, a purchaser imder a judgment against the grantor will be considered as a creditor, and not as a pur- chaser," and he stands in no better situation than the judgment creditor who files a bill to avoid the conveyance.'* Where a creditor is estopped, by participation in a fraudulent convey- ance, from afterwards questioning it, a purchasei* at execution sale under such- creditor's judgment is likewise precluded from doing so.'' § 15. Officers lev5ang attachment or execution. — ^A sherifi taking property under an attachment process duly issued may and a decree setting the conveyance aside is not vitiated by the facts that the sale was void and that the pur- chaser hence acquired no title there- under; Einehart v. Long, 95 Mo. 396, 8 S. W. 559; Wood v. Augustine, 61 Mo. 46, but he cannot do so without showing an equitable or legal title in himself; Gflntry v. Robinson, 55 Mo. 260; Ryland v. Callison, 54 Mo. 513; Dunniea v. Coy, 28 Mo. 525, 75 Am. Dee. 133. Ohio.— Ba,Ti v. Hatch, 3 Ohio, 527. Or.— Wood V. risk, 45 Or. 276, 77 Pac. 128, 738. Po.— Ferris v. Irons, 83 Pa. St. 179. B. I. — Belcher v. Arnold, 14 E. I. 613. S. C— McGee v. Jones, 34 S. C. 146, 13 S. E. 326; Ford v. Aiken, 4 Rich. L. 121; Caston v. Cunningham, 3 Strobh. 59. Wis. — Eastman v. Schettler, f3 Wis. 324. Contra. — Thigpen v. Pitt, 54 N. C. 49, the creditor's claim being satis- fied he no longer has any rights to which the purchaser may be subro- gated. 71. Smith V. Reid, supra, and other N. Y. cases. 72. Abbott V. Hurd, 7 Blackf. (Ind.) 510; Davis v. Briscoe, 81 Mo. 27. But see Lawrence v. Lippencott, 5 N. J. Eq. 473, a purchaser will be protected in his purchase though he knew of such previous conveyance; McGee v. Jones, 34 S. C. 146; Ford V. Aiken, 4 Rich. L. (S. C.) 121, no- tice had by the purchaser is immate- rial if the judgment creditor had no notice of the conveyance. 73. Pepper v. Carter, 11 Mo. 540. 74. Smith v. Espy, 9 N. J. Eq. 160. 75. Sharpe v. Davis, 76 Ind. 17. 308 Fraudulent Convet>ances. defend, in an action for possession brought by the vendee or assignee of the attafchment debtor, by showing that the sale was fraudulent as against creditors.'* None but creditors or pur- chasers can take advantage of a fraudulent deed, but a sheriff in attaching the property in the hands of one to whom it has been fraudulently conveyed, is the lawfully authorized agent of the creditors." In replevin for property attached as belonging to a third person, the sheriff cannot justify by proof that it was trans- ferred by such third person to the plaintiff in the replevin under a fraudulent contract of sale.'* .§ 16. Personal representatives. — The personal representative of a deceased debtor stands as trustee for his creditors and for their benefit may disaffirm and treat as void any transfer or agreement made in fraud of the rights of amy creditor interested in any property or right belonging to the estate he represents, and it is his right and duty to institute proceedings to set aside a conveyance made by his decedent which was fraudulent as to his creditors.'' In many jurisdictions, either by special statutes conferring this power or by judicial construction of statutes, a personal representative is authorized and empowered to bring an action or take proceedings to set aside a fraudulent conveyance 76. N. T.— Rinchey v. Stryker, 28 S. D. — See Griswold v. Sundback, N. T. 45, 84 Am. Dec. 324; Hall v. 6 S. D. 269, 60 N. W. 1068, where de- Stryker, 27 N. Y. 596; Thayer v. Wil- fendant had relinquished his lien he let, 18 N. Y. Super. Ct. 344, 9 Abb. was precluded from questioning the Prac. 325. hona fides of a prior sale of the Gal. — Bolander v. Gentry, 36 Cal- property by the debtor to plain- 105, 95 Am. Dec. 162. tiff. Mass. — See Bond v. Endicott, 149 77. Swanzey v. Hunt, 2 Nott & M. Mass. 282, 21 N. E. 361. (S. C.) 211. aficfc.— Pierce v. Hill, 35 Mich. 78. Deutsch v. Reilly, 57 How. Pr. 194, 24 Am. Rep. 541 ; Haynes v. Led- (N. Y.) 75. yard, 33 Mich. 319. 79. ??. Y. — National Bank of West 2V. ff.— Walker v. Lovell, 28 N. H. Troy v. Levy, 127 N. Y. 549, 28 N. E. 138, 61 Am. Dec. 605. 592, rev'g 2 N. Y. Supp. 162; Harvey S. C— Paris v. Du Pre, 17 S. C. v. McDonnell, 113 N. Y. 526, 21 N. E. 282. 695. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 209 made by his decedent.*" In other jurisdictions, the right of an executor or administrator to maintain a suit or action to impeach and set aside a conveyance of property made by his decedent, as fraudulent as against his creditors, is denied." The personal representative's right to sue is not exclusive and the creditor's right to prosecute such an action remains.*^ "Where the adminis- trator or executor, upon application of a creditor, refuses to pursue his remedy and set aside a fraudulent conveyance and reclaim the property, the creditor may bring an action for him- self and the other creditors, making the personal representatives parties.^' § 17. Estoppel and v^aiver — In general. — ^Where the com- plainant in a suit to set aside a voluntary or fraudulent con- veyance has not sought or received any benefit from the con- veyance, or caused the defendant to forego any rightful advant- 80. Cal. — Emmons v. Barton, 109 Cal. 662, 42 Pac. 303. Ind. — Jarrell v. Brubaker, 115 Ind. 260, 49 N. E. 1050. Mass. — Putney v. Fletcher, 148 Mass. 247, 19 N. E. 370. Mich. — Beith v. Porter, 119 Micli. 365, 78 N. W. 336, 75 Am. St. Rep. 402. y. E. — Matthews v. Hutchins, 68 N. H. 412, 40 Atl. 1063. 2V. c.— Webb v. Atkinson, 122 N. C. 683, 29 S. E. 949. Ohio. — Hoffman v. Kiefer, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 401, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 304. Pa. — Stewart v. Kearney, 6 Watts, 453, 31 Am. Dee. 482. yt. — ^McLane v. Johnson, 43 Vt. 48. Wis.— Eckler v. Wolcott, 115 Wis. 19, 90 N. W. 1081. 81. Ala. — Davis v. Swanson, 54 Ala. 277, 25 Am. Rep. 678. ilrfc.— Matlock v. Bledsoe (Ark. 1905), 90 S. W. 848, assignment of 14 life policy; Anderson v. Dunn, 19 Ark. 650. D. C— Tiemey v. Corbett, 2 Mackey, 264. Oa. — ^Anderson v. Brown, 72 Ga. 713. 111. — ^Majorowiez v. Payson, 153 111. 484, 39 N. E. 127. Kan. — Crawford v. Lehr, 20 Kan. 509. Miss. — Blake v. Blake, 53 Miss. 182. Mo.— Hall V. Callahan, 66 Mo. 316. R. I. — Gardner v. Gardner, 17 R. I. 751, 24 Atl. 785. Tem. — Wilson v. Denander, 71 Tex. 603, 9 S. W. 678. Va.— Spooner v. Hilbish, 92 Va. 333, 23 S. B. 751. W. Ya. — Jone v. Patton, 10 W. Va. 653. 82. Hoffman v. Kiefer, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 401, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 304. 83. National Bank of West Troy v. Levy, 127 N. Y. 549; Harvey v. Mc- Donnell, 113 N. Y. 526. 210 Feaudulent Cokvetances. age in respect to the subject matter or defense of the suit, he is not estopped to invoke relief. It is an essential element of estoppel by conduct that the party claiming the estoppel shall have relied upon the words or conduct of the other, and have been induced by them to do something which he otherwise would not have done.** There must have been such a benefit conferred upon the creditor or disadvantage suffered by the vendee as ought to bind the conscience of the creditor or clothe his act with the character of a contract, in order to estop him from attacking the conveyance on the ground of fraud.^' A creditor joining in a deed of partition after his debtor has made a fraudu- lent conveyance of his interest in the land partitioned does not thereby waive his right to maintain a bill to subject his debtor's interest in the land to the payment of his debt, where the partition deed recited that it should in no wise prejudice the creditor from maintaining such bill.** § 18. Knowledge or assent — A pre-existing creditor's right to avoid a conveyance which is fraudulent as to him is not affected by his mere knowledge of the fraud at the time the conveyance was executed,*' in the absence of evidence that he knew the debtor was thereby depriving himself of the means to pay his debt,** or that the creditor knowing the purpose of the conveyance, assented to it and that such assent, induced the holder of the property to accept it.*° But a conveyance in fraud of creditors is valid as to a creditor who has full knowl- 84. Geiler v. Littlefield, 148 N. Y. Cal. 360, 55 Pac. 980, 69 Am. St. 603, 43 N. E. 66, one who has a con- Rep. 64; Woodson v. Carson, 135 Mo. tract to do work on certain premises 521, 35 S. W. 1005, 37 S. W. 197. does not, by performing the work 85. Corbitt v. Cutcheon, 79 Mich, under a new contract with a trans- 41, 44 N. W. 163. feree of such premises, estop himself 86. Stout v. Stout, 77 Ind. 537. to claim as a judgment creditor of 87. Fitch v. Corbett, 64 Cal. 150, the transferrer that the transfer was 28 Pac. 231; Armstrong Co. v. Elbert, fraudulent, at least as to other prem- 14 Tex. Civ. App. 141, 36 S. W. 139. ises included in the transfer; Wood 88. Cole v. Tyler, 65 N. Y. 73. V. Potts & Potts, 140 Ala. 425, 37 So. 89. Graves v. Blondell, 70 Me. 190; 253; First Nat. Bank v. Maxwell, 123 Dingley v. Robinson, 5 Me. 127. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 211 edge of and assents or agrees to the conveyance, and cannot be avoided by such creditor on tbat ground,'" either as to a previous debt, or a debt subsequently assigned to him by a third per- son 91 § 19. Affirmance or ratification. — ^Where a creditor has sub- sequently ratified or affirmed his debtor's fraudulent transfer of propetrty, he is estopped from assailing it as fraudulent.'^ Mere notice of a fraudulent c-onveyance without any action on the part of a creditor will not amount to a confirmation ; but if, with notice of the fraud, either actual or constructive, the credi- tor agrees upon consideration to confirm it, or makes any state- ment or agreement to that effect upon the faith of which the grantee acts as he would not otherwise, or if the creditor acts in such manner that the subsequent assertion of his rights, if per- mitted, would be a fraud, he will be held to have assented to or 90. N. T. — Scholey v. Worcester, 4 Hun, 302, 6 Thomp. & C. 574; Pell v. Tredwell, 5 Wend. 661. Ala. — ^Wooten v. Robins, 128 Ala. 373, 30 Sp. 681. 7nd.— Smith v. Wells Mfg. Co., 148 Ind. 333, 46 N. E. 1000. La. — Wright v. Hogan, 11 La. Ann. 563. Mo>. — ^Torreyson v. Turnbaugh, 105 Mo. App. 439, 79 S. W. 1002. Po.— Mitchell v. Mitchell, 212 Pa. St. 62, 61 Atl. 570; Zuver v. Clark, 104 Pa. St. 222. 91. Pell V. Tredwell, 5 Wend. (N. Y.) 661. 92. Ala. — Wooten v. Robins, 128 Ala. 373, 30 So. 681, and he cannot successfully assail the same upon be- coming a creditor of the fraudulent grantor subsequent to such assent or ratification. Ooio.— Sickman v. Abernathy, 14 Colo. 174, 23 Pae. 447. Fla. — Simon v. Levy, 36 Fla. 438, 18 So. 777. Mass. — Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 44 Mass. 332, 37 Am. Dec. 140. Minn. — Hathaway v. Brown, 22 Minn. 214. Mo. — Torreyson v. Turnbaugh, 105 Mo. App. 439, 79 S. W. 1002. Hfeb. — Roekford Watch Co. v. Mani- fold, 36 Neb. 801, 55 N. W. 236. OMo. — Rennick v. Bank of Chilli- cothe, 8 Ohio, 530. Pa.— Appeal of Byrod, 31 Pa. St. 241. 8. O.— Kid V. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M. 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702. Com. — Blackley v. Kenny, 16 Ont. App. 522. j;^?.— Oliver v. King, 8 DeG. M. & G. 110, 2 Jur. N. S. 312, 25 L. J. Ch. 427, 4 Wkly. Rep. 382, 57 Eng. Ch. 86, 44 Eng. Reprint, 331. See also Assent or confirmation by credi- tors, chap. Ill, § 8, supra. 212 Feaudulent Conveyances. ratified tKe transaction.'^ "Where plaintiff, by a formal authenti- cated act, recognized defendant's title to property, lie is eatopped to allege that the conveyance as to him was fraudulent." A creditor is not estopped from assailing as fraudulent a convey- ance of real estate by his debtor by the fact that he afterwards, in ignorance of the fraud, accepted from the grantee the benefit of a deed of trust of a portion thereof,'^ or because he treated a subsequent partition of the premises as legal and sought to sub- ject to the payment of his claim the portion of the premises! set apart to his debtor's grantee,'* or by garnishing the grantee who had possession of the property.*' § 20. Participation — ^Where the evidence shows that the com- plainant in a bill to set aside a fraudulent conveyance had par- ticipated in, advised, or instigated such conveyance, the court, as a general rule, will leave him in the position he has made for himself, and will hold him estopped by his conduct from aittacking the conveyance. Where he not only consents to the act but himself performs or assists in performing it, the maxim, volenti non fit injuria, is certainly applicable.'* But it has 93. Wooten v. Robins, 128 Ala. 373, App. 644; Dobbins v. Cruger, 108 HI. 30 So. 681. See also oases cited in 188. note 92. Ind. — ^Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 94. Theriot v. Michel, 28 La. Ann. 157 Ind. 623, 61 N. E. 575, 62 N". E. 107. 701; Smith v. Wells Mfg. Co., 148 95. Baldwin v. Tuttle, 23 Iowa, Ind. 333, 46 N. E. 1000; Sharpe v. 66. Davis, 76 Ind. 17. 96. Staples v. Bradley, 23 Conn. Ey. — Bull v. Harris, 57 Ky. 195. 167, 60 Am. Dec. 630. Mich. — Bunce v. Bailey, 39 Mich. 97. Armstrong Co. v. Elbert, 14 192. Tex. Civ. App. 141, 36 S. W. 139. Mo. — Thompson v. Cohen, 127 Mo. 98. N. y.— -Phillips v. Wooster, 36 215, 28 S. W. 984, 29 S. W. 885; Bobb N. Y. 412, 3 Abb. Pr. N. S. 475. v. Bobb, 99 Mo. 578, 12 S. W. 893. V. 8. — Bacon v. Harris, 62 Fed. N. J. — Schenck v. Hart, 32 N. J. 99, where the creditor united with hia Eq. 774; Brinkerhoflf v. BrinkerhoflF, debtor in concealing the indebtedness 23 N. J. Eq. 477; Smith v. Espy, 9 and the existence of a bill of sale to N. J. Eq. 160. secure it, to enable the debtor to ob- Pa. — ^McDonald v. O'Neill, 161 Pa. tain credit. St. 245, 28 Atl. 1081 ; French v. Me- III. — Perisho v. Perisho, 95 111. han, 56 Pa. St. 286. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 213 been held tihat a fraudulent conveyance, made by the advice and at the request of a creditor of the grantor, is not valid as against that creditor';" that the grantee of land conveyed by an intestate in his lifetime -with intent to defraud creditors, who has acted on such conveyance and is himself a creditor, is not estopped thereby, as one of the creditors of the estate, from availing him- self of the fraudulent character of the conveyance;^ and that a niece who participated in a fraudulent transfer by her uncle, in view of the unequal condition of the parties, was not thereby estopped from afterwards subjecting the property so conveyed to her claim.^ Where a creditor is estopped by participation in a fraudulent conveyance from afterwards questioning it, a pur- chaser at an execution sale under the creditor's judgment is like- wise precluded from doing so.' A creditor who did not in any way participate in the fraud attempted tO' be practiced may assail a fraudulent conveyance.* § 21. Receipt of benefit under conveyance It is the gen- eral rule that a creditor who, with a full knowledge of the vitiat- ing circumstances of the transaction, seeks or accepts a benefit Tinder a conveyance fraudulent as to creditors, thereby elects to affirm it, and is thereby estopped from afteirwards questioning its validity and vacating the conveyance as fraudulent.^ A pur- Tea;. — Jacobs V. Jefferson Lumber Arh. — Bryan-Brown Shoe Co. v. Co. (Tex.) 15 S. W. 236. Block, 52 Ark. 458, 12 S. W. 1073; 99. Waterhouse v. Benton, 5 Day Millington v. Hill, 47 Ark. 301, 1 S. (Conn.), 136. W. 547. 1. Norton v. Norton, 69 Mass. 524. Ind. — ^Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 2. Sehmelz v. Michelson, 8 Ohio 157 Ind. 623, 61 N. E. 575, 62 N. E. Dec. 538, 8 Wkly. L. Bui. 304. 701. 3. Sharpe v. Davis, 76 Ind. 17. Minn. — Lemay v. Bibeau, 2 Minn. 4. Woodson v. Carson, 135 Mo. 521, 291. 37 S. W. 197. ^°- — Torreyson v. Turnbaugh, 105 5. AZa.— Mobile Sav. Bank v. Mc- Mo. App. 439, 79 S. W. 1002; Gutz- Donnell, 87 Ala. 736, 6 So. 703; But- wilier v. Laekman, 23 Mo. 168, but ler V. O'Brien, 5 Ala. 316. See, how- in an action by attachment, in which ever Proskauer v. People's Sav. Bank, an interpleader claims the attached 77 Ala. 257. property under a previous transfer 214 Eeaudulent Conveyances. chaser at an execution sale who pays a lees price for the land by reason of there being an apparently valid lien on the property or by reason of its being clouded by the judgment debtor's prior fraudulent conveyance, having thus received a benefit from the esistence of such lien or conveyance, is estopped from after- wards attaddng such conveyance or bringing suit to set aside such incumbrance as in fraud of his rights.' Where one pur- chases at a foreclosure sale had under the express condition that it is made subject to certain judgmeats, he cannot afterwards assail such judgments as fraudulent, since to permit him to do so would be to give him an inequitable advantage over other bidders at the sale who, but for the condition announced, might have bid more for the property.' § 22. Subsequent purchasers. — In general 'A subsequent bona fide purchaser of real property, under the statute of 27 Elizabeth, may avoid a prior voluntary conveyance or transfer of the same property by his grantor, upon proof that the prior thereof to himself from defendant in 54; Wood v. Keesor, 22 Ont. App. 57; exchange for promissory notes, the Young v. Ward, 24 Ont. App. 147. fact that the notes have been received Compare Wadsworth v. Marsh, 9 by plaintiffs from defendant in the Conn. 481; Goldnamer v. Robinson, 11 due course of business does not estop Ky. L. Rep. 630. them from challenging the transfer 6. Ky. — White v. Gates, 37 Ky. 357. of the property to the interpleader as Mioh. — ^Marshall v. Blass, 82 Mich, fraudulent as to creditors. Martin v. 518, 46 N. W. 947, 47 N. W. 516. Johnson, 23 Mo. App. 96. N. J. — DeGraw v. Mechan, 48 N. J. OAio.— Crumbaugh v. Kugler, 3 Eq. 219, 21 Atl. 193. Ohio St. 544. N. C— Thigpen v. Pitt, 54 N. C. 49. Pa. — Furness v. Ewing, 2 Pa. St. Contra. — Wagner v. Law, 3 Wash. 479. 500, 28 Pac. 1109, 29 Pae. 927, 28 Term. — Cunningham v. Campbell, 3 Am. St. Rep. 56, 15 L. R. A. 784, the Tenn. Ch. 708. But see Nichol v. right of an execution creditor, pur- Nichol, 63 Tenn. 145, where the ac- chasing at his own sale, to set aside ceptanoe of a note was held not such his debtor's prior conveyance, is not a receipt of a benefit under the fraud- affected by the fact that he purchased ulent conveyance as precluded the the lands for a trifle on account of creditor from afterward attacking it. the existence of such conveyance. Tt. — Ingals V. Brooks, 29 Vt. 398. 7. Friedrich v. Brewster, 26 Hun Can.— Rielle v. Reid, 26 Ont. App. (N. Y.), 236. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 215 conveyance was made with fraudulent intent.* The same rule prevails in most of the United States where the statute of 27 Elizabeth has been adopted or substantially re-enaoted, and a subsequent purchaser for a good consideration may set aside a prior fraudulent conveyance made by his grantor.' The statute 8. Eng. — De Mestre v. West, A. C. 264, 55 J. P. 613, 60 L. J. P. C. 66, 64 L. T. Rep. N. S. 375; In re Cam- eron, 37 Ch. Div. 32, 57 L. J. Ch. 69, 57 L. T. Rep. N. S. 645, 36 Wkly. Rep. 5; Shurmur v. Sedgwick, 24 Ch. Div. 597, 53 L. J. Ch. 87, 49 L. T. Rep. N. S. 156, 31 Wkly. Rep. 884; Craeknall v. Jansen, 11 Ch. Div. 1, 48 L. J. Ch. 168, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 640, 27 Wkly. Rep. 851; Doe v. Rolfe, 8 A. & E. 650, 7 L. J. Q. B. 251, 3 N. & P. 648, 35 E. C. L. 775; Doe V. Roe, 5 B. & Ad. 1 Arn. 279, 4 Bing. N. Gas. 737, 6 Scott, 525, 33 E. C. L. 950; and other earlier cases. Ctm. — ^Harper v. Culbert, 5 Ont. 152; Buchanan v. Campbell, 14 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 163; Osborne v. Osborne, 5 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 619; Demorest V. Miller, 42 U. C. Q. B. 56; Miller V. McGill, 24 U. C. Q. B. 597; Wilson V. Wilson, 8 U. C. C. P. 525. A voluntary gift for charit- able. purposes is not to be treated as covinous within the meaning of 27 Eliz., chap. 4, and is not avoided by a subsequent conveyance for value. Ramsay v. Gilchrist, A. C. 412, 56 J. P. 711, 61 L. J. P. C. 72, 66 L. T. Rep. N. S. 806. A purchaser from an heir is not entitled under 27 Eliz., chap. 4, to set aside a voluntary conveyance by the ancestor. Lewis v. Rees, 3 Jur. N. S. 12, 3 Kay & J. 132, 26 L. J. Ch. 101, 5 Wkly. Rep. 96. 9. N. T.— Wadsworth v. Havens, 3 Wend. 411. U. 8. — Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. 264, 8 L, Ed. 120. And see Greenbank V. Ferguson, 58 Fed. 18. Ala. — Stokes v. Jones, 18 Ala. 734; McGuire v. Miller, 15 Ala. 294; El- liott V. Horn, 10 Ala. 348, 44 Am. Dec. 488. And see Walton v. Bon- ham, 24 Ala. 513. Cal. — ^Kohner v. Ashenaur, 17 Cal. 578. Ga. — Brown v. Burke, 22 Ga. 574; Fowler v. Waldrip, 10 Ga. 350; Lee v. Brown, 7 Ga. 275. Iowa. — Wolf V. Van Metre, 23 Iowa, 397 ; Gardner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205. Ky. — Edwards v. Ballard, 14 B. Mon. 289; Dalton v. Mitchell, 4 J. J. March, 372. La. — Ray v. Harris, 7 La. Ann. 138. Mass. — ^Hill V. Ahem, 135 Mass. 158; Blanchard v. McKey, 125 Mass. 124; Freeland v. Freeland, 102 Mass. 475; Cox v. Jackson, 88 Mass. 108. Mo. — Chapman v. Callahan, 66 Mo. 299; Henderson v. Dickey, 50 Mo. 161. N. H. — ^Marston v. Brackett, 9 N. H. 336. N. C— Lata v. Morrison, 23 N. C. 149. R. /.— Tiernay v. Claflin, 15 R. I. 220, 2 Atl. 762. 8. e.— Sutton V. Pettus, 4 Rich. 163. Tenn. — ^Laird v. Scott, 5 Heisk, 314. y*.— Hoy V. Wright, Brayt. 208. Wis. — ^Reynolds v. Vilas, 8 Wis. 471, 76 Am. Dec. 238. Fraudulent grantor estopped. — One who has made a voluntary con- veyance of his property to defraud 216 Eeaudulent Conveyances. of 27 Elizabeth has in many of the states been extended by statute so as to include the conveyance of personal property, as well as real property.^" The statute, in some jurisdictions, pro- vides that a fraudulent conveyance can only be attacked as fraud- ulent by subsequent purchasers when made with intent to de- fraud such purchasers, and hence subsequent purchasers cannot defeat a prior conveyance on the ground that it was made with intent to defraud creditors.^ !§ 23. Who are subsequent purchasers. — No one can be con- sidered as a subsequent purchaser under the statute respecting fraudulent conveyances unless he has acquired the legal title by a valid deed of conveyance. A covenant to convey does not con- stitute him a purchaser, authorized to contest the validity of a deed on the ground of fraud.^ A judgment creditor is not a his creditors, and subsequently con- veys the same to a purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, is estopped from denying the latter conveyance. Hurley v. Ostler, 44 Iowa, 642. lO. N. r.— Clute V. Fitch, 25 Barb. 428, fraud in the sale of a chattel valid as between the parties may be alleged by subsequent purchasers from the seller. Ala. — Corprew v. Arthur, 15 Ala. 525 ; Eddins v. Wilson, 1 Ala. 237. Colo. — ^McKee v. Bassick Min. Co., 8 Colo. 392, 8 Pac. 561. Iowa. — Osborn v. Katliflf, 53 Iowa, 748, 5 N. W. 746. Mont. — Stevens v. Curran, 28 Mont. 366, 72 Pac. 753. N. C— Potts V. Blackwell, 56 N. C. 449; Freeman v. Lewis, 27 N. O. 91, a trustee or mortgagee for a val- uable consideration is to be consid- ered a purchaser within provisions of 27 Elizabeth. 8. C— Hudnal v. Wilder, i McCord, 294, 17 Am. Dec. 744. Ten. — Fowler v. Stoneum, 11 Tex. 478, 62 Am. Dec. 490. 11. N. Y. — Zimmerman v. Schoen- feldt, 3 Hun, 692, 6 Thomps. & C. 142. Miiss. — ^Prestidge v. Cooper, 54 Hiss. 74. Mo. — Davidson v. Dockery, 179 Mo. 687, 78 S. W. 624; Eeynolds v. Faust, 179 Mo. 21, 77 S. W. 855; Evans v. David, 98 Mo. 405, 11 S. W. 975, and the purchaser must have been a party or privy to the fraud; Bonney v. Tay- lor, 90 Mo. 63, 1 S. W. 740. N. H.— Quimby v. Williams, 67 N. H. 489, 41 Atl. 862, 68 Am. St. Rep. 685. Tenn. — Harton v. Lyons, 97 Tenn. 180, 36 S. W. 851. 12. Hopkins v. Webb, 9 Humphr. (Tenn.) 519. Iiessee a purchaser for valne. — Where a mining lease for 99 years contained provisions enabling the lessor to demand at his option a roy- alty upon the proceeds of the mines. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance, 217 purchaser for value ■within the statute of 27 Elizabeth," A mortgagee for a valuable consideration is to be considered a subsequent purchaser, and is entitled to the same protection ac- corded to any bona fide purchaser, under the statute against fraudulent conveyances." A purchaser at execution sale is a subsequent purchaser who may attack a conveyance for fraud. ^* i§ 24. Bona fide purchaser for value. — A subsequent pur- chaser, seeking to attack a prior conveyance on the ground of fraud and to hold property as against a prior fraudulent vendee or $4,000 in lieu of such option, the lessee was a purchaser for value, and a prior voluntary conveyance was void as against him. Conlin v. Elmer, 16 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 541. 13. Beavan v. Oxford, 6 DeG. M. & G. 507, 2 Jur. N. S. 121, 25 L. J. Ch. 299, 41 Wkly. Rep. 275, 55 Eng. Ch. 395, 43 Eng. Reprint, 1331; Gillespie T. Van Egmondt, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 533. 14. /n.— Snyder v. Partridge, 138 111. 173, 29 N. E. 851, 32 Am. St. Rep. 130. /nd.— Sanders v. Muegge, 91 Ind. 214, but the mortgagee having had constructive notice that the convey- ance to the mortgagor was made to defraud creditors, he was barred from attacking the same. Iowa. — Osbom v. Ratliff, 53 Iowa, 748, 5 N. W. 746. The fact that a transfer of eertificdte of stock is fraudulent as to creditors will not in- validate a subsequent contract be- tween the debtor and his attorney, who is not a party to the fraud, pro- viding that the transferee shall hold the stock as security for whatever sum is or may become due to the at- torney for services in the litigation with creditors. Cox v. Collis, 109 Iowa, 270, 80 N. W. 343. Ky. — Cook V. Landrum, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 813, 82 S. W. 585. MA— Stewart v. Iglehart, 7 Gill & J. 132, 28 Am. Dec. 202, but the mort- gagee cannot attack where he had no- tice of the previous conveyance. Mich.—FoK V. Clark, Walk. Ch. 535. N. H.— Plaisted v. Holmes, 58 N. H. 619. N. J. — Boice V. Conover, 54 N. J. Eq. 531, 35 Atl. 402. N. C.-— Potts V. Blackwell, 56 N. C. 449; Freeman v. Lewis, 27 N. C. 91. To.— Tate v. Liggat, 2 Leigh. 84. Can. — Gordon v. Proctor, 20 Ont. 53. Eng. — Dolphin v. Aylward, L. R. 4 H. L. 486, 23 L. J. Rep. N. S. 636, 19 Wkly. Rep. 49; Cracknall v. Janson, 11 Ch. D. 1, 48 L. J. Ch. 168, 40 L. T. Rep. N. S. 640, 27 Wkly. Rep. 851; Townshend v. Windham, 2 Ves. 1, 28 Eng. Reprint, 1. See Herrlck v. Att- wood, 2 DeG. & J. 21, 4 Jur. N. S. 101, 27 L. J. Ch. 121, 6 Wkly. Rep. 204, 59 Eng. Ch. 17, 44 Eng. Reprint, 895. 15. Carter v. Castleberry, 5 Ala. 277; Rinehardt v. Long, 95 Mo. 396, 8 S. W. 559; Gray v. Tappan, Wright (Ohio), 117. See Gentry v. Robin- son, 55 Mo. 260. 218 Feaudulent Conveyances. of his vendor, must himself be a purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration, since a prior frauduleat conveyance is valid as against a volunteer who has taken a conveyance to defraud creditors or a subsequent fraudulent purchaser, as well as against the party making it.^* The protection accorded to a bona fide purchaser for value will not be given to a purchaser for a grossly inadequate consideration. He must have paid a fair consideration, although not necessarily the full value." § 25. Effect of notice. — The English courts maintain the rule that under the statute of 27 Elizabeth all voluntary conveyances and conveyances by way of settlement made in consideration of love and affection merely, or a sense of moral duty, are ipso facto fraudulent and void as against subsequent purchasers for value with or without notice of the prior voluntary conveyance.^' 16. y. y.— Starr v. Strong, 2 Sandf. Ch. 139. Ala. — Dent v. Portwood, 21 Ala. 588; Eddins v. Wilson, 1 Ala. 237. /?«.— Campbell v. Whitson, 68 111. 240, 18 Am. Dec. 553. Ind. — Anderson v. Etter, 102 Ind. 115, 26 N. E. 218; Way v. Lyon, 3 Blackf. 76. Ki/. — Edwards v. Ballard, 53 Ky. 289. Mass. — Cox V. Jackson, 6 Allen, 108; Clapp v. Tirrell, 37 Mass. 247. Miss. — ^Montgomery v. McGuire, 59 Miss. 193. N. J.— DeWitt V. Van Sickle, 29 N. J. Eq. 209. N. C— McKay v. Gilliam, 65 N. C. 130; Hiatt v. Wade, 30 N. C. 340; ITuUenwider v. Robertson, 20 N. C. 420. Ohio. — Varwig v. Cleveland, etc., K. Co., 54 Ohio St. 455, 44 N. E. 92. TecB. — ^Lewis v. Caatleman, 27 Tex. 407; McClenny v. Ford, 10 Tex. 159. yt.— Prout V. Vaughan, 52 Vt. 451. Va. — Roane's Adm'r v. Vidal, 4 Munf. 187. Can. — Weller v. Hartgraves, 14 U. C. C. P. 360. Eng. — Dolphin v. Aylward, L. R. 4, H. L. 486, 23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 636, 19 Wkly. Rep. 49; Doe v. Routledge, 2 Cowp. 705; Lewis v. Reea, 3 Jur. N. S. 12, 3 Kay & J. 132, 26 L. J. Ch. 101, 5 Wkly. Rep. 96; Cadell v. Bew- ley, 16 L. T. Rep. N. S. 141, 15 Wkly. Rep. 703. 17. Worthy v. Caddell, 76 N. C. 82. But see Boyer v. Tucker, 70 Mo. 457, one who purchases at sheriflf's sale land worth $4,000 for $23, for the purpose of speculation, is enti- tled, notwithstanding the smallness of consideration paid, to set aside as fraudulent a prior conveyance by the execution defendant, made for the purpose of defeating creditors. 18. Dolphin v. Aylward, L. R. 4 H. L. 486, 23 L. T. Rep. N. S. 636, 19 Wkly. Rep. 49; Doe v. Rusham, 17 Q. B. 723, 16 Jur. 359, 21 L. J. Q. B. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 219 The Canadian courts follow the English rule in the construction of the statute.^' Some of the earlier cases in the United States followed the English rule.^" The more generally prevailing rule in the United States, however, is that a subsequent piurohaser of property with notice of a previous voluntary or fraudulent con- veyance thereof by his grantor cannot impeach such prior con- veyance as fraudulent and maintain an action to set it aside, although he has paid a valuable consideration.^' In some juris- 139, 79 E. C. L. 723; Talton v. Lid- dell, 17 Q. B. 390, 15 Jur. 1170, 20 L. J. Q. B. 507, 7 Eng. L. & Eq. 360, 79 E. C. L. 390; Butterfield v. Heath, 15 Beav. 408, 22 L. J. Ch. 270, 51 Eng. Reprint, 595; and other earlier cases. Voluntary conveyaaices acts. — Tlie voluntary conveyances act of 1893 (56 and 57 Vict, chap. 21), pro- vides that voluntary conveyances, if lona fide, are not to be avoided under 27 Eliz., chap. 4. The voluntary conveyances act of 1868 (31 Vict, chap. 9) gives effect as against subsequent purchasers to voluntary conveyances executed in good faith, and to them only, and a voluntary conveyance to a wife for the purpose of protecting property from the creditors is not good as against a subsequent mortgage to a creditor. Richardson v. Armitage, 18 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 512. 19. Demorest v. Miller, 42 U. C. Q. B. 56. 20. N. Y. — ^Roberts v. Anderson, 3 Johns. Ch. 371; Sterry v. Arden, 1 Johns. Ch. 261. V. S.— Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229, 5 L. Ed. 603. Ky.—VfsMeT v. Cralle, 8 B. Mon. 11; Anderson v. Green, 7 J. J. Marsh, 448, 23 Am. Dec. 417. , — Ricker v. Ham, 14 Mass. 137. Mo. — ^Howe V. Waysman, 12 Mo. 169, 49 Am. Bee. 126. S. C. — Barrineau v. McMurray, 3 Brev. 204; Rutledge v. Smith, 1 Mc- Cord Eq. 119. 21. U. S. — Cathcart v. Robinson, 5 Pet. 264, 8 L. Ed. 120, the universally received doctrine at the commence- ment of the American revolution as to the construction of the statute of 27 Elizabeth unquestionably went as far as to hold that a subsequent sale, without notice, by a person who had made a settlement not on valuable consideration, was presumptive evi- dence of fraud, which threw on those claiming under such settlement the burden of proving that it was bona fide; and that this principle there- fore according to the uniform course of this court must be adopted in con- struing the statute of 27 Elizabeth as it applies to the case. Cal. — Gregory v. Haworth, 25 Cal. 653. Colo. — ^McKee v. Bassick Min. Co., 8 Colo. 392, 8 Pac. 561. III.— Chaffin V. Kimball, 23 111. 36. Ind. — Aiken v. Bruen, 21 Ind. 137; Paine v. Doe, 7 Blackf. 485; McNeely V. Rucker, 6 Blackf. 391. Ky. — ^Neighbors v. Holt, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 237. 220 Feabdulent Conveyances. dictions it is held that a voluntary conveyance is gooa, as well against subsequent purchasers from the grantor with' notice of the previous conveyance as against subsequent creditors, unless it be shown that it was intended to defraud creditors, and that the execution of a voluntairy conveyance does not raise a pre- sumption of fraud as against a subsequent purchaser from the grantor of the property voluntarily conveyed, when the purchaser had notice of the voluntary conveyance, nor does such a pre- sumption arise from such sale against the voluntary convey- ance.^^ Constructive notice is held in some jurisdictions sufficient Jiich. — ^Dennis v. Dennis, 119 Mich. 380, 78 N. W. 333; Cooper v. Bigly, 13 Mich. 463. Minn. — Olson v. Hanson, 74 Minn. 337, 77 N. W. 231; Fitzpatrick v. Hanson, 55 Minn. 195, 56 N. W. 814. Miss. — Prestidge v. Cooper, 54 Miss. 74; Coppage v. Barnett, 34 Miss. 621; Farmers' Bank v. Douglass, 19 Miss. 469. Mo. — Davis v. Kline, 96 Mo. 401, 9 S. W. 724, 2 L. E. A. 78; Bonney v. Taylor, 90 Mo. 63, 1 S. W. 740. 2fe6.— Earle v. Burch, 21 Neb. 702, 33 N. W. 254, if a creditor receive his pay in mortgaged property with knowledge of the mortgage, he will take the property subject to the mort- gage, and cannot contest its validity; Bradt v. Hartson, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 889, 96 N. W. 1008. ]^. E. — Quimby v. Williams, 67 N. H. 489, 41 Atl. 862, 68 Am. St. Rep. 685; Stevens v. Morse, 47 N. H. 532; Marston v. Brackett, 9 N. H. 336. jr. J. — Boice v. Conover, 54 N. J. Eq. 531, 35 Atl. 402. 3f. O.— Pass v. Lynch, 117 N. C. 453, 23 S. E. 357; Triplett v. Wither- spoon, 70 N. C. 589; Long v. Wright, 48 N. C. 290 ; Hiatt v. Wade, 30 N. O. 340; Squires v. Riggs, 4 N. C. 253, 6 Am. Dec. 564. Ohio. — ^Mathews v. Rentz, 5 Ohio Dec. 72, 2 Am. L. Rec. 371. Pa. — Thomson v. Dougherty, 12 Serg. R. 448; Foster v. Walton, 5 Watts 378. 8. G. — ^Moultrie v. Jennings, 2 Mc- MuU. 508; Hudnal v. Wilder, 4 Mc- Cord, 294, 17 Am. Dec. 744; Kid v. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M. 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702; Footman v. Pendergrass, 3 Rich. Eq. 33. Tenn. — ^Hubbs v. Brockwell, 35 Tenn. 574. Compare Laird v. Scott, 5 Heisk. 314. Tex. — Fowler v. Stoneum, 11 Tex. 478, 62 Am. Dec. 490; Robinson v. Martell, 11 Tex. 149; McClenny v. Floyd, 10 Tex. 159. 22. Ala. — Gilliland v. Fenn, 90 Ala. 230, 8 So. 15, 9 L. R. A. 413;. Gard- ner V. Boothe, 31 Ala. 186; Corprew V. Arthur, 15 Ala. 525; GrifBn v. Doe, 12 Ala. 783; Elliott v. Horn, 10 Ala. 348, 44 Am. Dec. 488; Frisbie v. Mc- Carty, 1 Stew. & P. 68. Iowa. — Saunders v. King, 119 Iowa, 291, 93 N. W. 272; Wolf v. Van Metre, 23 Iowa, 397. Ky. — Earle v. Couch, 3 Mete. 450; Enders v. Williams, 1 Mete. 346; Neghbors v. Holt, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 237 ; Winter v. Mannen, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 949. Me. — ^Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. Who May Attack Validity of Conveyance. 221 to bar a subsequent purchaser's right of action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance. For example, where previous sales and conveyances are matters of record, or the subsequent purchaser has knowledge of the facts and circumstances siufficient to put him on inquiry and. he neglects to inquire, he will be chargeable with notice.^' In other jurisdictions constructive notice is held insufficient and actual notice is held to be necessary to preclude the right of action of a subsequent purchaser.^ 139. But see Spofiford v. Weston, 29 Me. 140. Md.— Cooke v. Kell, 13 Md. 469; City of Baltimore v. Williams, 6 Md. 235. 23. Ind. — ^McNeely v. Rucker, 6 Blackf. 391, the record of a volun- tary conveyance is sufficient notice to a subsequent purchaser. Md. — Milholland v. Tiffany, 64 Md. 455, 2 Atl. 831. Mass. — Beal v. Warren, 2 Gray, 447. Mo. — Frank v. Caruthers, 108 Mo. 569, 18 S. W. 927, where the sale and conveyance were matters of record of which the purchaser had full notice; State V. Estel, 6 Mo. App. 6, where the purchaser had sufficient knowl- edge to excite the suspicion of an or- dinarily prudent man, but failed to make inquiry. 2f. J.— Dewitt V. Van Sickle, 29 N. J. Eq. 209, ptirchaser chargeable with notice when he had such knowledge of facts and circumstances as would naturally prompt a prudent mind to further inquiry and examiaation. in. C— Harris v. DeGraffenreid, 33 N. C. 89. Po.— Tate V. Clement, 176 Pa. St. 550, 35 AU. 214, where a recital in the purchaser's deed referred to the prior deed. 8. G. — C. Aultman & Co. v. Utsey, 34 S. C. 559, 13 S. E. 848, where pur- chasers had sufficient notice to put them on inquiry. Tenn. — Harton v. Lyons, 97 Tenn. 180, 36 S. W. 851, where the volun- tary deed was registered prior to the subsequent purchase; Laird v. Scott, 5 Heisk. 314. 24. Iowa. — Garner v. Cole, 21 Iowa, 205, the constructive notice arising from the record of a deed is insuffi- cient. Ky. — Enders v. Williams, 1 Mete. 346; Jones v. Jenkins, 7 Ky. L. Eep. 408 ; Winter v. Mannen, 4 Ky. L. Eep. 949. ilfc— Spofford V. Weston, 29 Me. 140. Tex. — Lewis v. Castleman, 27 Tex. 407, record of deed not notice to sub- sequent purchaser. 222 rBAtTDULENT CONVEYANCES. CHAPTER VI. Badges of Feaud. Section 1. Badges of fraud in general. 2. Itecital of false consideration. 3. Consideration fictitious in whole or part. 4. Consideration inadequate. 5. Excessive security. 6. Excess in amount secured. 7. Transfers in anticipation of or pending legal proceedings. 8. Transfers of all the debtor's property. 9. Excessive effort to give appearance of fairness. 10. Suspicious circumstances unexplained. 11. Transfer without change of possession. 12. Reservation of trust or benefit for grantor. 13. Relationship of parties. 14. Indebtedness or insolvency of debtor. 15. Absolute transfer intended as security. 16. Concealment of or failure to record or file instrument. 17. Secrecy and haste. 18. Sales on credit. 19. Transactions not in usual course of business. 20. Other circumstances indicating fraud. 21. Repelling badges of fraud. Section 1. Badges of fraud in general — Various facts and cir- cumstances arei often refeTred to as and denominated badges or indicia of fraud, because they usually or frequently attend con- veyances or transfers intended to hinder, delay and defraud cred- itors, and are frequently or usually found in cases where fraud exists, and are relied upon to establish the existence of fraud.^ Badges of fraud have been said to be facts calculated to throw 1. Thompson v. Williams, 100 Md. deferred installments; bonds taken 195, 199, 60 Atl. 26; Hickman v. payable at long periods, when the pre- Trout, 83 Va. 478, 3 S. E. 131, tence was that the deferred install- wherein quite a number of the usual ments evidenced by them had already badges of fraud were found grouped been satisfied in the main by antece- together and left unexplained. These dent debts due by the obligee to the were gross inadequacy of price; no se- obligor; the conveyance made in pay- curity taken for the purchase money; ment of alleged indebtedness of father an unusual length of credit for the to son, residing together as members Badges of Fbattd. 223 suspicion on a transaction, and whieh; call for an explanation.^ It has been said that they are inferences drawn by experience from the customairy conduct of mankind,' and that they afford grounds of one family; the indebtedness and insolvency of the grantor, and well known to the grantee; the threats and pendency of suits; the secrecy and concealment of the transaction; keep- ing the deed unacknowledged and un- recorded for over a. year; grantor re- maining in possession as before the conveyance, and cautioning the kins- man justice, who took the acknowl- edgment, to keep the matter private; and the relation between grantor and grantee. Glenn v. Glenn, 17 Iowa, 498, wherein some of the badges of a fraudulent sale were that the vendor was in embarrassed circumstances; that the sale was made on the day that a suit was commenced against him ; that the subject of the sale com- prised the whole of his property; that the vendees were his sons and some other relatives, all of whom were pe- cuniarily irresponsible and one was a minor; that but little, if any, of the property had been assessed for taxes against the vendees; that the sale was almost wholly on credit, and that no security was taken; that the prop- erty was afterward controlled by and for the benefit of the father; and that none of the parties were offered as witnesses to rebut the suspicious circumstances. Herrin v. Morford, 39 Ky. (9 Dana) 450, wherein a conveyance made by a debtor was set aside at the suit of a, creditor, where it appeared that it transferred all the property of the debtor of value; that the trans- action was secret, and was made pending a suit of the creditor; that the pretended sale was for a much less price that was paid for the prop- erty when bought a few months pre- vious, though it was advancing in value; that it was so made as to con- centrate the property in the debtor's two sons-in-law, who had no use for the property and never applied it to their personal use; and that the debtor remained in possession of and continued to enjoy his property. See also White v. Gibson, 113 Mo. App. 568, 88 S. W. 120; St. Louis Brew- ing Assoc. V. Steimke, 68 Mo. App. 52; Weaver v. Owens, 16 Oreg. 304, 18 Pac. 379, where the circumstances of the sale were held to constitute a badge of fraud, rendering the transac- tion fraudulent as to the grantor's creditorsi. In the famous Twyne's Case, 3 Rep. 80, 3 Coke, 80a, 1 Smith's Lead. Cas. 1, the following badges or marks of fraud were pointed out by the court: ( 1 ) The gift was general, without ex- ception of the donor's apparel, or of any thing of necessity; (2) the donor continued in possession, and used the goods as his own, and by means thereof traded with others and de- frauded then; (3) it was made in secret; (4) it was made pending the writ; (5) there was a trust between the parties; (6) the deed expressed that the gift was made honestly, truly and lona fide. 2. Helms v. Green, 105 N. C. 251, 11 S. E. 470, 18 Am. St. Eep. 893; Peebles v. Horton, 64 N. C. 374. 3. Terrell v. Green, II Ala. 207, 213. 224 Feaudulent Conveyances. of inference from which the jury are authorized to conclude that a transaction surrounded by them is fraudulent* More siimply stated, they are the signs or marks, of fraud.' They do not of themselves or per se constitute fraud, but they are facts having a tendency to show the existence of fraud/ although their value as evidence is relative and not absolute.' They are not usually con- clusive proof, but are open to explanation.* They may be almost conclusive, or merely furnish a reasonable inference of fraud, according to the weight to which they may be entitled from their intrinsic character and' the special circumstances attending the case.' Even a single one of them may be sufficient to stamp a transaction as fraudulent,^" but when several are found in the same transaction, strong and clear evidence will be required to repel the conclusion of fraudulent intent." The possible indicia of fraud have been said to be as infinite in number and form as are the resources and versatility of human artifice,'^ and it would be an almost impossible task to anticipate and catalogue them. We, therefore, have cited in the notes below many cases wherein the circumstances attending the transaction in question were held to be badges of fraud and' others wherein the circumstances were held not to be badges of fraud.*' 4. Sherman v. Hogland, 73 Ind. erly attributable to those indicia may 472. be given to them. 5. Pilling V. Otis, 13 Wis. 495. 8. Marshall v. Croon, 52 Ala. 554; 6. Shealy v. Edwards, 75 Ala. 411; Hodges v. Coleman, 76 Ala. 103. Thames v. Eembert, 63 Ala. 561; Wil- 9. Pilling v. Otis, 13 Wis. 495. son V. Lott, 5 Fla. 305. 10. Stoddard v. Butler, 20 Wend. 7. Thompson v. Williams. 100 Md. (N. Y.) 507, a transfer of property 195, 199, 60 Atl. 26, " these indicia to a creditor, toward the satisfaction are open to explanation, and they are, of his claim merely and not in full therefore, not necessarily conclusive, payment, is a badge of fraud. as is an irrebuttable legal presump- 11. Hickman v. Trout, 83 Va. 491; tion. In many instances they furnish Shealy v. Edwards, 15 Ala. 411; Wil- strong and satisfactory evidence of liams v. Barnett, 52 Tex. 130. the existence of fraud; but as they 12. Shealy v. Edwards, 75 Ala. 411. are relative and not absolute as re- 13. CircnmstaiLces held to be spects their probative value, the badges of fraud.— 2f. Y.— St. John special circumstances accompanying Wood-Working Co. v. Smith, 178 N. each inquiry must be known and con- Y. 629, 71 N. E. 1139, aff'g 82 App. sidered in order that the weight prop- Div. 348, 82 N. Y. Supp. 1025; Third Badges of Feaud. 225 § 2. Recital of false consideration — The recital of a false consideration in a deed of trust, mortgage, or other conveyance of Nat. Bank v. KeefFe, 30 Misc. Rep. 400, 63 N. Y. Supp. 1049; Stoddard V. Butler, 20 Wend. 507, transfer of property to a creditor towards the satisfaction of his claim merely, and not in full payment, is a badge of fraud. Go.— Trice v. Rose, 79 Ga. 75, 3 S. E. 701; Howard v. Snelling, 32 Ga. 195. III. — Merchants' Nat. Bank v. Lyon, 185 111. 343, 56 N. E. 1083; Sehroe- der V. Walsh, 120 111. 403, 11 N. E. 70; Carter v. Gunnels, 67 111. 270; Blow V. Gage, 44 111. 208; Gray v. St. John, 35 111. 222; Boies v. Hen- ney, 32 111. 130. Iowa. — ^Dunning v. Baily, 120 Iowa, 729, 95 N. W. 248; Com Exch. Bank V. Applegate, 91 Iowa, 411, 59 N. W. 268. ^y.— Lillard v. McGee, 4 Bibb, 165, selling at auction without previous notice or advertisement. Me. — ^Hartshorn v. Eames, 31 Me. 93. Mass. — Parker v. Barker, 43 Mass. 423, a promise by the mortgagee to the mortgagor's creditors that he will relinquish his claim if they will ac- cept another mortgage and give the mortgagor time is presumptive evi- dence of fraud. Minn. — ^Welch v. Bradley, 45 Minn. 540, 48 N. W. 440. v. J.— Moore v. Roe, 35 N. J. Eq. SO. AT. C— Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C 347, 9 S. E. 702, 11 Am. St. Rep. 748. Pa. — ^Waterhouse v. Waterhouse, 206 Pa. St. 433, 55 Atl. 1067; Kaine V. Weigley, 22 Pa. St. 179. 15 Tenn. — Carter v. Baker, 57 Tenn. 640. Va. — ^American Net, etc., Co. v. Mayo, 97 Va. 182, 97 S. E. 523; Click v. Green, 77 Va. 827; Hickman v. Trout, 83 Va. 491. W. Va. — ^Richardson v. Ralphsny- der, 40 W. Va. 15, 20 S. E. 854 Goshorn v. Snodgrass, 17 W. Va. 717 Hunter v. Hunter, 10 W. Va. 321 Lockhard v. Beckley, 10 W; Va. 87. Clrcmnstances held not to be badges of frand. — y. Y. — Craig v. Tappin, 2 Sandf. Ch. 78, taking a mortgage after the creditor knew of the intention of the debtor to mort- gage the same land to another credi- tor to secure a pre-existing debt. U. S.— Gottlieb v. Thatcher, 151 U. S. 271, 14 Sup. Ct. 319, 38 L. Ed. 157, the mere fact that a non-resident, who purchases lands from his brother, sub- sequently gives the latter a power of attorney to dispose of all his lands in the State, raises no presumption that the purchase was for the purpose of defrauding the brother's creditors, it appearing that the donor had other lands in the State; Ryttenberg v. Shaefer, 131 Fed. 313, a contract by which a bankrupt commission firm, some years before its bankruptcy, agreed to do all its business through another firm, obtaining the benefit of the latter's credit, held not invalid, as a scheme to hinder, delay or de- fraud its creditors; Jenkins v. Ein- stein, Fed. Cas. No. 7,265, 3 Biss. 128, the fact that an attorney who thinks he knows the title, having confidence in the vendor, purchases without an abstract or examination of title of real property, is not proof of 226 Fbaudulent Conveyahces. property, or the misrepresentation of the liability or obligatioa secured by it, is a badge or evidence of fraud." It is undoubtedly fraud, in a suit to set aside the con- veyance as made to hinder creditors; Bank of the United States v. Lee, Fed. Cas. No. 922 (5 Craneh, C. C. 319), aff'd 38 U. S., 13 Pet. 107, 10 L. Ed. 81, failure of a first incumbrancer to give notice after a second incum- brancer has advanced his money is no evidence of fraud. Ala. — Chipman v. Stern, 89 Ala. 207, 7 So. 409; Sandlin v. Anderson, 82 Ala. 330, 3 So. 28. Ark. — ^Blass v. Anderson, 57 Ark. 483, 22 S. W. 94, the fact that a sale is illegal because against the prohibi- tion of a statute, as because it was made on Sunday, does not establish that it is fraudulent as to creditors. Go.— Phimzy v. Clark, 62 Ga. 623; Colquitt V. Thomas, 8 Ga. 258. III. — ^Freishenmeyer v. Lehmkuhl, 29 111. App. 465. Ind. — ^Kane v. Drake, 27 Ind. 29. Md. — Wilson v. Russell, 13 Md. 494, 71 Am. Dec. 645; BuUett v. Worthington, 3 Md. Ch. 99. Mich. — Bendetson v. Moody, 100 Mich. 553, 59 N. W. 252. Minn. — Derby v. Gallup, 5 Minn. 119. Miss.—Donly v. Ray (1889), 6 So. 324. y. J. — ^Emerald, etc., Brewing Co. V. Sutton, 68 N. J. L. 246, 50 Atl. 302, refusal of a debtor to apply the proceeds of his property to a particu- lar creditor. N. C— Cannon v. Young, 8» N. C. 264, conversion by an insolvent debtor of his land into money or property not subject to execution. Pa. — Barncord v. Kuhn, 36 Pa. St. 383, the husband's possession of his wife's property is not a badge of fraud; Forsyth v. Matthews, 14 Pa. St. 100, 53 Am. Dec. 522; Strong v., Burdick, 1 Pennyp. 498. S. C. — ^Leake v. Anderson, 43 S. C. 448, 21 S. E. 439. Tea!.— Mack v. Block (1888), 8 S^ W. 495; Eason v. Garrison, 36 Tex. Civ. App. 574, 82 S. W. 800. F*.— Wallace v. Berry, 51 Vt. 602> Va. — ^Harvey v. Anderson (1896),^ 24 S. E. 914. Wash. — Commercial Bank v. Chil- berg, 14 Wash. 47, 44 Pae. 112. Wis. — Fortner v. Whelan, 87 Wis. 88, 58 N. W. 253; Peninsula Stove- Co. V. Sacket, 74 Wis. 526, 43 N.W. 49 1 _ 14. N. r.— McKinster v. Bab- cock, 26 N. Y. 378; Griffin v. Cran- Btor, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 281; Lawrence Bros. V. Heylman, 98 N. Y. Supp., 121. U. S.— Davis V. Schwartz, 155 U. S^ 631, 15 S. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Stinson v. Hawkins, 16 Fed. 850,° 5 McCrary, 284. Ala. — Harris v. Russell, 93 Ala. 59,, 9 So. 541, enlarging the debt by add- ing usury; Pickett v. Pipkin, 64 Ala., 520; Stover v. Herrington, 7 Ala. 142, 41 Am. Dec. 86. Ark. — ^Henry v. Harrell, 57 Ark. 569, 22 S. W. 433. Conn. — ^North v. Belden, 13 Conn^ 376, 35 Am. Dec. 83. III. — Adams v. Pease, 113 111. App^ 356. Ind. — Goff V. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459. lotoa. — Bussard v. Bullitt, 95 Iowa,. 736, 64 N. W. 658; Lombard v. Dows, 66 Iowa, 243, 23 N. W. 649; Taylor v. Wendling, 66 Iowa, 562, 24 N. W. 40. Badges of Feaud. 227 always advisable to state, fairly and plainly, the true considera- tion, and when this is not done, the instrument may be open to suspicion, and the question may be fairly raised whether, in stat- ing an untrue, instead of the true, consideration, there was not a design to mislead and deceive the creditors of the grantor or mort- gagor, or judgment debtor, and to hinder, delay, or defraud them.'^ But the mere fact that the consideration expressed in a conveyance of any kind was not the true one does not conclusively show that the conveyance was in fraud of creditors," The conveyance may Ky. — Enders v. Swayne, 38 Ky. (8 Dana) 103. Mass. — ^Lynde v. McGregor, 13 Al- len (Mass.), 372. Mich. — Patrick v. Riggs, 105 Mich. 616, 63 N. W. 532; Ferris v. McQueen, 94 Mich. 367, 54 N. W. 165; Show- man V. Lee, 86 Mich. 556, 49 N. W. 578; King v. Hubbell, 42 Mich. 497, 4 N. W. 440; Williams v. Desenberg, 41 Mich. 156, 2 N. W. 201. Minn. — Hanson v. Bean, 51 Minn. 546, 38 Am. St. Rep. 516, 53 N. W.. 871. Mo. — Glasgow Milling Co. v. Burns, 144 Mo. 192, 45 S. W. 1074; Benne V. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250, 13 S. W. 82. Neb. — ^EUis V. Musselman, 61 Neb. 262, 85 N. W. 75. y. B. — ^Kennard v. Gray, 58 N. H. 51. y. j_ — ^Newman v. Kirk, 45 N. J. Eq. 677, 8 Atl. 224; Heintze v. Bent- ley, 34 N. J. Eq. 562. jf. C. — Perry v. Hardison, 99 N. C. 21, 5 S. B. 230 ; Peebles v. Horton, 64 N. C. 374; Foster v. Woodfin, 33 N. C. 339. Po.— Gordon v. Preston, 1 Watts, 385, 26 Am. Dee. 75. S. O.— Hipp V. Sawyer, Rich. Eq. Cas. 410. Tenn. — ^Thurman v. Jenkins, 61 Tenn. (2 Baxt.) 426. W. Va. — Bartlett v. Cleavenger, 35 W. Va. 718, 14 S. E. 273. Wis. — Rice v. Morner, 64 Wis. 599, 25 N. W. 668; Blakeslee v. Rossman, 43 Wis. 1161; Butts v. Peacock, 23 Wis. 359. See Fraudulent intent and knowledge. Recital of false considera- tion, post. 15. McKinster v. Babcock, 26 N. Y. 378. 16. N. T. — ^McKinster v. Babcock, 26 N. Y. 378. Ala. — Cottingham v. Greely-Barn- ham Grocery Co., 137 Ala. 149, 34 So. 956; Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Norman, 107 Ala. 667, 18 So. 201; Pique v. Arendale, 71 Ala. 91; McCain v. Wood, 4 Ala. 258, where a deed of trust expressed a legal consideration, it is not void per se, because the amount of debts, etc., assigned by it is not set out, or the names of the debtors specified. Colo. — Jefferson County Bank v. Hummel, 11 Colo. App. 337, 53 Pac. 286. Conn. — ^Merrills v. Swift, 18 Conn. 257, 46 Am. Dec. 315. /ii.— Wooley V. Fry, 30 111. 158. Ind. — Adams v. Laugel, 144 Ind. 608, 42 N. E. 1017; Goff v. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459. 228 Feaudulent Conveyances. have been executed in good faith, and for a valuable considera- tion, without any intent to defraud creditors, and, if this be shown, it will be held to be valid, notwithstanding the misrepre- sentation of the consideration or of the obligation or liability in fact secured and intended to be secured by it. The real considera- tion may be shown to repel an attack by creditors." It must appear that the misrepresentation was so made intentionally, and not by mere mistake, in computation or otherwise." There must be a fraudulent intent on the part of the purchaser or mortgagee, as well as on the part of the vendor or mortgagor.^' Courts will not strive to force conclusions of fraud. If the circumstances relied on to sustain the allegation of fraud are fairly susceptible of an honest intent, that construction will be placed upon them.^" But a mortgage or deed of truit executed to hinder or delay the mortgagor's or grantor's creditors, and which purposely exag- gerates the mortgagee's demand or the debts secured by the deed of trust, and the object of which is known to the mortgagee or the grantee at the time of its execution, is void as against such cred- /owo.— Mason v. Franklin, 58 Iowa, 108 Mo. 289, 18 S. W. 1093; Finke v. 506, 12 N. W. 554; Wood v. Scott, Pike, 50 Mo. App. 564. 55 Iowa, 114, 7 N. W. 465; Culbert- N. H.— Whittredge v. Edmunds, 63 son V. Luckey, 13 Iowa, 12. N. H. 248. Kan. — Rexroad v. Johnson, 6 Kan. Vt. — Brackett v. Wait, 6 Vt. 411. App. 607, 49 Pac. 699; Bowling v. Fa.— Norris v. Lake, 89 Va. 513, Armourdale Bank, 57 Kan. 174, 45 16 S. E. 663 ; Keagy v. Trout, 85 Va. Pac. 584; Bush v. Bush, 33 Kan. 556, 390, 7 S. E. 329. 6 Pac. 794. Wis. — Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. Kjf. — Highland v. Anderson's 500, 3 N. W. 16. Adm'r, 13 Ky. Law Rep. 710, 17 S. 17. McKinster v. Babcock, 26 N. Y. W. 806. 378 ; Manor v. Sheehan, 30 Minn. 419, Lo.— Brown v. Brown, 30 La. Ann. 15 N. W. 687. 966. 18. Kalk v. Fielding, 50 Wis. 339, jlich.—LouAen v. Vinton, 108 Mich. 7 N. W. 296. 313 66 N. W. 222. 19. Waterbury v. Sturtevant, 18 Minn. — ^Heim v. Chapel, 62 Minn. Wend. (N. Y.) 353; Carpenter v. 338 64 N. W. 825; Berry v. O'Con- Muren, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 300; Kevan noT, 33 Minn. 29, 21 N. W. 840; v. Crawford, 46 L. J. Ch. 729, 6 Ch. Manor v. Sheehan, 30 Minn. 419, 15 D. 29, 37 L. T. Rep. N. S. 322, 26 N. W. 687. Wkly. Rep. 49. Mo. — Wall V. Beedy, 161 Mo. 625, 20. Alabama L. Ins. & T. Co. v. 61 S. W. 864; Schroeder v. Bobbitt, Pettway, 24 Ala. 544. Badges of Feattd. 229 itors.^^ And the recital of a false consideration m an absolute conveyance intended as a mortgage to secure a much smaller sum than that recited is sitrong evidence of participation in the grantor's fraudulent intent.^^ § 3. Consideration fictitious in whole or in part. — Almost in- variably some honest consideration is made the agency for floating a scheme of fraud against creditors. Where the balance of the consideration for a transfer of property, hovsfever, is made up of a false and pretended debt or claim, -which is wholly fictitious and never, in fact, existed, and which both parties tO' the trans- action falsely concocted to make up a full and fair consideration for the conveyance, the courts almost invariably hold that such a conveyance is wholly void and cannot stand to any extent as security or indemnity.^ That a part of the alleged indebtedness 21. Stinson v. Hawkins, 16 Fed. 850, 5 McCrary, 284, 13 Fed. 833, 4 McCrary, 500; Alabama L. Ins. & T. Co. V. Pettway, 24 Ala. 544; Wallis V. Adoue, 76 Tex. 118, 13 S. W. 63; Taylor v. Wood (N. J. Ch.), 5 Atl. 818. 22. Bailey v. Cheatham, 4 Ky. Law Eep. 351. 23. N. Y.— Baldwin v. Short, 125 N. Y. 553, 26 N. E. 928. U. jg.— Kellogg V. Clyne, 54 Fed. 696, 4 C. C. A. 554, the acceptance by a creditor of a mortgage from his debtor for a greater amount than the sum actually due renders the mort- gage presumptively fraudulent, and it cannot be upheld as a valid security for the sum actually due. Mo. — Gregory v. Sitlington, 54 Mo. App. 60 ; Boland v. Ross, 120 Mo. 208, 25 S. W. 524; National Tube Works V. Ring Refrigerating, etc., Co., 118 Mo. 365, 22 S. W. 947, where part of the indebtedness secured by the mort- gage of a corporation was the indi- vidual indebtedness of one of its officers; Hayden v. Alkire Grocery Co., 88 Mo. App. 241, including ficti- tious claims in a conveyance to se- cure a valid debt avoids the whole se- curity; but while a claim is honest in itself, and the parties probably con- sider such debt might be properly so secured, it must be shown that such debt was included with a fraudulent purpose, and instructions should sub- mit the existence of such purpose to the jury; Seger v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 33, where the considera- tion included an obligation upon which the transferee was liable only as security, and which he had neither paid or assumed and would not be called upon to pay because it was amply secured by the insolvent; Bow- man V. Victor Min. Co., 78 Mo. App. 676, 2 Mo. A. Repr., where part of the consideration was to be subse- quently advanced and the residue was to cover a note then due to the mortgagee, which was to be cancelled, and no part of the agi-eement was carried out; Webb City Lumber Co. 330 Feauditlent Conveyances. for which a chattel mortgage is given by an insolvent debtor is fraudulent as against his creditors wiU taint the entire transaction and avoid the whole mortgage as to creditors.^* It has been said that no device can be more deceptive, and more likely to baffle, delay, or defeat creditors, than the creating of incumbrances upon their property by embarrassed men, for debts thai are fictitious or mainly so.^' § 4. Consideration inadequate. — Inadequacy of consideiration is generally held to be a badge or evidence of fraud, a fact to be considered in determining the good faith of the parties to the transaction.^* Great inadequacy of price isi a strong, though not V. Victor Min. Co., Id.; Ball v. O'Neal, 64 Mo. App. 388, 2 Mb. App. Rep. 100, a chattel mortgage given to secure three notes, two of which were fraudulent; State v. Hope, 102 Mo. 410, 14 S. W. 985. N. C— Hawkins v. Alston, 39 N. C. 137. Tex. — Watts v. Dubois (Tex. Civ. App.), 66 S. W. 698, but a mort- gage in good faith on firm property to secure a firm debt and an indi- vidual partner's debt is valid, though the firm was insolvent when the mortgage was given, and known to be insolvent by the mortgagee. Wis. — Liver v. Thielke, 115 Wis. 389, 91 N. W. 975, where a husband fraudulently conveys land to his wife, and she executes a mortgage thereon to her father, based on unauthorized payments by him of insurance money due by the husband, such mortgage being largely in excess of the real in- debtedness of the husband to the father, is presumptively fraudulent; Butts v. Peacock, 23 Wis. 359. Contra. — Can. — Campbell v. Pat- terson, 21 Can. S. C. 645, a mortgage fraudulent in part and partly for a bona fide advancement is not wholly void, but may be upheld to the extent of the hona fide consideration. The transaction is not a simn- lated one, when an actual considera- tion, 'however inadequate, has been paid by the purchaser in an alleged sale. Brown v. Brown, 30 La. Ann. 966. 24. Roland v. Ross, 120 Mo. 208, 25 S. W. 524. But see Rider v. Hunt, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 238, 25 S. W. 314, holding that the fraudulency of the debts secured to some of the creditors by a deed of trust does not vitiate the instrument as to honest debts se- cured to other creditors thereby, where the latter took the security in good faith, without knowledge of the fraud; Bradley Co. v. Paul, 94 Wis. 488, 69 N. W. 168, chattel mortgages are not fraudulent as purporting to secure a debt larger than actual debt and future advances, where the agree- ment was that the remainder of the money was to be advanced substan- tially at once. 25. Hawkins v. Alston, 39 N. C. (4 Ired. Eq.) 137, 145. 26. N. r.— First Nat. Bank of Amsterdam v. Miller, 163 N. Y. 164, 57 N. E. 308; Masch v. Grauer, 53 Badges of Feaud. 231 lvert, 2 Mill, 26, 12 Am. Dec. 652. Vt. — Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Thom- son, 74 Vt. 442, 52 Atl. 961. Va. — Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. 334. 54. Cole V. Tyler, 65 N. Y. 73. See What constitutes insolvency, § 8, infra. 55. Pullis V. Robison, 5 Mo. App. 548, rev'd 73 Mo. 201. See Intent of grantee immaterial where transfer is voluntary, chap. XIII, § 5, infra. 56. N. y.— Multz V. Price, 91 App. Div. 116, 86 N. Y. Supp. 480; Cole v. Tyler, 65 N. Y. 73; Spotten v. Keeler, 12 St. Rep. 385. Ariz. — lewis v. Herrera { 1906 ) , 85 Pac. 245, debtor must possess suffi- cient property within the State. Gal. — Burpee v. Bunn, 22 Cal. 194; Swartz V. Hazlett, 8 Cal. 118. III. — Wisconsin Granite Co. v. Ger- rity, 144 111. 77, 33 N. E. 31; Sander- son V. Snow, 68 111. App. 384; Lytle V. Scott, 2 111. App. 646. Iowa. — Clearfield Bank v. Olin, 112 Iowa, 476, 84 N. W. 508; Ware v. Purdy, 60 N. W. 526. La. — Queyrouze v. Thibodeaux, 30 La. Ann. 1114. Me. — Jose v. Hewitt, 50 Me. 248; Welcome v. Batchelder, 23 Me. 85. Md.— Swan v. Dent, 2 Md. Ch. 111. Minn. — Filley v. Register, 4 Minn. 391, 77 Am. Dec. 522. Miss. — ^Edmonson v. Meachan, 50 Miss. 34; Vertner v. Humphreys, 14 S. & M. 130. Mo.— Needles v. Ford, 167 Mo. 495, 67 S. W. 240. N. ff.— Abbott V. Tenney, 18 N. H. 109; Smith v. Smith, 11 N. H. 459. N. C— Houston v. Bogle, 32 N. C. 496. But see Worthy v. Brady, 91 N. C. 265, a deed is fraudulent or not ac- cording, to the intent with which it Indebtedness oe Insolvency of Geantoe. 275 insolvent as being without sufficient property to pay his debts, is fraudulent and void." § 8. What constitutes insolvency — A person is insolvent when his property, subject to execution, at its fair valuation at the time, is not sufficient to satisfy all his debts,^ when all his property is not sufficient to pay all his debts ;^' and insolvency cannot be imputed to a debtor who has property, subject to legal process, sufficient to meet all his liabilities.^" It has been held was made, not according to the value of the property still retained by the grantor. OMo. — Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Mil- ler, 9 Ohio Cir Ct. Ill, 6 Ohio Cir. Dec. 1. 8. O. — ^Richardson v. Rhodus, 14 Rich. L. 95; Ingram v. Phillips, 5 Strobh. 200; McElwee v. Sutton, 2 Bailey, 128; Kirkley v. Blakeney, 2 jSTott. & M. 544. Vt. — Durkee v. Mahoney, 1 Aik. 116. Wash. — ^Klosterman v. Harrington, 11 Wash. 138, 39 Pac. 376; Frederick V. Shorey, 4 Wash. 75, 29 Pac. 766. W. Va. — ^Reynolds v. Gawthorp's Heirs, 37 W. Va. 3, 16 S. E. 364; Rogers v. Verlander, 30 W. Va. 619, 5 S. B. 847. U. S.— Scott V. Mead (D. C), 37 Fed. 865 ; Newlin v. Garwood, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,172. 57. Colo. — Gwynn v. Butler, IT Colo. 114, 28 Pac. 466. Conn. — Freeman v. Burnham, 36 Conn. 469. Go. — Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co v. Key, 99 Ga. 144, 25 S. E. 14; Booher V. Worrill, 57 Ga. 235. /n.— Bittenger v. Kasten, 111 111. 260; Emerson v. Bemis, 69 111. 537. Ind. — Personette v. Cronkhite, 140 Ind. 586, 4 N. E. 59, although the debtor claims that it was made with intent to defraud another creditor, and not to defraud the complaining creditors. Mo. — Snyder v. Free, 114 Mo. 360, 21 S. W. 847; Oberneir v. Treseler, 19 Mo. App. 519. N. ff.— Gove V. Campbell, 62 N. H. 401. jSf. C. — Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 12 S. E. 560. Utah. — Ogden State Bank v. Bar- ker, 12 Utah, 13, 40 Pac. 765. 58. Dinius v. Lahr (Ind. App.), 74 N. E. 1033; David Adler, etc., Cloth- ing Co. v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266, 75 N. W. 877. See also cases cited supra, notes 56 and 57, § 7. 59. Carr v. Summerfield, 47 W. Va. 155, 34 S. E. 804; Wolfe v. Mc- Gugin, 37 W. Va. 552, 16 S. E. 797. See Ernest v. Merritt, 107 Ga. 61; German-Amerian Bank v. Schurer, 102 Wis. 582. 60. Hendon v. Morris, 110 Ala. 106, 20 So. 27; Jennings v. Howard, 80 Ind. 214; McCole v. Loehr, 79 Ind. 430; Sherman v. Hogland, 54 Ind. 578. The mere fact that a judgment has been recovered against a debtor is not sufficient to show him insolvent. Davis V. Yonge (Ark.), 85 S. W. 90. See also Treacey v. Liggett, 9 Can. Sup. Ct. 441. 276 Feaudulewt Conveyances. that a debtor is insolvent when the condition of his affairs is such that he cannot pay his debts as they mature in the ordinary or regular course of business/^ that insolvency is the inability to pay debts as they become due.°^ On the other hand it has been held that a debtor cannot be said to be insolvent merely because he has not money enough on hand to meet his liabilities as they fall due in the course of trade;*' or to meet the demands of his creditors without borrowing money.** A debtor does not cease to be insolvent because, being \mable to pay his debts in the regular course of business, his creditors have entered into an agreement to extend the time of payment of their debts.*^ The test of insolvency is not whether, on a postponement of payment of the trader's affairs, there is property sufficient to pay all his debts, but whether he is able as the debts mature, to pay them as traders usually do.** The mere fact that at the time of the conveyance the debtor had not enough unincumbered property to pay his debts is not conclusive evidence of fraud.*' But a A debtor is not insolvent when he oiency of assets on a cash basis to owns property together with cash in cover liabilities, hand at the time of the transfer suf- 62. Q-a. — Brown v. Spivey, 53 Ga. fioient to pay his debts in full, al- 155. though he subsequently places it be- La. — Lafleur v. Hardey, 11 Rob. yond the reach of legal process, but 493 ; Brandt v. Shamburgh, 2 Mart, the transfer is prima facie fraudu- (N. S.) 329, a debtor who has been lent as to creditors. Cohen v. Parish, obliged to secure extensions from his 100 Ga. 335, 28 S. B. 122. creditors is insolvent. 61. J7. S. — Merchants' Nat. Bank y. J. — National Bank of Metropo- V. Cook, 95 U. S. 342, 24 L. Ed. 412; lis v. Sprague, 21 N. J. Bq. 530. Buchanan v. Smith, 16 Wall. 277, 21 63. Smith v. Collins, 94 Ala. 394, L. Ed. 280. 10 So. 334. Mo. — ^Moore v. Carr, 65 Mo. App. 64. Silver Valley Min. Co. v. 64. North Carolina Smelting Co., 119 N. Wis.— Marvin v. Anderson, 111 C. 417, 25 S. E. 954. Wis. 387, 87 N. W. 226, such is the 65. Vennard v. McConnell, 93 definition as understood in the ad- Mass. 555; Brandt v. Shamburgh, 2 ministration of bankruptcy and in- Mart. N. S. (La.) 329. solvent laws, but as understood in 66. Chipman v. McClellan, 159 dealing with contracts challenged on Mass. 363, 34 N. E.^ 379; Traders' the ground of fraud, actual or con- Nat. Bank v. Chipman, Id. structive, it has reference to insuffl- 67. Wooters v. Osborn, 77 Ind. 513. Indebtedness oe Insolvency of Geantoe. 277 debtor who has concealed his property in order to defraud his creditors is to be regarded as insolvent, although he has sufficient assets to pay his debts.^* If the value of a debtor's property so closely approximate the amount of his liabilities that a con- veyance without equivalent consideration would have a direct tendency to impair the rights of creditors, if they should attempt to force collection by judicial process, it will be held fraudulent as to creditors.^' A debtor's voluntary conveyance may be set aside at the suit of creditors, whether or not the debtor was in- solvent, or believed himself to be' so, at the time of the con- veyance, if his solvency at the time was contingent on the stabil- ity of the market in the business in which he was engaged,™ or insolvency would be the inevitable or probable result of want of success in the business in which ha was engaged.'^ Cash in hand,'^ notes and accounts and other evidences of debt,''' should be counted as pi'operty on the question of the solvency or insol- vency of the donor or grantor. The mere return of an execu- tion partly unsatisfied a year after a conveyance by the judg^ ment debtor does not tend to establish insolvency at the time of the conveyance, in the absence of any other facts.'* The fact that at the time of a voluntary conveyance a corporation which the grantor had formed to conduct the business previously owned and carried oni by him, and in which he held nearly all the stock, was insolvent, does not show that the grantor is unable to pay hia personal debts.'' § 9. Retention of property sufficient to pay debts. — Courts will not interfere to set aside a conveyance or transfer of prop- 68. Blake v. Sawin, 10 Allen 72. Cohen v. Parish, 100 Ga. 335, (Mass.), 340. 28 S. E. 122. 69. Eose V. Dunklee, 12 Colo. App. 73. Powell v. Westmoreland, 60 403, 56 Pac. 342. Cfa. 572. 70. Brown v. Case, 41 Oreg. 221, 74. Wadleigh v. Wadleigh, 111 69 Pac. 43. App. Div. (N. Y.) 367, 97 N. Y. Supp. 71. Carpenter v. Koe, 10 N. Y. 227. 1063. See Carr v. Breese, 81 N. Y. 584; Ber- 75. Welch v. Mann, 193 Mo. 304, trand v. Elder, 23 Ark. 494. 92 S. W. 98. 278 Feaudulekt Conveyances. erty, as fraudulent and void as against creditors, if it appear that there is retained by the debtor property other than that conveyed out of which their claims can be satisfied, or sufficient to pay all the just debts of the debtor,'* except in those states 76. N. T.— Kain v. Larkin, 131 N. Y. 300, 30 N. E. 105 ; Dunlap v. Haw- kins, 59 N. Y. 342; Cushman v. Addi- son, 52 N. Y. 628; Loeschigk v. Hat- field, 51 N. Y. 660; Guy v. Craig- head, 46 App. Div. (N. Y.) 614, 01 N. Y. Supp. 988, 21 App. Div. (N. Y.) 460, 47 N. Y. Supp. 576; McCor- miek v. Wilder, 61 App. Div. (N. Y.) 619, 70 N. Y. Supp. 627; Aultman, etc., Co. V. Syme, 23 App. Div. (N. Y.) 344, 48 N. Y. Supp. 231; Car- penter V. Roe, 10 N. Y. 237; Wilbur V. Fradenburgh, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 474; Holmes v. Clark, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 237; Spicer v. Ayers, 53 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 405; Jackson v. Peek, 4 Wend. (N. Y.) 300; Van Wyck v. Seward, 6 Paige (N. Y.), 62; Starr v. Strong, 2 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 139. V. S. — Bean v. Patterson, 122 U. S. 496, 7 Sup. Ct. 1298, 30 L. Ed. 1126; Providence Sav. Bank v. Huntington, 10 Fed. 871; Hinde v. Longworth, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 199, 6 L. Ed. 454; Dick V. Hamilton, 7 Fed. Cas. No. 3,890, Deady (U. S.) 322; Hopkirk V. Randolph, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,698, 2 Brock. (U. S.) 132. ^la. — Johnson v. West, 43 Ala. 689. But see Miller v. Thompson, 3 Port. (Ala.) 198. ^rk. — Chambers v. Sallie, 29 Ark. 407 ; Smith v. Yell, 8 Ark. 470. 0al. — ^Windhaus v. Bootz ( Cal. ) , 25 Pac. 404; Morgan v. Heeker, 74 Cal. 540, 16 Pac. 317; Swartz v. Hazletfc, 8 Cal. 118. Oon».— State v. Martin, 77 Conn. 142, 58 Atl. 745; Graves v. Atwood, 52 Conn. 512, 52 Am. Rep. 610; Sal- mon v. Bennett, 1 Conn. 525, 7 Am. Dec. 237. Fla. — ^Howse v. Judson, 1 Fla. 133. Go. — ^Wellmaker v. Wellmaker, 113 Ga. 1155, 39 S. E. 475; Brown ▼. Spivey, 53 Ga. 155; Weed v. Davis, 25 Ga. 684. . III.— Eames v. Dorsett, 147 111. 540, 35 N. E. 735; Bittenger v. Kasten, 111 111. 260; Merrell v. Johnson, 96 111. 224; Fanning v. Russell, 94 111. 386; Bridgford v. Riddell, 55 111. 261; Gridley v. Watson, 53 111. 186; Moritz V. Hoffman, 35 111. 553; Hitt v. Ormsbee, 12 111. 166; Koster v. Hiller, 4 III. App. 21; Lytle v. Scott, 2 111. App. 646; Russell v. Fanning, 2 111. App. 632. Ind. — Ritchie v. McKay (Ind. App. ) , 75 N. E. 161 ; Emerson v. Opp, 139 Ind. 27, 38 N. E. 330; Sell v. Bailey, 119 Ind. 51, 21 N. E. 338; Phelps V. Smith, 116 Ind. 387, 17 N. E. 602, 19 N. E. 156; Eiler t. Crull, 112 Ind. 318, 14 N. E. 79; Bishop V. State, 83 Ind. 67; Noble v. Hines, 72 Ind. 12; Holman v. Elliott, 65 Ind. 78; Bentley v. Dunkle, 57 Ind. 374; Eagan v. Downing, 55 Ind. 65; McConnell v. Martin, 52 Ind. 434; Brookbank v. Kennard, 41 Ind. 339 ; Ewing v. Patterson, 35 Ind. 326. Iowa. — Robinson v. Frankville First M. E. Church, 59 Iowa, 717, 12 N. W. 772; Peerson v. Maxfield, 51 Iowa, 76, 50 N. W. 77; Shepard v. Pratt, 32 Iowa, 296; Stewart v. Rogers, 25 Iowa, 395, 95 Am. Dec. 794. Kan. — Hunt v. Spencer, 20 Kan. 126. Ky. — ^Harris v. Harris, 10 Ky. L. Indebtedness oe Insolvency of Geantoe. 279 "where a voluntary conveyaiice is fraudulent per se as to existing Eep. 819; Ender3 v. Williams, 1 Mete. (Ky.) 346. Md. — Christopher v. Christopher, 64 Md. 583, 3 Atl. 296; Goodman v. Wineland, 61 Md. 449; Warner v. Dove, 33 Md. 579; Ellinger v. Crowl, 17 Md. 361; Williams v. Banks, 11 Md. 198; Baxter v. Sewell, 3 Md. 334. Mass. — Bennett v. Bedford Bank, 11 Mass. 421. Mich. — Beach v. White, Walk. (Mich.) 495. Minn. — Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341, 64 N. W. 818; Reich v. Reich, 26 Minn. 97, 1 N. W. 804; Johnston v. Piper, 4 Minn. 192. Miss. — Edmunds v. Mister, 58 Miss. 765; Cowen v. Alsop, 51 Miss. 158; Cock V. Oakley, 50 Miss. 628. Mo. — Johnson v. Murphy, 180 Mo. 597, 79 S. W. 909; Fehlig v. Busch, 165 Mo. 144, 65 S. W. 542; Walsh v. Ketchum, 84 Mo. 427; Bohannan v. Combs, 79 Mo. 805; Vandeventer v. Goss, 116 Mo. App. 316, 91 S. W. 958; Updegraff v. Theaker, 57 Mo. App. 45. Mont. — Story v. Black, 5 Mont. 26, 51 Am. Rep. 37, 1 Pac. 1. Nei. — Schreck v. Hanlon, 66 Neb. 451, 92 N. W. 625; David Adler, etc.. Clothing Co. v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266, 75 N. W. 877; Trester v. Pike, 43 Neb. 779, 62 N. W. 211. N. ff.— Leavitt v. Leavitt, 47 N. H. 329. N. J.—Cort v. Skillin, 29 N. J. Eq. 70. JV. C. — Taylor v. Eatman, 92 N. C. 601; Hodges V. Spicer, 79 N. C. 223; Thacker v. Saunders, 45 N. C. 145; Smith V. Reavis, 29 N. C. 341 ; Arnett V. Wanett, 28 N. C. 41; Jones v. Youngs, 18 N. C. 352, 28 Am. Dec. 569. But see Hodson v. Jordan, 108 N. C. 10, 12 S. E. 1029, though the grantor reserved ample property to pay all his then existing debts, a deed made with intent by the grantor to defraud his creditors, with knowledge thereof by the grantee, is void as to the creditors. Ohio. — Boies v. Johnson, 25 Ohio Cir. Ct. 331; Bowlus v. Shanabarger, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 137, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 167 ; Miller v. Wilson, 15 Ohio, 108; Brice v. Myers, 5 Ohio, 121. Or. — Taylor v. Miles, 19 Or. 550, 25 Pac. 143. Pa. — Conley v. Bentley, 87 Pa. St. 40; McNair v. Eiesher, 8 Pa. Co. Ct. 494. S. C— Harrell v. Kea, 37 S. C. 369, 16 S. E. 42; Richardson v. Ehodus, 14 Rich. (S. C.) 95; Buchanan v. McNinch, 3 S. C. 498; Hudnal v. Widner, 4 McCord (S. C.) 294, 17 Am. Dee. 744. Tetm. — Burkey v. Self, 4 Sneed. (Tenn.) 121. Tex. — Dosch v. Nette (Tex.), 16 S. W. 1013; Dixon v. Sanderson, 72 Tex. 359, 13 Am. St. Rep. 801, 10 S. W. 535; Walker v. Loring (Tex. Civ. App.), 34 S. W. 405; Morrison v. Clark, 55 Tex. 437. Utah.— Ogden State Bank v. Bar- ker, 12 Utah, 13, 40 Pac. 765. yt.— Brackett v. Waite, 4 Vt. 389; Durkee v. Mahoney, 1 Aik. (Vt.) 116. Va. — Wilson v. Buchanan, 7 Gratt. (Va.) 334. Wash. — Deering v. Holcomb, 26 Wash. 588, 67 Pac. 240. W. Va. — Hume, etc., Co. v. Condon, 44 W. Va. 553, 30 S. E. 56. Wis. — ^Marvin v. Anderson, 111 Wis. 387, 87 N. W. 226; Pike v. Miles, 23 Wis. 164, 99 Am. Dec. 148. 280 Feaudttlent Convetahces. creditors." But a voluntary conveyance will be declared void aa against creditors where the grantor could not at the time have ■withdrawn the amount from his estate without hazard to his creditors, or materially lessening their prospects of payment, or leaving it doubtful if anything could be reached by his credi- tors.'* The property left or retained by the debtor must be amply sufficient to pay his existing debts and liabilities and to satisfy all the just claims of his creditors;" and a claim that there- Wyo. — M«tz V. Blackburn, 9 Wyo. 481, 65 Pao. 857. Eng. — Jackson v. Bowley, C. & M. 97, 41 E. C. L. 59. But see Splrett V. Willows, 11 Jur. N. S. 70, 34 L. J. Ch. 365, 3 DeG. J. & S. 293, 12 L. T. Rep. N. S. 614, 13 Wkly. Eep. 329, if it is shown that the remedy of an existing creditor is defeated or delayed by the transfer, it is immate- rial whether the debtor was or was not solvent at the time of the trans- fer, but the contrary rule prevails as to subsequent creditors. ■Wliere a hns'baiid purcbaslng land and taking title in the name of Ms wife has property re- maining, subject to execution, suffi- cient to pay all his debts, the trans- action is not fraudulent as to his cred- itors. Lang V. Williams, 166 Mo. 1, 65 S. W. 1012. A man may create a trnst for wife or children, by voluntary con- veyance, if at the time of conveying he retain in his possession property sufficient to discharge all his debts then existing. Nichols v. Wallace, 41 111. App. 627; Nichols v. H. Seiter & Co., id. But claims of creditors can- not be defeated by a subsequent as- signment of all the debtor's property in trust for his wife and children. Barnes v. Vetterlein (D. C), 16 Fed. 218; Greer v. Baughman, 13 Md. 257. 77. Townsend v. Wilson, 114 Ky> 504, 24 Ky. L. Eep. 1276, 71 S. W. 440; Davis v. Anderson, 99 Va. 620, 39 S. E. 588; Wick v. Dawson, 42 W. Va. 43, 24 S. E. 587. See also cases cited under Statutory provisions as to effect of want of consideration, chap. VIII, § 35, infra. But see Hume V. Condon, 44 W. Va. 553, 30 S. E. 56 ; Adams v. Irwin, 44 W. Va. 740, 30 S. E. 59, notwithstanding the statute, a husband may make a do- nation to his wife, or return her a loan of money, augmented by a por- tion of the profits of a business con- ducted by him, if he retains an amount of tangible property largely in excess of his just indebtedness. 78. Kipp V. Hanna, 2 Bland. (Md.),, 26; Emerson v. Bemis, 69 III. 537; Lowry v. Fisher, 65 Ky. 70, 92 Am. Deo. 475 ; Black v. Sanders, 46 N. 0. 67. 79. 2f. Y.— Kain v. Larkin, 131 N. y. 300, 30 N. E. 105; Dunlap v. Haw- kins, 59 N. Y. 342. U. /S.— Lloyd V. Fulton, 91 U. S. 479, 23 L. Ed. 363. III. — ^Patterson v. McKinney, 97 111. 41. W. H.— Bailey v. Ballou, 69 N. H. 414, 44 Atl. 124; Gove v. Campbell,. 62 N. H. 401; Smith v. Smith, 11 N.. H. 459. Pa. — Wilson v. Howser, 12 Pa. St. 109. Indebtedness oe Insolvency of Geantoe. 281 remains in the debtor's hands sufficient assets to pay his debts ■will not be sustained if there is reasonable doubt as to their sufficiency.'* A conveyance will not be upheld because the grantor retains property nominally enough to discharge his ex- isting indebtedness, if in fact the value of the property so retained is insufficient for that purpose.'* The question whether 80. Ark. — ^Bertrand v. Elder, 23 Ark. 494. /iZ.— Ketcham v. Hallock, 55 111. App. 632. ilf 1 n o Graves v. Blondell, 70 Me. 190. 7 Wkly. L. Bui. 113. 52. Hayes v. Montgomery, 118 Ind. 55. Torrey Cedar Go. v. Eul, 95 91, 20 N. E. 646; Gregory v. Lamb, Wis. 615, 70 K W. 823. 19 Ky. L. Rep. 943, 42 S. W. 339; 56. Perkins v. Scott, 7 Ky. L. Rep. Kelsey v. Kelley, 63 Vt. 41, 22 Atl. 596; Hendrick v. Dillon, 62 Vt. 438, CONSIDEEATION. 301 grantor, as a matter of law, because it is given, in whole or in part, to secure future advances to be made by the mortgagee or grantee to the mortgagor or grantor.^' In some jurisdictions, it is held that such a conveyance is valid, although it does not state on its face that it is given to secure future advances ;^ while in other jurisdictions, the rule is maintained that the convey- ance must express the object, and that a conveyance intended to cover future responsibilities not expressed in the instrument, is void pro tanto as against crditors.^* A mortgage which does not state the amount intended to be secured, or the limit of which is umdefined, is valid for the amount of the advances, as against 18 Atl. 814. See Assumption of Lia- bility, § 14, infra. 57. Ala. — ^Lawson v. Alabama Warehouse Co., 80 Ala. 341. Co?.— Tully V. Harloe, 35 Cal. 302, 95 Am. Dec. 102. Iowa. — Carson v. Byers, 67 Iowa, 606, 25 N. W. 826, there is no pre- sumption of fraud. Kan. — Clement v. Hartzell, 57 Kan. 482, 46 Pac. 961. Md. — Wilson v. Kussell, 13 Md. 494, 71 Am. Dec. 645. Mass. — Commercial Bank v. Cun- ningham, 41 Mass. 270, 35 Am. Dee. 322; Adams V. Wheeler, 27 Mass. 199. Mich. — ^Dummer v. Smedley, 119 Mich. 466, 68 N. W. 260, 38 L. R. A. 490; Brace v. Berdan, 104 Mich. 356, 62 N. W. 568; Newkirk v. Newkirk, 56 Mich. 525, 23 N. W. 206. Minn. — Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 29, 21 N. W. 840. Miss. — Arthur v. Commercial, etc., Bank, 17 Miss. 394, 48 Am. Dec. 719. N. H.— North v. Crowell, 11 N. H. 251. Compare Heiney v. Anderson, 9 Lane. Bar (Pa.), 13. It is valid if it is free from fraud.— Seaman v. Fleming, 7 Rich. Eq. 283. See also Garvin v. Garvin, 55 S. C. 360, 33 S. E. 458; Farguson V. Johnson, 36 Fed. 134. Advances made before levy on property transferred. — Where an insolvent debtor in good faith con- veys property to a creditor, partly in consideration of an existing obliga- tion and partly as security for future advances, and before creditors levy an attachment on the property the grantee has made advances to, and in- curred liabilities for, the debtor to the full value of the property, the convey- ance will be good as against such creditors. Coles v. Sellers, 1 Phila. (Pa.) 533, 11 Leg. Int. 30. 58. Tully V. Harloe, 35 Cal. 302, 95 Am. Dec. 102; Dummer v. Smed- ley, 110 Mich. 466, 68 N. W. 260, 38 L. R. A. 490, 3 Det. L. N. 417; Brace v. Berdan, 104 Mich. 356, 62 N. W. 568. 59. Diwer v. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. (N. Y.) 596, 20 Am. Dec. 655; Matz V. Erick, 76 Conn. 388, 56 Atl. 630 Thurman v. Jenkins, 58 Tenn. 426 Turbeville v. Gibson, 52 Tenn. 565 Neuffer v. Pardue, 35 Tenn. 191 Alexandria Sav. . Int. v. Thomas, 29 Gratt. (Va.) 483. 302 Feaudulent Conveyances. a creditor by judgnieint recovered aftler audi advances w^re made, tliough. the debt on which, the judgmeat Was recovered was contracted before the advances were made.'" A transfer to secure existing debts and future advances is valid." But an assignment by a debtor of all his property, in trust to pay the assignee for future advances to the assignor, in preference to debts already due, is void.*^ A judgment confessed to secure future advances is, by statute, in some jurisdictions, void as to creditors.^ Where, however, the advances have been made, equity will not interfere, notwithstanding such a statute, unless the judgment is fraudulent, and though the judgment is entered in violation of the statute, it is not ipso facto void against credi- tors.'* § 12. Contingent liability in general. — ^A future and contin- gent debt or liability may be a sufficient consideration for a con- veyance or transfer by a debtor to secure or idemnify the grantee against the same, and such a conveyance is not fraudulent as against creditors.^^ That a debtor mortgages his property to secure future and contingent debts is not, of itself, proof of a fraudulent intent.*^ A judgment confessed by an insolvent to 60. Robinson v. Williams, 22 N. Y. 65. Marks v. Reynolds, 12 Abb. 380. See also Alexandria Sav. Int. V. Prao. (N. Y.) 403, rev'g 20 How. Thomas, supra. Prac. (N. Y.) 338, but under Code. 61. Hendricks v. Walden, 17 § 382, the person who may be secured Johns. (N. Y.) 438; Hendricks v. by a confession of judgment is the Robinson, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 283; plaintiff in the judgment; Gardner v. Ex parte Gaines, 12 Ch. D. 314, 40 L. Maxwell, 27 La. Ann. 561; Moore v. T. Rep. N. S. 789, 27 Wkly. Rep. 744. Ragland, 74 N. C. 343 ; Gibson v. 62. Barnum v. Hempstead, 7 Paige Walker, 33 N. C. 327; Creighton v. (N. Y.), 568; Lawyer v. Barker, 45 Scranton Lace-Curtain Mfg. Co., 191 W. Va. 468, 31 S. E. 964. Pa. St. 231, 43 Atl. 134; Braden v. 63. Gladney v. Manning, 48 La. O'Neil, 183 Pa. St. 462, 38 Atl. 1023, Ann. 316, 19 So. 276; Clapp v. Ely, 63 Am. St. Rep. 761; Warren v. His 27 N. J. L. 555; State v. Fife, 2 Creditors, 3 Wash. St. 48, 28 Pac. Bailey (S. C.) 337. 257. Oompore Pemberton v. Klein, 43 64. Clapp V. Ely, supra. See also N. J. Eq. 98, 10 Atl. 837. Fraudulent confession of judgment, 66. Gardner v. Maxwell, supra; chap. II, § 11, supra. Moore t. Ragland, supra. CONSIBEEATION. 303 secure a boiw, fide creditor, whether contingent or otherwise, even though it be intended to and does have the effect of giving him a preference over other creditors, is not fraudulemt in law." A liability for another on a contract in force is a good considera- tion for a conditional sale, and, though the value of the property exceed the amount of the liability, the sale is not therefore fraud- ulent per se." § 13. Security to endorser, surety, or guarantor. — ^A transfer of property by a debtor, by way of pledge, judgment note, mortgage, deed of trust, or other conveyance, executed for the purpose of in- demnifying or protecting one who has become endorser, surety, or guarantor for him against that obligation, is based on a valuable and sufficient consideration, and is valid as against his creditors, in the absence of fraud." But the mere liability of a surety to pay 67. Braden v. O'Neil, supra. See also Confession of judgment, chap. II, § 11, supra. 68. Jewett v. Warren, 12 Mass. 300, 7 Am. Dec. 74. A coveiLant from nrhicb cove- nantor may be relieved, on ac- count of the failure of a transfer for which it was made, is not a good con- sideration. Arnold v. Hagerman, 45 N. J. Eq. 186, 17 Atl. 93, 14 Am. St. Rep. 712. 69. N. T. — Peetaoh v. Sommers, 31 App. Div. 255, 53 N. Y. Supp. 438, 28 Civ. Proc. 124; Miller v. Miller Knitting Co., 23 Misc. Eep. 404, 52 N. Y. Supp. 184; Dodge v. McKeehnie, 35 N. Y. Supp. 1106, aff'd 156 N. Y. 514, 51 N. E. 268. But compare Browning v. Hart, 6 Barb. 91 ; Bailey V. Burton, 8 Wend. 339. Del. — Tunnell v. Jefferson, 5 Har. 206. III. — Farmers', etc.. Bank v. Spear, 49 111. App. 409, where a surety, to whom a principal debtor has given a judgment note to indemnify him, en- ters judgment on said note before he has paid the debts on which he is surety, that fact does not render the judgment fraudulent. El/. — Beatty v. Dudley, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 212. La. — ^Edgar v. Simons, 2 La. 19, a deposit of notes as collateral security against a letter of credit; Woodward V. Braynard, 6 Mart. (O. S.) 572. Md. — Griffith v. Frederic County Bank, 6 Gill & J. 424. Com- pare Amoss V. Robinson, 2 Har. & J. 320. Mass. — Rogers v. Abbott, 128 Mass. 102; Gardner v. Webber, 34 Mass. 407; Cutler v. Dickinson, 25 Mass. 386; Ripley v. Severance, 23 Mass. 474, 17 Am. Dee. 397; Stevens v. Bell, 6 Mass. 339. Mich. — Bostwick v. Benjamin, 63 Mich. 289, 29 N. W. 714; Spear v. Rood, 51 Mich. 140, 16 N. W. 312; Adams v. Niemann, 46 Mich. 135, 8 304 Fkaudulent Conveyances. his principal's debt cannot, as against tlie principal's existing creditors, be deemed a valid consideration for the absolute convey- ance by the principal of substantially all his property to the surety.'" The liability of the vendee to damagei, as the surety of the vendor, is not of itself a sufficient consideration to support an absolute conveyance of property, as against creditors." And an absolute conveyance by an insolvent debtor to his surety on an administration bond, intended only as an indemnity against the surety's antecedent liability, is fraudulent as against existing N. W. 719; Hubbard v. Taylor, 5 Mich. 155. Mo. — Gree v. "Van Natta-Lynda Drug Co., 105 Mo. App. 27, 78 S. W. 228. Mont. — Tudor v. DeLong, 18 Mont. 499, 46 Pac. 258. Neh. — Grimes v. Sherman, 25 Neb. 843, 41 N. W. 814. Compare Morse V. Steinrod, 29. Neb. 108, 46 N. W. 922. N. ff.— Lane v. Sleeper, 18 N. H. 209, if the security is not larger than the purpose of indemnity requires. Pa. — Goodwin v. McMinn, 204 Pa. St. 162, 53 Atl. 762; Candee's Ap- peal, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093; Heiney v. Anderson, 9 Lane. Bar, 13- B. I. — Johnson's Petition, 20 R. I. 108, 37 AtL 531. Tenn. — Madisonville Bank v. McCoy (Ch. App. 1897), 42 S. W. 814. Tex. — ^Keating Implement, etc., Co. V. Terre Haute Carriage, etc., Co., 11 Tex. Civ. App. 216, 32 S. W. 556; Alamo Cement Co. v. San Antonio (Civ. App. 1893), 23 S. W. 449. Vt. — Spaulding v. Austin, 2 Vt. 555, although the note upon which he becomes surety proves to be void for usury, he is entitled to hold the property for his protection until he is indemnified or relieved from lia- bility on the note. Va. — Harvey v. Anderson (1896), 24 S. E. 914. W. Fa.— Weaver v. E. L. Neal & Co. (1906), 55 S. E. 909. Compare Crawford v. Kirksey, 50 Ala. 590, 55 Ala. 282, 27 Am. Rep. 704. Confesaioii. of judgment on claim "not due. — Before maturity of a note held by a bank which had dis- counted it for the maker, there is nothing due from the maker to an in- dorser, and a confession of judgment on the note by the maker in favor of the indorser will be set aside at the instance of a subsequent judgment creditor of the maker. Forrester v. Straus, 18 N. Y. Supp. 41, 21 Civ. Proc. 166. See Confession of judg- ment, chap. II, § 11, supra. In a deed of trust to indem- nify sureties by giving them a preference, the debt of the creditor supplies the consideration, to support the deed, entitling such creditor's in- terest to be considered as the primary object to be protected in equity, and the sureties' indemnity is but sec- ondary and incidental to the other object. Wiswall v. Potts, 57 N. C. 184. TO. C?raft v. Schlag, 61 N. J. Eq. 567, 49 Atl. 431. 71. Gorham v. Herrick, 2 Me. 87. Consideration. a05 creditors, no additional liability being contemporaneously incurred by sucih surety.'^ A mortgage purporting to secure an absolute in- debtedness, given in good faith, is not void as to creditors of the mortgagor, because it was given to secure the mortgagee against a contingent liability as surety.'^ § 14. Assumption of liability in general — Tbe assumption of certain iona fide debts or obligations of an insolvent debtor by the grantee is a valuable and sufficieilt consideration for the convey- ance or transfer of property by the debtor to the person assuming tbem," witbout the concurrence or assent of the creditors being 72. Proskauer v. People's Sav. Bank, 77 Ala. 257. 73. Rexroad v. Johnson, 6 Kan. App. 607, 49 Pac. 699. See Recital of false consideration, chap. VI, § 2, supra. 74. N. y.— Rutherford v. Schatt- man, 119 N. Y. 604, 23 N. E. 440; Hine v. Bowe, 114 N. Y. 350, 21 N. E. 733, debts due primarily by one of a firm, which subsequently the firm became liable for under the partner- ship agreement and by indorsement; Weaver v. White, 64 Hun, 636, 19 N. Y. Supp. 616. Compare Stutson v. Brown, 7 Cow. 732. U. ig.— Sonstiby v. Keeley, 11 Fed. 578. Ind. — Old Nat. Bank v. Heekman, 148 Ind. 490, 47 N. E. 953; Miller v. Lebanon Lodge No. 48, I. 0. 0. F., 88 Ind. 286; Anderson v. Smith, 5 Blackf. 395. Iowa. — Smith v. Mack, 94 Iowa, 639, 63 N. W. 181. Ky. — Cavanagh v. Riley, 94 Iowa, 539, 63 N. W. 181. Mass. — Pierce v. O'Brien, 189 Mass. 58, 75 N. E. 61 ; Boston Mar. Ins. Co. V. Proctor, 168 Mass. 498, 47 N. B.. 414; Guild v. Leonard, 35 Mass. 511. 20 Mich. — Globe Casket Mfg. Co. v. Wolcott, 106 Mich. 151, 64 N. W. 10. Mo. — Baker v. Harvey, 133 Mo. 453, 34 S. W. 853. N. B. — Hutchins v. Sprague, 4 N. H. 496, 17 Am. Dec. 439. Or .Volley v. Kyle, 27 Or. 95, 39 Pac. 999. Tex. — Traders' Nat. Bank v. Clare, 76 Tex. 47, 13 S. W. 183; Duveneck V. Kutzer, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 577, 43 S. W. 541. Can. — Dedesdernier v. Burton, 12 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 569. Eng. — Bungard v. Seabrook, 1 F. & F. 321. Compare Rahn v. Kniess, 74 111. App. 367; Riegel v. Wooley, 81 Pa. St. 227. An assignment of certain rents to accrue for one year, in con- sideration of the assignee's agree- ment, provided the rents are paid to him, to pay certain sums on account of the assignor, is valid against the assignor's creditors to the extent of such payments by the assignee, al- though the payments are made before collecting the rents. Smith v. Jen- nings, 81 Mass. 69. Tbat the expressed considera- 306 Feattdulent Cohvetances. given, to the arrangement, and without any suspension or extin- guishment of the claims of those creditors as against the original debtor,'^ and although the assumption was without the knowledge of the personsi whose debts were assumed.'* But a transfer of property materially greater in value than the amount of the debts assumed will be regarded as constructively fraudulent as to tlie creditors to the excess of the value of the goods." Where a debtor coonveys or transfers property to a creditor, in consideration of the satisfaction of a debt due the creditor and his assumption of the payment of debts due other creditors, such conveiyance is not fraudulent, if the debt due the grantee and the debts due othea* creditors assumed by him equal the amount or full and fair value of the property conveyed." Where a grantee, in part consideration of a conveyance, makes himself personally liable for the payment of distributive shares to the grantor's heirs, this constitutes a valu- tion xras larger than the amount of the indebtedness assumed is no evi- dence of fraud, where the amount of the indebtedness assumed and paid by the grantee is equal to or greater than the actual value of the property conveyed to him. Wall v. Beedy, 161 Mo. 625, 61 S. W. 864. See Recital of false consideration, chap. VI, § 2, supra. 75. Seaman v. Hasbrouck, 35 Barb. (N. Y.) 151. 76. National Bank of Republic v. Dickinson, 107 Ala. 265, 18 So. 144. 77. Gamble v. Aultman, 125 Ala. 372, 28 So. 30, a. conveyance of land worth $2,000 in consideration of the payment of a lien of $1,100; Grieb v. Caraker, 69 111. App. 236, where the debts amounted to only about one- half of the property; Diamond Coal Co. V. Carter Dry Goods Co., 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1444, 49 S. W. 438, goods sold for less than half their value; Randall v. Vroom, 30 N. J. Eq. 353, where incumbrances assumed were less in amount than the actual value of the property. 78. Ala. — Chipman v. Stern, 89 Ala. 207, 7 So. 409; McCord v. Ten- nille, 81 Ala. 168, 1 So. 177; Smith v. Spencer, 73 Ala. 299. Cal. — Saunderson v. Broadwell, 82 Cal. 132, 23 Pae. 36. Iowa. — Gould V. Hurto, 61 Iowa, 45, 15 N. W. 588. Me. — Stevens v. Hinckley, 43 Me. 440. Compare Welcome v. Batchelder, 23 Me. 85. Miss. — Agricultural Bank v. Dor- sey, Freem. 338. 2Ve6.— Berry v. Berk, 62 Neb. 535, 87 N. W. 309; Keith v. Heffelfinger, 12 Neb. 497, 11 N. W. 749. Tex. — Traders' Nat. Bank v. Clare, 76 Tex. 47, 13 S. W. 183; Sweeney v. Conley, 71 Tex. 543, 9 S. W. 548; Hugo & Schmeltzer Co. v. Hirsch (Civ. App. 1901), 63 S. W. 163; Dix V. Jaekman (Civ. App. 1906), 37 S. W. 344; Mack v. Block (1888), 8 S. W. 495. Consideration. 307 able consideration for the conveyance when attacked by the grantor's creditors.'* An agreement to pay a portion of an in- solvent's debts, siuffioient in amount to have formed an adequate consideration for a transfer of his land, will not be upheld as against his creditors, where the grantee in fact paid only a small portion of the debts agreed to be paid. In order to support the conveyance the consideration must have been fully executed in good faith before notice of the transferrer's insolvency.*" An as- sumption by a grantee of an unmatured debt does not affect the validity of the sale where the grantor was under contract to pay such debt*^ But the assumption by a grantee of the payment of a debt for which the grantor is not liable, and of the payment of attorney's fees for services to be rendered for the grantor, is not a valid consideration.*^ And the assumption of indebtedness, after the conveyance has been made, and process has issued against the property included therein, is not a valid consideration.*' § 15. Assumption and payment of debt by endorser or surety. — If a surety in good faith assumes the payment of the debt of his principal, on which he is liable, it is a valid and sufficient con- sideration, for a conveyance or transfer of the debtor's property to him, and such conveyance is valid as against creditors.** A conveyance or transfer of property, at its fair value, by the maker of a promissory note or other such instrument to one who has endorsed his paper in consideration of the latter's agreeing to as- 79. Constable v. Weaser (D. C), 8 v. Woodall, 17 Ala. 685; Bank of Ala- Ohio Dec. 339, 7 Wkly. L. Bui. 113. bama v. M'cDade, 4 Port. 252. 80. Warren v. Wilder, 12 St. Rep. Ga.— MoWhorter v. Wright, 5 Ga. (N. Y.) 757. 555. 81. National Bank of Eepublic v. Ind.— Powell v. Stiekney, 88 Ind. 310. Dickinson, 107 Ala. 265, 18 So. .144. Kan.— Smith v. Rankin, 45 Kan. 82. Shepherd v. Pish, 78 111. App. 176, 25 Pac. 586. ,ng Me. — Stevens v. Hinkley, 43 Me. 83. Farmers', etc., Bank v. Conner, 440; Stedman v. Vickery, 42 Me. 132. 14 Ky L Rep 316, 20 S. W. 265. J/eB.— Kaufman v. Coburn, 30 Neb. 84. A to.— Pollock V. Jones, 96 Ala. 672, 46 N. W. 1010. 492 11 So. 529; Harmon v. McRae, Compore Ayers v. Hulsted, 15 Conn. 91 Ala. 401, 8 So. 548; Pennington 504. 308 Feaudulent Conveyances. sume the payment of the note, is based upon a consideration suffi- cient to sustain the transfer as against existing creditors of the grantor.*^ Accommodation endorsers are to be regarded aa cred- itors and not as mere purchasers.'* § 16. Assumption of mortgage or other lien. — A conveyance in consideration of the assumption of a mortgage or other lien or encumbrance on the property conveyed or transferred renders the grantee liable to pay for it, and is a valuable consideiration.'' Where thei encumbrances assumed are less in amount than the actual value of the property conveyed, the conveyaneei will be set aside as fraudulent as against creditors of tbe grantor.*' § 17. Executed agreement to pay debts. — ^Payment of the grantor's debts may properly be taken into consideration in deter- mining the sufficiency of the consideration for a conveyance as against creditors, where such payment was made in pursuance of an assumption of the debts at the time of the transfer,*' and where the grantee has paid the specified debts as agreed as consideration for the conveyance, it is a good defense to an action or proceeding instituted by the creditors of the grantor against him.'" 85. Flannery v. Van Tassel, 62 Hun 88. Jameson v. Dilley, 27 Ind. App. (N. Y.), 621, 16 N. Y. Supp. 741; 429, 61 N. E. 601; Randall v. Vroom, Coffin V. Day, 34 Fed. 687; State, 30 N. J. Eq. 353. Kramer v. Mason, 96 Mo. 559, 10 S. 89. Watson v. Tool, 36 Ala. 13; W. 179; Ellis v. Herrin (N. J. Ch. Hannan's Lessee v. Reese, 1 Browne 1892), 24 Atl. 129. (Pa.), 11. 86. State, Kramer v. Mason, supra. 90. Seaman v. Hasbrouck, 35 Barb. 87. Goodenow v. Friott, 89 Iowa, (N. Y.) 151; Robinson v. Mitchell, 62 671, 57 N. W. 437; Miles v. Miles, 6 N. H. 529. It has been held that Or. 266, 25 Am. Rep. 522; Dubbs v. where a debtor gave goods to a credi- Finley, 2 Pa. St. 379. See, however, tor on condition that certain of his Webb V. Atkinson, 124 N. C. 447, debts should be paid from the pro- 32 S. E. 737, where property was con- oeeds, and part of the goods were sold veyed which the grantee afterwards and the debts paid, that other credi- sold for $20,000 more than sufficient tors of the debtor had no claim upon to pay the liens, the surplus being the remainder, the gift having been paid over to the debtor, the convey- originally valid as against creditors, ance was declared fraudulent as to Riegel v. Wooley, 81 Pa. St. 227. creditors. Payment of mortgage after CONSIDEEATION. 309 § 18. Pre-existing liability — Payment or satisfaction of, or security for, pre-existing debt. — A conveyance or transfer of property by an insolvent debtor to his creditor in payment of a pre-existing or antecedent debt will be upheld if the debt be hona fide, its amount not materially less than the fair and reasonable value of the property, and payment of the debt is the sole consid- eration, and no use or benefit is secured or reserved to the debtor.'^ conveyance to another. — ^A person who on purchasing property has as- sumed to pay oflF a mortgage existing thereon, and who has subsequently conveyed the property to his wife by an assignment not in fraud of his creditors, may pay off the mortgage without committing a fraud on his creditors, since he might be compelled to pay it by action; and thereupon he becomes substituted to the rights and interest of the original mortgagee in the premises. Wilbur v. Fradenburg, 52 Barb. (N. Y.) 474. 91. ff. Y. — O'Connor v. Docen, 50 App. Div. 610, 64 N. Y. Supp. 206; Stacy V. Deshaw, 7 Hun, 449; Loes- chigk V. Hatfield, 5 Rob. 26. U. S. — Eepauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hardware Co., 101 Fed. 948, 42 C. C. A. 106; Budlong v. Kent, 28 Fed. 13. Ala. — G. Ober & Sons Co. v. Phil- lips ButtorfF Mfg. Co. (1906), 40 So. 278; Truitt v. Crook, 129 Ala. 377, 30 So. 618; McLendon v. Grice, 119 Ala. 513, 24 So. 846; Goetter v. Nor- man, 107 Ala. 585, 19 So. 56; Goet- ter V. Smith, 104 Ala. 481, 16 So. 534; Curran v. Olmstead, 101 Ala. 692, 14 So. 398; Fargerson v. Hall, 99 Ala. 209, 13 So. 302; Steiner v. Lowery, 98 Ala. 208, 13 So. 320; Dawson v. Flash, 97 Ala. 539, 12 So. 67; Chip- man V. Stern, 89 Ala. 207, 7 So. 409; Mobile Sav. Bank v. McConnell, 87 Ala. 736, 6 So. 703; McDowell v. Steele, 87 Ala. 493, 6 So. 288; Knowles v. Street, 87 Ala. 357, 6 So. 273; Jefferson County Sav. Bank V. Eborn, 84 Ala. 529, 4 So. 386; Moog V. Farley, 79 Ala. 246. Ark. — Carl, etc., Co. v. Beal, etc.. Grocer Co., 64 Ark. 373, 42 S. W. 664. Colo. — Tennis v. Barnes, 11 Colo. App. 196, 52 Pac. 1038. /ZJ.— Beidler v. Crane (1889), 19 N. E. 714; Hessing v. McCloslcy, 37 111. 341; McQuown v. Law, 18 111. App. 34. Ind. — Jones v. Gott, 10 Ind. 240. Md. — Washington Brewing Co. v. Carry (1892), 24 Atl. 151. Mich. — Oliver, etc.. Wire Co. v. Wheeler, 106 Mich. 408, 64 N. W. 195. Mo. — Kuykendall v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 416, 57 Am. Dec. 212; Pierce v. Lowder, 54 Mo. App. 25; State v. Excelsior Distilling Co., 20 Mb. App. 21. Pa. — Rahn v. McElrath, 6 Watts, 151. Term. — Hickman v. Quinn, 6 Yerg. 96. 2'ea!.— Clark v. Bell (Tex. Civ. App. 1905), 89 S. W. 38; La Belle Wagon Works V. Tidball, 69 Tex. 161, 6 S. W. 672; Smith v. Whitfield, 67 Tex. 124, 2 S. W. 822; Noyes v. Sanger, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 388, 27 S. W. 1022. Wis. — Noyes v. Schner, 70 Wis. 224, 35 N. W. 310; Gleason v. Day, 9 Wis. 498. 310 Feaudttlent Conveyances. Sucli a conveyance protects the vendee to the same extent as if there had been a new consideration, if taken in good faith and without intent to defraud the creditors of the vendor.'^ But where a dehtor makes a preferential transfer to a creditor in payment of a debt, not only must the indebtedness be bona fide but the pay- ment must be a bona' fide transaction.'' Where the evidence of the indebtedness is insufficient,'* or it appears that it was not recog- nized or acknowledged as a legal ind'ebtedness or obligation by the parties, until the grantor was threatened with financial troubles or became insolvent,'^ the conveyance will not be sustained as against existing creditors. A pre-existing debt is a good and suf- ficient consideration for a conveyance or transfer of property by a debtor, either in payment or satisfaction of, or as security for, such debt, both as against creditors and subsequent purchasers.** Agreement to convey to grantor's -nrife. — A conveyance of real estate to the father-in-law of the grantor, in payment of a pre-existing debt, is not fraudulent as to other creditors, although made with the understanding that the property should be conveyed to the grantor's wife as a gift. Smith v. Riggs, 56 Iowa, 488, 8 N. W. 479, 9 N. W. 385. Wliere note is given for ex- cess in value over debt. — ^A pur- chase bona fide made by a creditor from his debtor, who is in failing cir- cumstances, is not fraudulent simply because the consideration of the pur- chase is the debt due and a promis- sory note, bona fide given at the time, for an overplus in the price agreed to be paid above the debt due. Hobbs V. Davis, 50 Ga. 213. 92. Starr v. Dow (Neb. 1906), 108 N. W. 1065. 9,3. Hulse V. Mershon, 125 111. 52, 17 N. E. 50; Morris v. Coombs, 109 111. App. 176; Edrington v. Rogers, 15 Tex. 188; Long v. Deposit Bank, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 913, 90 S. W. 961. 94. Tanner v. Eckhart, 107 App. Div. (N. Y.) 79, 94 N. Y. Supp. 1013; Walters v. Merrit Pants Co. (Ark. 1905), 88 S. W. 879; O'Kane v. Vin- nedge, 108 Ky. 34, 55 S. W. 711, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1551. 95. Ashmead v. Baylor, 59 N. J. Eq. 469, 45 Atl. 699; Adoue v. Spencer, 59 N. J. Eq. 231, 46 Atl. 543; Fleisch- ner v. Bank of McMinville, 36 Or. 553, 54 Pac. 884, 60 Pac. 603, 61 Pac. 345 ; Mitchell V. Mitchell, 42 S. 0. 475, 20 S. E. 405. 96. N. Y.— New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 174 N. Y. 544, 67 N. E. 1086, aif'g 69 App. Div. 153, 74 N. Y. Supp. 692; Sey- mour V. Wilson, 19 N. Y. 417; Pear- son V. Cuthbert, 58 App. Div. 395, 68 N. Y. Supp. 1031; King v. Simmons, 36 App. Div. 623, 55 N. Y. Supp. 173; Commercial Bank v. Bolton, 20 App. Div. 70, 46 N. Y. Supp. 734; Colum- bus Watch Co. V. Hodenpyl, 61 Hun, 557, 16 N. Y. Supp. 337; Loeschigk V. Baldwin, 1 Rob. 377 ; Goff v. Alex- ander, 20 Misc. Rep. 498, 45 N. Y. Supp. 737 ; Fitts v. Beardsley, 8 N. Y. CoNSIDEEATION. 311 But the debt which constitutes the consideration must be an obli- gation for which the debtor is legally liable and which he could be compelled to pay by action.'^ A conveyance by a debtor to his creditor is voluntary and without consideration where no acquit- tance of the debt is given, and there is no consent or understanding that the conveyance is to discharge the debt,'* and the transfer of Supp. 567 ; Ludlow v. Hurd, 19 Johns. 218. U. 8. — Conard v. Atlantic Ins. Co., 26 U. S. 386, 7 L. Ed. 189, aff'g 2 Fed. Cas. No. 627, 4 Wash. 662; United States V. Coffin, 33 Fed. 337. Ala. — Taylor v. Dwyer, 131 Ala. 91, 32 So. 509; Henderson v. Ferryman, 114 Ala. 647, 22 So. 24; Harmon v. McRae, 91 Ala. 401, 8 So. 548; Tur- ner V. McFee, 61 Ala. 468. Ark. — Davis v. Jones, 67 Ark. 122, 53 S. W. 301; Smith v. Jones, 63 Ark. 232, 37 S. W. 1052. Gal. — Oaaey v. Leggett, 125 Cal. 664, 58 Pac. 264. Colo. — Wellington v. Terry (1906), 88 Pae. 467; Beaman v. Stewart, 19 Colo. App. 226, 74 Pac. 344; Denver Jobbers' Assoc, v. Rumsey, 19 Colo. App. 320, 71 Pae. 1001; Krippendorf- Dittman Co. v. Trenoweth, 16 Colo. App. 178, 64 Pae. 373; Sargent v. Chapman, 12 Colo. App. 529, 56 Pac. 194. Del. — Brown v. Dickerson, 2 Marv. 119, 42 Atl. 421. Fla. — ^Mercantile Exch. Bank v. Taylor (1906), 41 So. 22. Ga. — ^Davis v. Anderson, 1 Ga. 176. Ky. — Jones v. Dulaney & Mitchell, 27 Ky. L. Rep. 702, 86 S. W. 547. Tex. — Sparks v. Ponder (Tex. Civ. App. 1906), 94 S. W. 428; Riske v.^ Eotan Grocery Co. (Tex. Civ. App. 1906), 93 S. W. 708. 97. N. Y. — Lippert v. Gilmartin, 37 App. Div. 411, 55 N. Y. Supp. 1042; Wilbur v. Fradenburgh, 52 Barb. 474. U. 8. — Knower v. Haines, 31 Fed. 513, 24 Blatchf. 488. Ala. — British, etc., Mort. Co. v. Norton, 125 Ala. 522, 28 So. 31; Hub- bard v. Allen, 59 Ala. 283. Cal. — Fidelity, etc., Co. v. Thomp- son, 128 Cal. 506, 61 Pae. 94. /ZZ.— Banton v. Smith, 113 111. 481. Ind. — Hadley v. Hood, 94 Ind. 119. Iowa. — Sehoonover v. Foley (1903), 94 N. W. 492; Parriott v. Bowers, 111 Iowa, 740, 82 N. W. 998; Bur- lington Protestant Hospital Assoc, v. Gelinger, 111 Iowa, 293, 82 N. W. 766. Kan. — ^Holyoke Envelope Co. v. Heagler (App. 1901), 63 Pac. 450. Me. — Jose v. Hewett, 50 Me. 248. Pa. — In re Hoover, 12 Montg. Co., L. Rep. 113. Wis. — Livre v. Thielke, 115 Wis. 389, 91 N. W. 975. Compare First Nat. Bank v. Bertschky, 52 Wis. 438, 9 N. W. 534. Eng. — Penhall v. Elwin, 1 Smale & G. 288. Including interest not collecti- ble by law in a mortgage given for a just debt does not render it fraudu- lent, where the allowance of interest is just and equitable. Spencer v. Ayrault, 10 N. Y. 202; Doty v. Clint, 11 St. Rep. (N. Y.), 87. 98. Ames v. Dorroh, 76 Miss. 187, 23 So. 768, 71 Am. St. Rep. 522; Crecelius v. Bierman, 72 Mo. App. 355. 312 Fkaudulent Conveyances. property for antecedent debts, without extinguisliment or sur- render of such debts and of the old securities therefor, is not suf- ficient to constitute the transferee a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration.'' The payment or securing of an actual debt by a debtor must b© impeached by evidence tending to show, either some other advantage or benefit to the debtor beyond the discharge of his obligation, or some other benefit to the creditor beyond the mere payment of his debt, or some injury to the other creditors beyond the mere postponement to the debt preferred.^ The surrender by the grantee of notes which he holds against the grantor is such a valuable consideration as will sustain it as against the grantor's other creditors,^ unless the notes are in fact without consideration.^ A creditor's definitely extending the time for pay- ment of a debt is a sufficient consideration for a mortgage and renders him a bona fide purchaser.* A deed of trust made to secure a pre-existing debt in consideration of further indulgence for a year is not so unreasonable as to raise any presumption of an intent to hinder or delay creditors.* A deed to one for whose wife the grantor held funds in trust for which he had not accounted, and which was mad© to satisfy the trust, cannot be regarded as a voluntary conveyance.* Fraud cannot be attributed to a debtor 99. Wood V. Robinson, 22 N. Y. Webb v. Ingham, 29 W. Va. 389, 1 564; In re Morse, 17 Fed. Cas. No. S. E. 816. 9,851, 17 Blatchf. 72; Wellington v. 1. Meyers v. Meyers, 24 Pa. Super. Fuller, 38 Me. 61; Whitaker v. Sum- Ct. (1904), 603; Snayberger v. Fahl, ner, 37 Mass. 399; Pope v. Pope, 40 195 Pa. St. 336, 45 Atl. 1065, 78 Am. Miss. 516; Harney v. Pack, 4 Sm. & St. Rep. 818. M. (Miss.), 229; Oliver v. Moore, 23 2. Starin v. Kelly, 36 Super. Ct. Ohio St. 473; Starr v. Starr, 1 Ohio, (N. Y.), 366. 321. But see Westerly Sav. Bank v. 3. Neal v. Foster, 36 Fed. 29. Stillman Mfg. Co., 16 R. I. 497, 17 4. Snellgrave v. Evans (Ala. 1906), Atl. 918. 40 S°- 567. A mortgage given in It is a badge of frand for the consideration of the extention of a grantee to retain the evidence of in- debt, and of the mortgagor being debtedness in his possession uncan- permitted to pay the debt in install- celed whfen a conveyance, made "ments, is not necessarily void. U. S. in consideration of a pre-existing Nat. Bank v. Westervelt, 55 Neb. 424, debt has been perfected. Gardner 75 N. Y. 857. V. BrouBsard, 39 Tex. 372; 5. Lee v. Flanagan, 29 N. C. 471. 6. Irion v. Mills, 41 Tex. 310. CONSIDEEATION. 313 ■who sells his property for a fair consideration and applies the proceeds to the payment of horui fide creditors.^ A transfer of property to pay a loan is valid as against the vendor's creditors, although he had contracted to pay usurious interest, if the value of the property does not exceed the principal.* The fact that fraud was practiced by an insolvent corporation in the use of money borrowed from a bank and loaned to it in good faith and without participation in the fraud, does not invalidate the corporation's transfer of its property in payment of the money borrowed.' A mortgage executed by a fraudulent pnrdnaser of goods, to secure antecedent creditors, will be held valid as to such creditors, where, in consideration of the mortgage and without notice of fraud, they extended the time of their debt or assumed any new or additional obligation." A worthless debt of a third person is not a valuable consideration for a conveyance," and a transfer of partnership property in payment of an individual debt of one of the partners is void as to creditors of the partnership." § 19. Property in excess of debt. — ^A debtor may pay his cred- itor in goods or other property; but if the property conveyed or transferred by a debtor to one of his creditors largely exceeds in value the amount of the debt in payment of which the conveyance or transfer is made, the conveyance is fraudulent as to other cred- itors and may be set aside by them." Where an insolvent de^btor 7. Pochel V. Read, 20 App. Div. 12. Henderson v. Ferryman, 114 (N. Y.), 208, 46 N. Y. Supp. 775; Ala. 647, 22 So. 24; Leonard v. Wins- Farwell v. Norton, 77 III. App. 685. low, 2 Grant Cas. (Pa.), 139. Compare Lehmaa v. Kelly, 68 Ala, 13. N. T.— First Nat. Bank of Am- 192. sterdam v. Miller, 163 N. Y. 164, 57 8. McLendon v. Grice, 119 Ala. N. E. 308, revg. 24 App. Div. 551, 49 513, 24 So. 846; Belknap v. Groover N. Y. Supp. 981, where other attend- (Tex. Civ. App. 1900), 56 S. W. 249. ant circumstances show fraudulent in- 9. Ferguson v. Oxford Mercantile tent; Hollis v. Dreseher, 46 App. Div. C!o. (Miss. 1900), 27 So. 877. 151, 63 N. Y. Supp. 378. 10. Adam, etc., Co. v. Stewart, 157 Ala. — ^Henderson v. Ferryman, 114 Ind. 678, 61 N. E. 1002, 87 Am. St. Ala. 647, 22 So. 24; Moore v. Fenn, Kep. 240. 95 Ala. 200, 10 So. 343. 11. Seymour v. Wilson, 19 N. Y. Oal. — Sukeforth v. Lord, 87 Cal. 417. 399, 25 Pao. 497. 314 Fbaudulent Conveyances. transfers to his creditor property of a value greatly ia excess of the debt, in a state where transfers for the purpose of preferring one creditor to another are valid, the transfer is void at common law, as fraudulent as to creditors, with respect to the property trans- ferred which is in excess of the value of the debt" Where a trans- fer to secure a preferred creditor conveys an unreasonable amount of property, or includes practically all of the debtor's property, the value of which is greatly in excess of the debt, and the pre- Ga.— Banks v. Clapp, 12 Ga. 514; Peck V. Lang, 2 Ga. 1, 46 Am. Dec. 368. Compare Carey v. Giles, 10 Ga. 9. 7!I.— Head v. Harding, 166 111. 353, 46 N. E. 890, aif'g 62 111. App. 302. Kan. — Sohram v. Taylor, 51 Kan. 547, 33 Pac. 315, the property trans- ferred must bear a just proportion to the amount of the debt sought to be paid. La. — Sattler v. Marino, 30 La. Ann. 355; Worrell v. Vickers, 30 La. Ann. 202. Mich. — Steuben County Wine Co. v. Lee, 127 Mich. 698, 87 N. W. 129; Ryan v. Meyer, 108 Mich. 638, 66 N. W. 667. Mo.— Hewitt V. Price, 99 Mo. 666, 74 S. W. 414; Scott Hardware Co. v. Kiddle, 84 Mo. App. 275. But see Alberger v. National Bank of Com- merce, 123 Mo. 313, 27 S. W. 657. ye6. — Ogg V. Schultz, 61 Neb. 221, 85 N. W. 64; Morse v. Steinrod, 29 Neb. 108, 46 N. W. 922. N. J. — Clinton Hill Lumber, etc., Co. V. Strieby, 52 N. J. Eq. 576, 29 Atl. 589, when conveyed without right of redemption. Compare Brock v. Hudson County Bank, 48 N. J. Eq. 615, 23 Atl. 269, 27 Am. St. Rep. 451; Demarest v. Terhune, 18 N. J. Eq. 532. S. C— Fryer v. Bryan, 2 Hill Eq. 56. Tex. — Torrey v. Cameron, 73 Tex. 583, 11 S. W. 583; Oppenheimer v. Halff, 68 Tex. 409, 4 S. W. 562 ; How- erton v. Holt, 23 Tex. 51; Baylor v. Brown, 3 Tex. Civ. App. ;177, 21 S. W. 73. W. Fo.— Reilly v. Barr, 34 W. Va. 95, 11 S. E. 750; Knight v. Capito, 23 W. Va. 639. See Inadequacy of consideration, chap. VI, § 4, supra. Compare George v. Kimball, 41 Mass. 234. The assignment of a rigbt of action of a speculative value is not fraudulent as to other creditors because its value is in excess of the debts secured. Hutmacher v. An- heuser-Busch Brew. Assoc, 71 111. App. 154. 14. Mitchell v. McKibbin, 17 Fed. Cas. No. 9,666; Jaroslawski v. Simon, 3 Brewst. (Pa.), 37. Excess in amount secured by trust deed. — Where there is more property included in a trust deed than is sufiScient to satisfy all the debts secured by it, a pursuing credi- tor may file a, bill, against all the parties interested, to have the trust closed and the property subjected, first to the payment of the trust debts, and the excess to the satisfaction of the complainant's debts. Cornish v. Dews, 18 Ark. 172. CONSIDEKATION. 315 fen-ed creditor has knowl'edge of the insolvency of the debtor, it will be deemed fraudulent as to creditors whose claims are thereby defeated.^' A slight excess in the value of the property conveyed over the amount of the debt paid or secured does not, however, show inadequacy of consideration sufBcient to evince a fraudulent purpose and to justify the setting aside of the conveyance as a fraudulent transfer.'^' In such cases the law allows room for ordinary differences of opinion and will not weigh the estimates of opinion in too exacting a balance." In the absence of circum- stances showing insolvency or bad faith, a mortgage or a trust conveyance or other transfer, made for the security of a pre-exist- ing debt, will not be invalid for the reason that the property con- veyed is much larger in value than the debt which it is given to secure.'* Where the value of the property included in such a con- 15. Williams v. Stowell, 5 Kan. App. 880, 48 Pac. 894; Scott Hard- ware Co. V. Riddle, 84 Mo. App. 275 ; Oppenheimer v. Halff, 68 Tex. 409, 4 S. W. 562; Edrington v. Rogers, 15 Tex. 188; Thompson v. Rosenstein (Tex. Civ. App. 1902), 67 S. W. 439; Halff V. Goldfrank (Tex. Civ. App. 1899), 49 S. W. 1095. 16. N. y.— Laidlaw v. Gilmore, 47 How. Pr. 67. 17. s. — Rapauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hardware Co., 101 Fed. 948, 42 C. C. A. 106. ilfa.— Redd v. Wallace (1906), 40 So. 407. Iowa. — ^Warfleld v. Lynd, 67 Iowa, 722, 25 N. W. 896; Rusie v. Jameson, 62 Iowa, 52, 17 N. W. 103. S:an. — ^Wilhite v. Daniels (1902), 67 Pac. 452. ]^o. — Scott Hardware Co. v. Riddle, 84 Mo. App. 275. jfeb. — Chamberlain v. Woolsey, 66 Neb. 141, 92 N. W. 181, 95 N. W. 38. Pd. — Werner v. Zierfuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737; Hand v. Hitner, 140 Pa. St. 166, 21 Atl. 260, where the property was real estate upon which an arbitrary value was placed; Covan- hovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 57. Term. — ^McGrew v. Hancock (Ch. App. 1899), 52 S. W. 500. Tex. — Davis v. Reason, 77 Tex. 604, 14 S. W. 198. 17. Fargerson v. Hall, 99 Ala. 209, 13 So. 302; Mobile Sav. Bank v. Mc- Donnell, 89 Ala. 434, 8 So. 137, 18 Am. St. Rep. 137, 9 L. R. A. 645. 18. N. T. — ^Boessneck v. Cohn, 7 N. Y. Supp. 620. U. S.— Davis V. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Downs v. Kissam, 10 How. 102, 13 L. Ed. 346. D. C— Birdsall v. Welch, 6 D. C. 316. Iowa. — Ward v. Parker, 128 Iowa, 124, 103 N. W. 104. Kan. — Clement v. Hartzell, 57 Kan. 482, 46 Pac. 961. Mich. — ^Michigan Trust Co. v. Ben- nett, 106 Mich. 381, 64 N. W. 330; 316 Feaudulent Conveyances. veyance is greatly in excess of the debt secured a presumption of fraud may be raised," but fraud will not be indisputably presumed from the mere taking of excessive security, although, it is a cir- cumstamce to be considered by the court or jury in deteirmining whether a transaction was in fraud of creditors.^" § 20. Amount secured in excess of actual debt. — The mere fact that a morrtgage or other conveyance, given by an insolvent Warner v. Littlefield, 89 Mich. 329, 50 N. W. 721. If tss.— Taylor v. Walkins (1893), 13 So. 811. Jfeb. — Kilpatriek-Koch Dry Goods Co. V. Strauss, 45 Neb. 793, 64 N. W. _ 223; Grand Island Banking Co. v. Costello, 45 Neb. 119, 63 N. W. 376; Sherwin v. Gaghagen, 39 Neb. 238, 57 N. W. 1005; Grimes v. Farrington, 19 Neb. 44, 26 N. W. 618. N. 0.— Burgin v. Burgin, 23 N. C. 453. Term. — ^Roane v. Bank of Nashville, 38 Tenn. 526. Wis. — Cunningham v. Eagan, 102 Wis. 272, 78N. W.402; Menzesheimer V. Kennedy, 75 Wis. 411, 44 N. W. 508. Stipnlation. to delay foreclos- ure. — ^A mortgage of nearly all the debtor's estate to a principal credi- tor, fifty per cent, more in value than the debt secured, with a stipulation for two years' delay in its foreclosure, is void. Reynolds v. Welch, 47 Ala. 200. Mortgage held to be an invalid assigriunent. — A finding that a mort- gage of land was as invalid assign- ment by the mortgagor of his prop- erty to one creditor to the exclusion of other creditors, will not be dis- turbed where it appears that the mortgage covered all the mortgagor's land, and, with other mortgages on the land, amounted to over seven- eighths of its value, and there was no other property out of which credi- tors could collect their claims. Mitchell V. Mitchell, 42 S. C. 475, 20 S. E. 405. Several chattel mortgages exe- cuted simultaneously to secure debts, the aggregate of which is not unreasonably less than the property mortgaged, are not void because no one of such debts is in itself suffi- cient to justify so great a security. Jones V. Loree, 37 Neb. 816, 56 N. W. 390. 19. Williams v. Stowell, 5 Kan. App. 880, 48 Pac. 894; Crosby v. Hustpn, 1 Tex. 203. Compare Black Hills Mercantile Co. v. Gardner, 5 S. D. 246, 58 N. W. 557. 20. Tackaberry v. Gilmore, 57 Neb. 450, 78 N. W. 32; Dayton Spice Mills V. Sloan; 49 Neb. 622, 68 N. W. 1040; Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. V. Strauss, 45 Neb. 793, 64 N. W. 223 (distinguishmg Thompson v. Richard- son Drug Co., 33 Neb. 714, 50 N. W. 948, 29 Am. St. Rep. 505; Brown v. Work, 30 Neb. 800, 47 N. W. 192; Morse v. Steinrod, 29 Neb. 108, 46 N. W. 922); Grand Island Banking Co. V. Costello, 45 Neb. 119, 63 N. W. 376; Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. V. Bremers, 44 Neb. 863, 62 N. W. CONSIDEKATION. 317 debtor as security for a debt, is given for a greater sum than is actually due on the debt secured, is not conclusive evidence of fraud.^^ But a mortgage or other conveyance executed by a debtor who is insolvent or in failing circimistanoes, as security for a debt, for a sum known by the creditor at the time to be in excess of what is actually due on the debt, is presumptively fraudulent. ^^ A miscalculation, mis'take, or unintentional error 1105; Kilpatrick-Kooh Dry Goods Co. V. McPheely, 37 Neb. 800, 56 N. W. 389; Menzesheimer v. Kennedy, 75 Wis. 411, 44 N. W. 508. 21. 17. S. — ^United Statea v. Gris- wold, 8 Fed. 496, 7 Sawy. 296. 7JZ.— Bell V. Prewitt, 62 111. 361; Wooley V. Fry, 30 111. 158. Ind. — Adams v. Laugel, 144 Ind. 608, 42 N. E. 1017; Gofif v. Eogers, 71 Ind. 459. Iowa. — ^Van Patten v. Thompson, 73 Iowa, 103, 34 N. W. 763; Wood v. Scott, 55 Iowa, 114, 7 N. W. 465. Kan. — Bowling v. Searles, 57 Kan. 174, 45 Pae. 584; Bush v. Bush, 33 Kan. 556, 6 Pae. 794; Hughes v. Shull, 33 Kan. 127, 133, 5 Pae. 414, 770. Moss. — Parker v. Barker, 43 Mass. 423. Mich. — ^Louden v. Vinton, 108 Mich. 313, 66 N. W. 222; Williaon v. Deaen- berg, 41 Mich. 156, 2 N. W. 201. Minn. — Heim v. Chapel, 62 Minn. 338, 64 N. W. 825; Berry v. O'Con- nor, 33 Minn. 29, 29 N. W. 840, nor the fact that its condition fails to describe the real character of the in- debtedness or liability intended to be secured. Neb. — Smith v. Bowen, 51 Neb. 245, 70 N. W. 949. y. B. — Whittredge v. Edmonds, 63 N. H. 248. Pa. — Gordon v. Preston, 1 Watts, 385, 26 Am. Dec. 75. Tenn. — ^Bumpas v. Dotson, 26 Tenn. 310, 46 Am. Dec. 81. Wis. — Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 500, 3 N. W. 16. But see Butts v. Peacock, 23 Wis. 359. Za. U. S.— Hart v. Heidweyer, 152 U. S. 547, 14 Sup. Ct. 671, 38 L. Ed. 548; Kellogg v. Clyne, 54 Fed. 696, 12 U. S. App. 174, 4 C. C. A. 554; Hubbard v. Turner, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,819, 2 McLean, 519. Ala. — ^Marriott v. Givena, 8 Ala. 694; Stover v. Herrington, 7 Ala. 142, 4i Am. Dec. 86. Ark. — Henry v. Harrell, 57 Ark. 569, 22 S. W. 433. Gah—Tvilj V. Harloe, 35 Cal. 302, 95 Am. Dec. 102; Wiscoxson v. Bur- ton, 27 Cal. 228, 87 Am. Dee. 66. Conn. — Bramhall v. Flood, 41 Conn. 68. III. — Adams v. Pease, 113 111. App. 356. Iowa. — Busaard v. Bullitt, 95 Iowa, 736, 64 N. W. 658; Taylor v. Wend- ling, 66 Iowa, 562, 24 N. W. 40; Lombard v. Dows, 66 Iowa 243, 23 N. W. 649; City of Davenport v. Cummings, 15 Iowa, 219. Kan. — Williams v. Stowell, 5 Kan. App. 880, 48 Pae. 894. Mich. — Patrick v. Riggs, 105 Mich. 616, 63 N. W. 532; Ferris v. Mc- Queen, 94 Mich. 367, 54 N. W. 164; Showman v. Lee, 86 Mich. 556, 45 N. W. 578; King v. Hubbell, 42 Mich. 597, 4 N. W. 440. 318 Feaudulent Conveyances. in the amount of tihe debt secured by a mortgage or other con- veyance will not vitiate such a conveyance.^ It must appear Minn. — ^Hanson v. Bean, 51 Minn. 546, 53 N. W. 871, 38 Am. St. Rep. 516. Jfo.— First Nat. Bank v. Pry, 168 Mo. 492, 68 S. W. 348; Imhoflf v. McArthur, 148 Mo. 371, 48 S. W. 456. But see Colbern v. Robinson, 80 Mo. 541. N. J.— Heintze v. Bently, 34 N. J. Eq. 562, aff'g 33 N. J. Eq. 405. Pa.— Orr v. Peters, 197 Pa. St. 606, 47 Atl. 849; Whiting v. Johnson, 11 Serg. & R. 328, 14 Am. Dec. 633; Hieber v. Neary, 7 Pa. Dist. 596. But see Heiney v. Anderson, 9 Lane. Bar 13. S. C— Hipp V. Sawyer, 1 Rich. Eq. Cas. 410. Compare Smith v. Pate, 3 S. C. 204. Wis. — ^Rioe v. Morner, 64 Wis. 599, 25 N. W. 668; Stein v. Hermann, 23 Wis. 132. Wliere exact amonnt of debt •was not known. — The giving of a note and mortgage by an insolvent for an amount larger than he really owes is not a fraud on his other creditors, where it appears that neither he nor the mortgagee knew accurately the amount due, which embraced mutual dealings for a series of years; that it was agreed that the mortgage should secure only the sum actually due; and that there was no intent to defraud other creditors. Lycoming Rubber Co. v. King, 90 Iowa, 343, 57 N. W. 864. See also Wood V. Scott, 55 Iowa, 114, 7 N. W. 465; Davis v. Charles, 8 Pa. St. 82. IVliere valne of property was less than actnal debt. — The execu- tion of a deed of trust to secure a debt of three thousand dollars, when only about half that amount is due, does not show the deed to be fraud- ulent as to other creditors, where the value of the land is but $650. Sawyer v. Bradshaw, 125 111. 440, 17 N. E. 812. A deed intended as a mortgage which expresses a consideration largely in excess of the debt will be viewed by the court with suspicion, and the evidence of good faith and absence of fraudulent intent as against contesting creditors must be full and satisfactory; but such a con- veyance is not constructively fraudu- lent. Jefferson County Bank v. Hum- mel, 11 Colo. App. 337, 53 Pac. 286. See also McClur© v. Smith, 14 Colo. 297, 23 Pac. 786; Ross v. Duggan, 5 Colo. 85. Wbere debt and fntnre ad- Tances equal amount of mort- gage. — Chattel mortgages are not fraudulent as purporting to secure a debt larger than the actual debt and future advances, where the agree- ment was that the remainder of the money was to be advanced substan- tially at once. Bradley Co. v. Paul, 94 Wis. 488, 69 N. W. 168. 23. Ala. — Pennington v. Woodall, 17 Ala. 685. Kan. — Symns Grocer Co. v. Lee, 9 Kan. App. 574, 58 Pac. 237. Mo. — ^Rogers, etc., Hardware Co. v. Randell, 69 Mo. App. 342. Nei. — ^Trompen v. Yates, 66 Neb. 525, 92 N. W. 647. Pa. — Baldwin v. Harron, 19 Pa. Co. Ct. 634. Tex. — Freybe v. Tiernan, 76 Tex. 286, 13 S. W. 370. CONSIDEKATION. 319 that it was so taken intentionally, and not by mere mistake, in computation or otherwise.'* § 21. Debts not yet due. — A conveyance of property at a fair valuation by a failing debtor to his creditor, in payment of a subsisting and honest debt, which has not yet matured, is not fraudulent in respect to his other creditors.'^ The fact that notes on which judgment was confessed were not due, or the cause of action had not matured, is not sufficient to show that a confession of judgment was fraudulent.^* Where the property conveyed by a debtor to a creditor greatly exceeds the amount of his claim, and the daim is not yet due, the conveyance will be held to be fraudulent and void as to creditors." § 22. Debts barred by limitation. — The fact that the recovery of a debt, alleged to be the consideration of a conveyance, was barred by the statute of limitations when the conveyance was made, does not affect the sufficiency of the consideration, or render the conveyamce void as against creditors.^' Only the 24. Kalk V. Fielding, 50 Wis. 339, St. Rep. 816; McConnell v. Barber, 7 N. W. 296. 86 Hun, 360, 33 N. Y. Supp. 480; 25. Bedell v. Chase, 34 N. Y. 386; Del Valle v. Hyland, 76 Hun, 493, 27 Symns Grocer Co. v. Smith, 6 Kan. N. Y. Supp. 1059; Davis v. Howard, App. 258, 51 Pac. 803; Shedd v. Bank 73 Hun, 347, 26 N. Y. Supp. 194; of Brattleboro, 32 Vt. 709; McGrew Mellen v. Banning, 72 Hun, 176, 25 V. Hancock (Tenn. Ch. App. 1899), N. Y. Supp. 542; Ellis v. Myers, 8 N. 52 S. W. 500. Contra. — TaaflFe v. Y. Supp. 139, 4 Silv. 323. Josephson, 7 Cal. 352, such a convey- V. 8. — Vansickle v. Wells, Fargo & ance is constructively fraudulent; Co., 105 Fed. 16; Wilson v. Jones, 76 Mansfield v. First Nat. Bank, 5 Fed. 484, when part of debts were Wash. 665, 32 Pac. 789, 999. barred by the statute of limitations. 26. Pond v. Davenport, 45 Cal. Go. — Comer v. Allen, 72 Ga. 1, 225; East Side Bank v. Columbus mortgage by husband to wife. Tanning Co., 15 Pa. Co. Ct. 357. Iowa. — Roberts v. Brothers, 119 27. Lee v. Wathen, 42 Ky. 297; Iowa, 309, 93 N. W. 289; City Bank Brown v. Work, 30 Neb. 800, 47 N. W. v. Wright, 68 Iowa, 132, 26 N. W. 192; Hartman v. Allen, 77 Tenn. 657. 35, transfer by husband to wife. 28. N. Y. — Manchester v. Tibbetts, Kan. — Kennedy v. Powell, 34 Kan. 121 N. Y. 219, 24 N. E. 304, 18 Am. 22, 7 Pac. 606. 320 Feaudulent Conveyances. debtor himself can take advantage of the statute under such circumstances, and he is not obliged by any duty he owes his other creditors to interpose the statute of limitations as a de- fence.^' But the fact that the consideration of the conveyance "was a debt barred by limitation is a circumstance which may be considered in determining the question of good faith,'" al- though it is not controlling or conclusive.'^ A judgment by con- fession for a debt barred by the statute of limitations, or founded on am. obligation not enforceable under the statute of frauds, is valid as against other creditors.'* § 23. Taking additional security for debts amply secured. — A mortgage executed by an insolvent or one greatly in debt. Minn, — ^Froat v. Steele, 46 Minn. 1, 48 N. W. 413. Mo.— Gentry v. Field, 143 Mo. 399, 45 S. W. 286. Neh. — Plvtmmer v. Bohman, 61 Neb. 61, 84 N. W. 600, 62 Neb. 145, 87 N. W. 11; Dayton Spice-Mills Co. V. Sloan, 49 Neb. 622, 68 N. W. 1040. 8. 0. — ^Leake v. Anderson, 43 S. C. 448, 21 S. E. 439; MoPherson v. Mc- Pherson, 21 S. C. 261. Tew. — ^Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Rather (Civ. App. 1895), 30 S. W. 812; Pierce v. Winberly, 78 Tex. 187, 14 S. W. 454, conveyance by father to son. Va. — Eobinson v. Bass, 100 Va. 190, 40 S. E. 660. Iioan by -nrife to hnsband. — Neither the statute of limitations nor the presumption of payment arising from lapse of time applies to a loan made by wife to her husband, so as to render fraudulent a conveyance by the husband preferring her. Dice v. Irvin, 110 Ind. 561, 11 N. E. 488. The statute of limitations does not run against a wife upon a, debt due from her husband. Beliot Second Nat. Bank v. Merrill, etc.. Iron Works, 81 Wis. 151, 50 N. W. 505, 29 Am. St. Eep. 877. 29. Manchester v. Tibbetts, 121 N. Y. 219, 24 N. E. 304, 18 Am. St. Eep. 816; Ellis v. Myers, 54 Hun (N. Y.), 638, 8 N. Y. Supp. 139; Kennedy v. Powell, 34 Kan. 22, 7 Pac. 606, the debtor is not compelled to resort to this defense, nor can his other cred- itors interfere and insist upon it for him. 30. McConnell v. Barber, 88 Hun (N. Y.), 360, 33 N. Y. Supp. 480; Vansickle v. Wells, Fargo & Co., 105 Fed. 16; Sturm v. Chalfant, 38 W. Va. 248, 18 S. E. 451; Kanawha Val- ley Bank v. Atkinson, 32 W. Va. 203, 9 S. E. 175, 25 Am. St. Eep. 806. 31. McConnell v. Barber, supra; French v. Motley, 63 Me. 326. 32. Keen v. Kleckner, 42 Pa. St. 529. Judgment notes or bonds, given by a son-in-law to his father-in-law for debts upon which the statute of limitations had run, are in fraud of creditors, within the meaning of the Virginia Code. Crawford v. Craw- ford, 4 W. Va. 56. CONSIDEEATION. 321 and purporting to secure a debt already amply secured, will be considered fraudulent as to creditors.'^ A secret transfer of. choses in action, made by a creditor after the execution of a deed of trust for his benefit, with intent to give him additional security, is fraudulent as to other oreditors.'* But a creditor may take any number of securities for the pa,ymeint of a debt, without subjecting himself or the debtor to suspicion, if the latter be solvent, and if insolvent, without exciting just suspicion, un- less the securities, are excessive, indicating a purpose to shield the property of the debtor from the reach of other creditor.^^ §1 24. Conveyance in execution of prior valid agreement. — Where a deed is executed in pursuance of a prior parol agree- ment, made for a valuable consideration, the payment of the consideration creates a trust by implication, and renders the conveyance in accordance with such trust agreement valid as against creditors of the grantor.^' Where a final agreement, on a valuable consideration, is made to convey lands, and it is carried into effect by giving a deed, the consideration for the agreement is to be deemed the consideration for the deed, and, if sufficient, will support it as against creditors.^' 33. Lombard v. Dows, 66 Iowa, prior parol partition, fully carried 243, 23 N. W. 649, a mortgage for ad- into effect by each party taking pos- vances made and to be made where session of his allotted share; Gott- the mortgagee did not obligate him- stein v. Wist, 22 Wash. 581, 61 Pac. self to make any future advances and 715, the grantor having executed the past advances were already amply se- deed in satisfaction of a, legal obliga- cured; Crapster v. Williams, 21 Kan. tion, could not question its validity, 109; Jaffray v. Wolf, 4 Okla. 303, 47 and his creditors can occupy no bet- Pac. 496. ter position. 34. Reeves v. John, 95 Tenn. 434, 37. Pulte v. Geller, 47 Mich. 560, 32 S. W. 312. 11 N. W. 385. See also Mundy v. 33. Hendon v. Morris, 110 Ala. Mason, 67 Ky. 339. Compare Zim- 106, 20 So. 27. merman v. Bannon, 101 Wis. 407, 77 36. Norton v. Mallory, 63 N. Y. N. W. 735, where the alleged agree- 434, aif'g 1 Hun (N. Y.), 499; Bils- ment was one upon which the debtor borrow v. Titus, 15 How. Pr. (N. Y.) making the conveyance did not ap- 95 deeds given in pursuance of a pear to have been liable. 21 322 Feaudulent Convetances. § 25. Marriage as consideration for antenuptial settlement. — A conveyance, the consideration of wiueh is marriage, is not a voluntary conveyance.'' Marriage being the highest consider- ation known to the law,'' an antenuptial conveyance or settlement of property made in consideration of marriage is upon a good and valuable consideration, and is valid as against creditors of the grantor.^" Marriage is a valid consideration sufficient to 38. Toulmin v. Buchanan, 1 Stew. (Ala.) 67; Cohen v. Knox, 90 Cal. 266, 27 Pac. 215, 13 L. R. A. 711; Bonser v. Miller, 5 Or. 110; La Prince v. Guillemot, 1 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 187; Moore's Adm'r v. Dawney, 3 Hen. & M. (Va.) 127. Compare Lionberger v. Baker, 88 Mo. 447, aff'g 14 Mo. App. 353; Davidson v. Graves, Riley Eq. (S. C.) 219. 39. Magniac v. Thomson, 32 U. S. 348, 8 L. Ed. 709, af'g 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,956; Johnston v. Billiard, 1 Bay (S. C), 232. 40. N. Y. — ^De Hierapolis v. Reilly, 44 App. Div. 22, 60 N. Y. Supp. 417, af'd 168 N. Y. 585, 60 N. E. 1110; Wright v. Wright, 59 Barb. 505, af'd 54 N. Y. 437; Verplank v. Sterry, 12 Johns. 536, 7 Am. Deo. 348; Sterryv.Arden,! Johns. Ch. 261. Ala. — Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, 4 So. 699, 5 Am. St. Rep. 378; An- drews V. Jones, 10 Ala. 400. CoJ.— Cohen v. Knox, 90 Cal. 266, 27 Pac. 215, 13 L. K. A. 711; Peck v. ±'eck, 77 Cal. 106, 19 Pac. 227, 11 Am. St. Rep. 244, 1 L. R. A. 185. Conn. — Sanford v. Atwood, 44 Conn. 141. Ga. — Bradley v. Saddler, 54 Ga. 681; Vason v. Bell, 53 Ga. 416. 7H.— MoAnnulty v. McAnnulty, 120 111. 26, 11 N. E. 397, 60 Am. Rep. C52; Campbell, etc., Co. v. Ross, 86 \\\. App. 356, afd 187 111. 553, 58 N. L. 508. Ind. — ^Marmon v. White, 151 Ind. 445, 51 N. E. 930; State v. Osbom, 143 Ind. 671, 42 N. E. 921. Ky. — Sanders v. Miller, 79 Ky. 517, 42 Am. Rep. 237. Me. — ^Tolman v. Ward, 86 Me. 305, 29 Atl. 1081, 41 Am. St. Rep. 556. Md.— Albert v. Winn, 5 Md. 66; Betts V. Union Bank, 1 Harr. &, G. 175, 18 Am. Dec. 283. Ma^s. — Clark v. McMahon, 170 Mass. 91, 48 N. E. 939. Miss. — Armfield v. Armfield, 4 Freem. 311; Spears v. Shropshire, 11 La. Ann. 559, 66 Am. 206, decided under the Mississippi law. Mo. — Ploss V. Thomas, 6 Mo. App. 157. Ohio. — Henry v. Henry, 27 Ohio St. 121. Or. — Bonser v. Miller, 5 Or. 110. Pa. — Provident Life, etc., Co. v. Fidelity Ins. Trust, etc., Co., 203 Pa. St. 82, 52 Atl. 34; Appeal of Jones, 62 Pa. St. 324; Appeal of Frank, 59 Pa. St. 190; Ethridge v. Dunshee, 31 Pittsb. L. J. 39. 8. C. — Rivers v. Thayer, 7 Rich. Eq. 136; Ramsay v. Richardson, Riley Eq. 271; Tunno v. Trezevant, 2 Desauss. 264. Term. — Cains v. Jones, 13 Tenn. 249. Vt. — Pierce v. Harrington, 58 Vt. 649, 7 Atl. 462. Va. — Bumgardner v. Harris, 92 Va. 188, 23 S. E. 229; Noble v. Davies CONSIDEKATION'. 323 sustain a conveyance made with intent on the part of the grantor to defraud his creditors, unless knowledge on the part of the grantee of such fraudulent intent is alleged and proven. But a marriage settlement cannot be made a cover for fraud. If the purpose is to delay or defraud creditors, and both parties are cognizant of it, the consideration of marriage will liot sup- port the settlement." A conveyance to a woman in consideration (1887), 4 S. E. 206; Herring v. Wickham, 29 Gratt. 628, 26 Am. Rep. 405; Bentley v. Harris, 2 Gratt. 357; Coutts V. Greenhow, 2 Munf. 363, 5 Am. Dec. 472, rev'g 4 Hen. & M. 485. By statute, conveyances in considera- tion of marriage are now void as to existing creditors. Va. Code, § 2459 ; Snyd«r v. GrandstaiT, 96 Va. 473, 31 S. E. 647, 70 Am. St. Eep. 863. W. Va. — Boggess v. Richards Adm'r, 39 W. Va. 567, 20 S. E. 599, 45 Am. St. Rep. 938, 26 L. R. A. 537. Eng. — Barrow v. Barrow, 2 Dick. 504, 21 Eng. Reprint, 365; Campion V. Cotton, 17 Ves. Jr. 263, 34 Eng. Reprint, 102; Nairne v. Prowse, 6 Ves. Jr. 752, 6 Rev. Rep. 37, 31 Eng. Reprint, 129. Can. — Ryland v. Almutt, 11 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 135. Compare Turgeon V. Shannon, 20 Quebec Super. Ct. C. S. 135. See Rights of grantee under marriage settlement, chap. XIV, § 41, inpa. In lionisiana a donation propter nuptias by the husband, comprising all his property, of » value less in amount than that of a judgment entered up against him, will be re- garded as in fraud of creditors. Har- mon V. Ryan, 10 La. Ann. 661. A donation propter nuptias could not, by the Spanish law or the Code of 1808, be made to the prejudice of creditors. Cable v. Coe, 4 La. 554; Mercer v. Andrews, 2 La. 538. A deed of trust to secure a pre-existing volnntary bond, executed by a father to his daughter payable on her marriage, the father being wealthy and unembarrassed at the time of the execution of the bond, but insolvent at the time the deed is executed, is valid against creditors becoming such after the marriage of the daughter. Welles v. Cole, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 645. ■Where property is settled npon a wife for her life, with remainder over to the sister of the grantor and her children, the re- mainder is without valuable consid- eration and void as to creditors whose claims existed at the time of the settlement. Bumgardner v. Har- ris, 92 Va. 188, 22 S. E. 229. The trustees of a marriage settlement are purchasers for a valuable consideration. In re Don- dan (1902), 1 Ir. 109. Af ter-acqizired property. A covenant by a husband in a settle- ment made in consideration of mar- riage to settle all his after-acquired property except business assets is not too vague and uncertain to be enforced. In re Reis, 73 L. J. K. B. 929 (1904), 2 K. B. 769, 91 Law 1. 592, 53 Wkly. Rep. 122, 11 Manson, 229, 20 T. L. R. 547. 41. U. S.— Prewett v. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22, 26 L. Ed. 360, rev'g 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,828, 3 Woods, 631. 324 Ejjaudulent Cois-veyances. of her marrying the grantor is void as against his creditors, if she knows that his remaining property .is not suf&cient to satisfy their claims, but is valid against creditors of the grantor, not- withstanding the insolvency of the latter, unless the grantee has notice of such insolvency.*^ The fact that the conveyance transfers the whole property of the grantor is sufficient to charge the grantee with notice of fraud.*' Where a party promises to marry in good faith and for a consideration, he or she is entitled to the consideration for such a promise, and if, without fault upon his or her part, the marriage does not take place, it does Co?.— Cohen v. Knox, 90 Cal. 266, 27 Pac. 215, 13 L. R. A. 711. Ga. — Comer v. Allen, 72 Ga. 1. Ind. — State v. Osborne, 143 Ind. 761, 42 N. E. 921; Bunnel v. Witherow, 29 Ind. 123. Me. — Gibson v. Bennett, 79 Me. 302, 9 Atl. 727. Mass. — Clark v. McMabon, 170 Mass. 91, 48 N. E. 939. Or. — Bonser v. Miller, 5 Or. 110. Pa, — Appeal of Frank, 59 Pa. St. 190. B. I. — ^National Exch. Bank v. Watson, 13 R. I. 91, 43 Am. Rep. 132. W. Va. — ^Dent v. Pickens, 46 W. Va. 378, 33 S. E. 303. Can. — Commercial Bank v. Cooke, 9 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 524; Thompson V. Gore, 12 Ont. 651. Eng. — Bulmer v. Hunter, L. R. 8 Eq. 46, 38 L. J. Ch. 543, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 942; Wheeler v. Caryl, Ambl. 121, 27 Eng. Reprint, 79; Rasher v. Thompson, 1 Giff. 49, 5 Jur. N. S. 669, 7 Wkly. Rep. 607; Campion v. Cotton, 17 Ves. Jr. 271, 34 Eng. Reprint, 102; Kirk v. Clark, Prec. Ch. 275, 24 Eng. Reprint, 133; Columbine v. Penhall, 1 Smale & G. 228; Wenman v. Lyon, 1 Q. B. 634, 64 L. T. Rep. N. S. 88, 39 Wkly. Rep. 301, aff'd 2 Q. B. 192, 60 L. J. Q. B. 663, 65 L. T. Rep. N". S. 136, 39 Wkly. Rep. 519. Facticipation in fraud avoids settlement. — Where a man executed an ante-nuptial settlement and mar- ried a woman with whom he had an immoral intimacy, and the evidence showed that such marriage was en- tered into solely with intent to de- fraud his creditors, the wife being implicated in the transaction, the set- tlement was fraudulent and void as Ejgainst creditors. Re Pennington, 59 L. T. Rep. N. S. 774, 5 Morr. Bankr. Cas. 216, a^'d 5 Morr. 268. See Ef- fect of knowledge or notice where transfer is to one not a creditor, chap. XIII, § 6, infra. 42. Keep v. Keep, 7 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.) 240; Otis v. Spencer, 102 111. 622, 40 Am. Rep. 617. See also In- debtedness or insolvency of grantor, chap. VII, supra. Knowledge and in- tent of grantee when transfer is for valuable consideration, chap. XIII, § 4, infra. 43. McGowan v. Hitt, 16 S. C. 602, 42 Am. Rep. 650; Simpson v. Graves, Riley Eq. (S. C.) 232; Croft v. Arthur, 3 Desauss. (S. C.) 223. See Badges of fraud. Transfer of all of debtor's property, chap. VI, § 8, supra. CoNSIDEEATION. 325 not affect the title to the consideration." Where a man conveys land to a woman on promise of marriage by her, she can hold the same against his creditors, although the marriage is prcr vented by death. *^ A deed made in consideration of marriage is valid, as against existing creditors of the grantor, although not delivered until after the marriage is consummated, in the absence of bad faith on the part of the wife." An ante-nuptial settlement, securing the future eaxnings of the wife to her sole use, would be fraudulent, even in respect to future creditors." § 26. Effect of marriage on prior voluntary conveyance. — Where there is a voluntary conveyance, not actually fraudulent, in the hands of the grantee, if a subsequent marriage takes place and the conveyance forms any inducement to the marriage, it is confirmed by the subsequent marriage and becomes a con- veyance for a valuable consideration sufficient to render it valid, not only as against a subsequent purchaser, but also against the creditors of the grantor.** But the rule that marriage constitutes a good and valuable consideration does not apply where a volun- .tary conveyance is made by a father to his child, who after- wards marries, unless it appears affirmatively that the marriage was induced, wholly or in part, by the conveyance.*' § 27. Conveyance after marriage in accordance with ante- nuptial agreement. — A post-nuptial settlement, or a conveyance from a husband to his wife pursuant to an antenuptial settle- 44. De Hierapolis V. Eeilly, 44 App. Whelan, 3 Cow. (N. Y.) 537; Ver- Div. (N. Y.) 22, 60 N. Y. Supp. 417. plank v. Sterry, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 45. Smith v. Allen, 87 Mass. 454, 536, 7 Am. Dec. 348; Sterry v. Arden, 81 Am. Dec. 758. 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 261; Huston's 46. Wood & Huston Bank V. Read, Heirs v. Cantril, 11 Leigh (Va.), 131 Mo. 553, 33 S. W. 176. 136; Guardian Assur. Co. v. Avon- 47. Keith v. Woombell, 25 Mass. more, Ir. R. 6 Eq. 396. 211. See Wages or earnings of 49. Whelan v. Whelan, 3 Cow. (N. debtor's wife, chap, IV, § 9, supra. Y.) 537; Stokes v. Jones, 18 Ala. 48. Wood V. Genet, 8 Wend. (N. 734; O'Brien v. Coulter, 2 Blackf. Y.) 9, 22 Am. Dec. 603; Whelan v. (Ind.) 421. 32G Fraudulent Co3jvetances. mem.t, is valid, even' as against creditors or purcliasers, if it is made in pursuance of a valid agreement entered into before marriage.^" But under statutes requiring agreemeats in con- sideration of marriage to be in writing and signed by tbe par- ties, a conveyance of land, tlie only consideration for which was the promise to marry, though the marriage takes place, is invalid as against the existing creditors of the grantor." Mar- riage is not such a part performance of an oral ante-nuptial contract, the sole consideration of which is marriage, as to take it out of the operation of the statute of frauds, and the contract cannot be specifically enforced in a court of equity; and, there- fore, such an ante-nuptial agreement is not a sufficient considera- tion to sustain a conveyance from the husband to the wife after marriage, as against the creditors of the former. ^^ 50. 17. 8. — Magniac v. Thompson, 32 U. S. 348, 8 L. Ed. 709, off'fir 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,956. Ala. — ^Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, 4 So. 699, 5 Am. St. Kep. 378; Lock- wood v. Nelson, 16 Ala. 294. Ind. — Marmon v. White, 151 Ind. 445, 51 N. E. 930; Clow v. Brown (Ind. App. 1904), 72 N. W. 534. Ky. — Sanders v. Miller, 79 Ky. 517, 42 Am. Rep. 237; Kinnard v. Daniel, 52 Ky. 496. Va. — ^Dabney v. Kennedy, 7 Gratt. 317. Wyo. — ^Metz v. Blackburn, 9 Wyo. 481, 65 Pac. 857; North Platte Mill- ing, etc., Co. V. Price, 4 Wyo. 293, 33 Pac. 664. Eng. — Brunsden v. Stratton, Prec. Ch. 520, 24 Eng. Reprint, 233. Com- pare Battersby v. Farrington, 1 Swanst. 106, 36 Eng. Reprint, 317, 1 Wils. Ch. 88, 37 Eng. Reprint, 40, 18 Rev. Rep. 32. Compare Bank of South Carolina v. Mitchell, Rice Eq. (S. C.) 389, a deed of marriage set- tlement executed previous to mar- riage, which was never recorded, is not a, sufficient consideration as against subsequent creditors. An ante-nnptial settlement whicli was extinguished, by agreement between all the parties in- terested under it after the marriage, and the property named in it divided and delivered, cannot constitute a consideration for a subsequent con- veyance by the husband to the wife of the property received by him un- der such division. Harper v. Scott, 12 Ga. 125. Where a greater interest in the property is secnred to the wife than was provided for in the marriage articles, by a post-nuptial settlement, it is void as against cred- itors. Saunders v. Ferrill, 23 N. C. 97. 51. Dygert v. Remerschnider, 32 N. Y. 629, aff'g 39 Barb. (N. Y.) 417; Lamb v. Lamb, 18 App. Div. (N. Y.) 250, 46 N. Y. Supp. 219; Manning v. Riley, 52 N. J. Eq. 39, 27 Atl. 810. 52. N. Y.— Hunt v. Hunt, 171 N. CONSIDEEATION. 327 § 28. Post-nuptial settlements. — A post-nuptial settlement upon or conveyance to a husband or wife, made without a valuable consideration and not in pursuance of a valid ante-nuptial agree- ment, is a mere voluntary conveyance, and void as to prior credi- tors of the grantor f^ but a post-nuptial voluntary settlement by a Y. 296, 64 N. E. 159, 59 L. R. A. 306, aff'g 55 App. Div. 430, 66 N. Y. Supp. 957 ; Whyte v. Denike, 53 App. Div. 320, 65 N. Y. Supp. 577 ; Reade V. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. 481, 8 Am. Dec. 520; Wickes v. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. 58. Recovery by trustee in bank- ruptcy. — A conveyance by an insol- vent to his wife of a large amount of house furnishings bought on credit, in consideration of the marriage, under a previous oral agreement, held fraudulent as to creditors in suit by trustee in bankruptcy. Hosmer v. Tiffany, 54 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 402, 105 N. Y. Supp. 1055, 17 Am. B. R. 318. Ala. — Carter v. Worthington, 82 Ala. 334, 2 So. 516, 60 Am. Rep. 738. /ZJ.— Keady v. White, 168 111. 76, 48 N. E. 314, af'g 69 111. App. 405. Md.— Albert v. Wynn, 5 Md. 66. Md. 66. Mass. — ^Deshon v. Wood, 148 Mass. 132, 19 N. E. 1, 1 L. R. A. 518. y. C. — Credle v. Carrawan, 64 N. C. 422. Pa. — Barnes v. Black, 193 Pa. St. 447, 44 Atl. 550, 74 Am. St. Rep. 694; Flory v. Houck, 186 Pa. St. 263, 40 Atl. 482, it cannot be sustained by relation back to an oral ante- nuptial agreement. Eng.—ln re Holland (1902), 2 Ch. 360, 71 L. J. Ch. 518, 86 L. T. Rep. N. S. 542, 9 Manson, 259, 50 Wkly. Rep. 575; Warden v. Jones, 2 De G. & J. 76, 4 Jur. N. S. 269, 27 L. J. Ch. 190, 6 Wkly. Rep. 180, 59 Eng. Ch. 61, 44 Eng. Reprint, 916; Trowell V. Shenton, L. R. 8 Ch. Div. 318; L'Estrange v. Robinson, 1 Hog. 202; Randall v. Morgan, 12 Ves. Jr. 67, 8 Rev. Rep. 289, 33 Eng. Reprint, 26. Compare Mechanics' Bank v. Tay- lor, 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9,386, 2 Cranch C. C. 507, where the husband pur- chased real estate in his wife's name with money which belonged to the wife before the marriage; Wood v. Savage, Walk. (Mich.) 471. 53. If. r.— Wickes v. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. 58, 8 Paige, 161, where the settlement was sustained as to per- sonalty but declared void as to real property. V. 8. — Cathoart v. Robinson, 30 U. S. 264, 8 L. Ed. 120; Wiswell v. Jar- vis, 9 Fed. 84. Ala. — Costillo V. Thompson, 9 Ala. 937. Ga. — Denbell v. Fisher, R. M. Charlt. 36. /««.— Philips v. Meyers, 82 111. 67, 25 Am. Rep. 295; Sweeney v. Dam- ron, 47 111. 450. ifo. — Potter V. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62. A'^. J. — ^Manning v. Riley, 52 N. J. Eq. 39, 27 Atl. 810; Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 265, 84 Am. Dec. 155; Doughty v King, 10 N. J. Eq. 396. N. C— Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. C. 197, 10 S. B. 482; Walton v. Par- rish, 95 N. C. 259; Kissam v. Ed- monston, 36 N. C. 180. 328 Feaudulent Conveyances. debtor for his wife aad children may be valid as to subsequent; creditors," or purchasers/^ of the grantor. A post-nuptial con- tract or settlememt made for an honest purpose and a valuable consideiration,^' or a reasonable settlement upon the wife, made by the husband out of property coming to her by descent or devise during coverture," is valid and will be supported, even against existing creditors of the husband. But if the settlement be in consideration of an indebtedness much less than the value of the property, or conveys property for an insufficient consideration, it Ohio. — Bank of U. S. v. Ennia, Wright, 604; Woodrow v. Sargent, 5 Ohio Dec. 209, 3 Am. L. Eec. 522; Case V. Hewitt, 10 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dee. 365, 7 Ohio N. P. 609. S. C. — Davidson v. Graves, Riley Eq. 246 ; Teasdale v. Reaborne, 2 Bay, 546. Tenn. — Perkins v. Perkins, 1 Tenn. Ch. 537. Tex. — Reynolds' v. Lansford, 16 Tex. 286. Va. — Flynn v. Jackson, 93 Va. 341, 25 S. E. 1; De Farges v. Ryland, 87 Va. 404, 12 S. E. 805, 24 Am. St. Rep. 659; Perry v. Ruby, 81 Va. 317; Fink V. Denny, 75 Va. 663 ; Russell v. Randolph, 26 Gratt. 705; Harvey v. Alexander, 1 Rand. 219, 10 Am. Dec. 618. Eng. — Middlecome v. M'arlow, 2 Atl. 519, 26 Eng. Reprint, 712; Ste- phens V. Olive, 2 Bro. Ch. 90, 29 Eng. Reprint, 52; Kidney v. Coussmaker, 12 Ves. Jr. 136, 2 Rev. Rep. 118, 33 Eng. Reprint, 53; Lush v. Wilkin- son, 5, Ves. Jr. 384, 31 Eng. Reprint, 642. Compare Offutt v. King, 1 Mc- Arthur (D. C), 312; Hume v. Con- don, 44 W. Va. 553, 30 S. E. 56. 54. N. r.— Seaman v. Wall, 54 How. Prac. 47. J7. g.— United States v. Griswold, 8 Fed. 556, 7 Sawy. 311; Sexton v. Wheaton, 21 U. S. 229, 5 L. Ed. 603. Md. — ^Atkinson v. Phillips, 1 Md. Ch. 507. Miss. — Bullit V. Taylor, 34 Miss. 708, 69 Am. Dec. 412; Vertner v. Humphreys, 22 Miss. 130. Ohio. — Bank of U. S. v. Ennis, Wright, 604. Pa. — Thompson v. Allen, 103 Pa.. St. 44, 49 Am. Rep. 116. 55. Bank of Alexandria v. Patton, 1 Rob. (Va.), 499. 56. Butler v. Rickets, 11 Iowa, 107, money advanced by a woman, before- marriage and subsequent thereto, from her own estate; Hargroves v. Meray, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 222, a settiement by a husband on his wife on a separation, where there is a, covenant to save him harmless from his wife's debts; Walden v. Walden,. 33 Gratt. (Va.), 88. 57. Wickes v. Clarke, 3 Edw. Ch. 58, 8 Paige, 161; Trustees of Wads- worthville Poor School v. Pryson, 34 S. C. 401, 13 S. E. 619; Bank of U. S. V. Brown, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C), 558, 30 Am. Dee. 380, Riley Eq. (S. C), 131; Napier v. Wightman, Speer Eq. (S. C), 157; In re Tetley, 6S L. J. Q. B. Ill, 75 L. T. Rep. N. S. 166, 3 Manson, 226. Consideration. 329 will te held void as against existing creditors.'' A wife's release of dower is a sufficient consideration for a settlement on her from her husband's property, and such settlement will be valid aa against creditors having no specific lien, unless it manifestly appears to be grossly excessive.^' § 29. Adequacy of consideration — A valuable consideration does not necessarily mean full value; the statute is complied with if the sum is a substantial amount when compared with the value of the property transferred. If it is, although inadequate, it will be held sufficient to sustain the grantee's title, unless he is charge- able with notice of the fraudulent intent of the grantor.^" If a sale is made for a valuable, though inadequate* consideration, in good faith, it will not be defeated either by the common law or the statute of frauds.^^ A conveyance expressing as a consideration a sum of money or any other thing, no matter how small in value, cannot be said as a matter of law to be a voluntary conveyanee.^^ The adequacy of a valuable consideration will be inquired into 58. Herd's Adm'rs v. Rust, 7 Ky. v. Cole, 44 Iowa, 452; Purcell, etc., 231; Peigne v. Snowden, 1 Desauss Grocery Co. v. Bryant (Ind. Ter. Eq. (S. C.) 591; Beeeher v. Wilson, 1905), 89 S. W. 662; Mullins v. 84 Va. 813, 6 S. E. 209, 10 Am. St. Hand, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 612, 31 S. W. Rep. 883. 726, where the amount paid was equal 59. Hoot V. Sorrell, 11 Ala. 386, to the value of the land less the in- Hershy v. Latham, 46 Ark. 542; cumbrance thereon assumed by the Fioklin's Adm'r v. Rixey, 89 Va. grantee, the consideration was suffi- 832, 17 S. E. 325, 37 Am. St. Rep. cient. 891; Keagy v. Trout, 85 Va. 390, 7 The fact that the title is in S. E. 329 ; Burwell's Ex'r V, Lumsden, donht is to be considered upon 24 Gratt. (Va.), 443, 18 Am. Rep. the question of the adequacy of the 648- Lewis v. Caperton, 8 Gratt. consideration for the conveyance. (Va.), 148; Harrison v. Carroll, 11 Banta v. Terry, 2 Ky. L. Rep. 202. Leigh (Va.), 476; Glascock v. Bran- A consideration which is in- don, 35 W. Va. 84, 12 S. E. 1102. adeqnate is not " valnable," 60. Truesdale v. Sarles, 104 N. Y. within the meaning of the Kentucky 164 10 N. E. 139; Greenough v. statute. Carter v. Richardson, 22 Ky. Gre'enough, 21 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.), L. Rep. 1204, 60 S. W. 397. 727, 47 N. Y. Supp. 1096; King v. 61. Andrews v. Jones, 10 Ala. 400. Simmons, 55 N. Y. Supp. 173; Mc- 68. Martin v. White', 115 Ga. 866, Caskle V. Amarine, 12 Ala. 17; Day 42 S. E. 279. 330 Fraudulent Conveyances. only for the purpose of throwing light upon the transaction. '^ Where a conveyance is made by a grantor, who is indebted at the time, upon a valuable consideration that is inadequate, such inade- quacy does not render the conveyance voluntary," but it is evi- dence, though not conclusive, of actual fraud. '^ "When tliere is no actual intent to defraud, a valuable consideration though inade- quate, will sustain the transfer in a court of law.^' But where there is no actual fraud on the part, of the grantee, although the granteei is not affected by the fraudulent intent of his grantor not known to him, yet, if the consideration be inadequate, a court of equity will treat the conveyance merely as a security for the con- sideration actually paid, and as fraudulent and void, and subject to the claims of prior creditors, as to the excess in value of the property conveyed over the actual consideration." Where a con- 63. Jones v. Dunbar, 52 Neb. 151, 71 N. W. 976. 64. Wright v. Stanard, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,094, 2 Brock, 311; Brown V. Case, 41 Oreg. 221, 69 Pac. 43. 65. Wright v. Stanard, supra; Washband v. Washband, 27 Conn. 424. 66. Jones v. Leeds, 10 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 173, 7 Ohio N. P. 480. 67. N. y.— Van Wyck v. Baker, 16 Hun, 168; Bigelow v. Ayrault, 46 Barb. 143; Boyd v Dunlap, 1 John Ch. 478. See also Robinson v. Stew- art, 10 N. Y. 189, a grantee for an in- adequate consideration, who has paid debts of his grantor in part consider- ation, is to be substituted in the place of the creditors whose debts he has paid. U. S. — Clements v. Nicholson, 6 Wall. 299, 18 L. Ed. 786. Ala.—Gilkej v. Pollock, 82 Ala. 503, 3 So. 99. Fla. — Loring v. Dunning, 16 Fla. 119; Barrow v. Bailey, 5 Fla. 9. 7Ji.— McManus v. Mills, 19 111. App. 398; McQuown v. Law, 18 III. App. 34. Ind.— Smith v. Selz, 114 Ind. 229, 16 N. B. 524. Iowa. — Wiltse v. Flack, 115 Iowa, 51, 87 N. W. 729; Cox v. Collis, 109 Iowa, 270, 80 N. W. 343; Hansen v. Gregory (1897), 73 N. W. 478; Lyon V. Ha,ddock, 59 Iowa, 682, 13 N. W. 737 ; Strong v. Lawrence, 58 Iowa, 55, 12 N. W. 74; Keeder v. Murphy, 43 Iowa, 413. Ky. — Farmers' Bank v. Long, 7 Bush. 337; Short v. Tinsley, 1 Mete. 397, 71 Am. Dee. 482. Md. — ^HuU V. William Deering Co., 80 Md. 424, 13 Atl. 416; Cone T. Cross, 72 Md. 102, 19 Atl. 391; Hin- kle V. Wilson, 53 Md. 287; Williams V. Savage Mfg. Co., 3 Md. Ch. 418. Moss. — ^Norton v. Norton, 5 Cush. 524. Miss. — Willis V. Gathman, 53 Miss. 721. Neb. — Omaha Brewing Assoc, v. Zel- ler, 4 Neb. (Unoflf.) 198, 93 N. W. 762. N. ,/.— Gnichtel v. Jewell (Ch. 1898), 41 Atl. 227, aff'd 59 N. J. Eq. 651, 44 Atl. 1099; Withrow v. War- CONSIDEEATION. 331 veyanoe ia made witli fraudulent intent on th© part of both parties to the transaction, or the fraudulent intent of the grantor is par- ticipated in by the grantee, it is absolutely fraudulent as against creditors and cannot stand as security or indemnity for part of the consideration expressed which was, in fact, paid, or as a security for any purpose of indemnity or reimbursement.'* § 30. Partial invalidity or illegality of consideration Where a part of the consideration for a conveyance or transfer is ficti- tious, invalid, illegal, or fraudulent as to creditors, though the con- sideration may be in part valid, the conveyance or transfer is void in toto, and will not be sustained to the extent of the adequate and honest debt or consideration, as against creditors of the grantor.** Where, however, there was no actual intent to defraud,'" ner, 56 N. J. Eq. 795, 35 Atl. 1057, 40 Atl. 721, 67 Am. St. Rep. 505; Muirhead v. Smith, 35 N. J. Eq. 303. ]V. C. — MeCanless v. Reynolds, 74 N. C. 301. B. C. — ^McMeekJn v. Edmunds, 1 Hill Eq. 288, 26 Am. Dec. 203. yt. — Foster v. Foster, 56 Vt. 540; Church V. Chapin, 35 Vt. 223. Va. — Rixey's Adm'r v. Deitrick, 85 Va. 42, 6 S. E. 615. ypis, — First Nat. Bank v. Bertschy, 52 Wis. 438, 9 N. W. 534. 68. Baldwin v. Short, 125 N. Y. 553, 26 N. E. 928, aff'ff 54 Hun, 473, 7 N. y. Supp. 717; Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 226; Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70; Sands v. Codwise, 4 Johns. (N. Y.) 336, 4 Am. Dec. 305; Boyd V. Dunlap. 1 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 478; Loring v. Dunning, 16 Fla. 119; Farmers' Bank v. Long, 7 Bush. (Ky.) 337. See also Effect of con- sideration, chap. XIII, § 30, infra; Partially invalid or illegal considera- tion, chap. VIII, § 30, infra; Re- imbursement, indemnity and subroga- tion in case of actual fraud, chap. XIV, § 41, infra. 69. N. Y. — Baldwin v. Short, 125 N. Y. 553, 26 N. E. 928, aff'g 54 Hun, 473, 7 N. Y. Supp. 717; Levy v. Hamilton, 68 App. Div. 277, 74 N. Y. Supp. 159 ; Shaffer v. Martin, 25 App. Div. .501, 49 N. Y. Supp. 853; John- son V. Phillips, 2 N. Y. Supp. 432. Ala. — Harris v. Russell, 93 Ala. 59, 9 So. 541 ; Tatum v. Hunter, 14 Ala. 557. Conn. — ^Hawes v. Mooney, 39 Oonn. 37. /??.— Oakfield v. Dunlap, 63 111. App. 498. Ind. — ^Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623, 61 N. E. 575, 62 N. E. 701, unless the contract is such that the legal part thereof may be separ- ated from the illegal. Mo: — ^Klauber v. Schloss, 198 Mo. 502, 95 S. W. 930; First Nat. Bank V. Pry, 168 Mo. 492, 68 S. W. 348; Mansur, etc.. Implement Co. v. Jones, 143 Mo. 253, 45 S. W. 41; Boland V. Ross, 120 Mo. 208, 25 S. W. 520; 332 Featjdulent Conveyances. nor any actual fraud," and the consideration is not one and indi- visible," but is such, that the legal part is aeparable from the illegal," a court of equity "will separate the bad part from the good and sustain the conveyance as to the good consideration." It has been held that the general rule that the illegality of a. part of a separable consideration taints the whole, cannot be made a test of the validity of a conveyance, as against creditors.^' A transfer of property by an insolvent debtor to two or more of his creditors, in payment of a distinct indebtedness owing to each, gives each of them an undivided interest in the property or an interest in pro- portion to the debts secured, and may be sustained as to one of National Tube Works Co. v. Ring Re- frigerating, etc., Co.', 118 Mo. 365, 22 S. W. 947; State V. Hope, 102 Mo. 410, 14 S. W. 985 ; Hayden v. Alkire Grocery Co., 88 Mo. App. 241; Webb City Lumber Co. v. Victor Min. Co., 78 Mo. App. 676; Ball v. O'Neill, 64 Mo. App. 388; Cole v. Yaney, 62 Mo. App. 234; H. T. Simon Gregory Dry Goods Co. V. McMahan, 61 Mo. App. 499; Gregory v. Sitlington, 54 Mo. App. 60; Cordes v. Straszer, 8 Mo. App. 61. rt.—Dow V. Taylor, 71 Vt. 337, 45 Atl. 220, 76 Am. St. Rep. 775. Wis. — Blanik v. Barta (Wis. 1906), 109 N. W. 980. Can. — Campbell v. Patterson, 21 Can. Sup. Ct. 645; Totten v. Doug- lass, 15 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 126; Com- mercial Bank v. Wilson, 14 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 473, 3 Grant Err. & App. (U. C.) 257. 70. Coley v. Coley, 14 N. J. Eq. 350; Rosenbaum v. Davis (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898), 48 S. W. 706; First Nat. Bank v. Bertsehy, 52 Wis. 438, 9 N. W. 534. 71. Matz V. Arick, 76 Conn. 388, 56 iktl. 630. 72. Hawes v. Mooney, 39 Conn. 37. 7,3. Reagan v. First Nat. Bank, 157 Ind. 623, 61 N. E. 575, 62 N. E. 701. 74. N. Y. — ^McArthur v. Hoysradt, 11 Paige, 495, a vendee of the debtor may be compelled to account to the creditor for amounts, improperly as against creditors, deducted from the contract. 4ia.— Gilkey v. Pollock, 82 Ala. 503, 3 So. 99. III. — Deimohy v. Smith, 83 111. App. 656. /nd.— Reed v. Thayer, 9 Ind. 157. Iowa. — Morrell v. Sharp (1898), 74 N. W. 749. Ky.— Seller v. Walz, 100 Ky. 105, 29 S. W. 338, 31 S. W. 729, 17 Ky. L. R«p. 301; Williamson v. Black- burn, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 857, 82 S. W. 600. La. — Brown v. Kenner, 3 Mart. (La.) 370. Mo. — Columbia Sav. Bank v. Winn, 132 Mo. 80, 33 S. W. 457. N. J'.— Smith V. O'Brien, 57 N. J. L. 365, 41 Atl. 492. Eng. — Stokoe v. Cowan, 29 Beav. 637, 7 Jur. N. S. 901, 4 L. T. N. S. 695, 9 Wkiy. Rep. 801, 54 Eng. Re- print, 775. 75. Albee v. Webster, 16 N. H. 362. CONSIDEKATION. 333 them whicli is bona fide, although the transfer as to the others is in- valid as in fraud of creditors, because the debts are fictitious and fraudulent.'* A conveyance may be void in part, not only at common, law, but by statute also, and stand good as ta the residue." But transfers and mortgages made, or judgments confessed, to one creditor in payment or security for his indebtedness, made partly for valid debts, but including false and fraudulent debts or fictitious liabilities, are fraudulent and void, not to the extent of the fraud, but absolutely and as an entirety." 76. N. Y. — Commercial Bank v. Sherwood, 162 N. Y. 310, 56 N. K. 834; Commercial Bank v. Bolton, 20 App. Div. 70, 46 N. Y. Supp. 734. Ala. — Anderson v. Hooks, 9 Ala. 704. 4rfc,— Riggan v. Wolfe, 53 Ark. 537, 14 S. W. 922. III. — Hutmaoher v. Anheuser-Busch Brewing Assoc, 71 111. App. 154. Iowa. — ^Miller Co. v. Bracken, 104 Iowa, 643, 74 N. W. 2. Moss. — Prince v. Shepard, 9 Pick. 176. Mvnn. — ^Henderson v. Kendrick, 72 Minn. 253, 75 N. W. 127. jio. — Woodson V. Carson, 135 Mo. 521, 35 S. W. 1005, 37 S. W. 197. 'N. C. — Blair v. Brown, 110 X. C. C31, 21 S. E. 434; Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. C. 197, 10 S. E. 482; Morris v. Pearson, 79 N. C. 253, 28 Am. Rep. 315, distinguishing Hafner V. Irvin, 23 N. C. 490, and overruling Stone V. Marshall, 52 N. C. 300, and Johnson v. Murohison, 60 N. C. 286. Tea!.— Pittman v. Rolan Grocery Co., 15 Tex. Civ. App. 676, 39 S. W. 1108; Linz v. Atchison, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 647, 38 S. W. 640, 47 S. W. 542; Ryder V. Hunt, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 238, 25 S. W. 314, overruling Simon v. Ash, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 202, 20 S. W. 719. Va. — Lewis v. Caperton's Ex'r, 8 Gratt. 148. W. ya.— Zell Guano Co. v. Heath- erly, 38 W. Va. 409, 18 S. E. 611; Cohn v. Ward, 36 W. Va. 616, 15 S. E. 140, 32 W. Va. 34, 9 S. E. 41. Contra. — Showman v. Lee, 86 Mich. 556, 49 N. W. 578; Adams v. Nie- mann, 46 Mich. 135, 8 N. W. 719. 77. Anderson v. Hooks, 9 Ala. 704. 78. N. Y.— Simons v. Goldbach, 56 Hun, 204, 9 N. Y. Supp. 359; John- son v. Phillips, 2 N. Y. Supp. 432. Ala. — Proskauer v. Peoples' Sav. Bank, 77 Ala. 257. Kan. — ^Miami County Nat. Bank v. Barkalow, 53 Kan. 68, 35 Pac. 796, inclusion in a mortgage from a fail- ing firm of a debt due from one not a member of the firm; Marborough v. Lewis Cook Mfg. Co., 32 Kan. 636, 5 Pac. 181; Winstead v. Hulme, 32 Kan. 568, 4 Pac. 994; Wallach v. Wylie, 28 Kan. 138. Mich. — Clark v. Lee, 78 Mich. 221, 44 N. W. 260; King v. Hubbell. 42 Mich. 595, 4 N. W. 440. Mo. — ^Bates County Bank v. Gailey, 177 Mo. 181, 75 S. W. 646; First Nat. Bank v. Fry, 168 Mo. 492, 68 S. W. 348; Boland v. Ross, 120 Mo, 208, 25 S. W. 524; Seger v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 33; State v. Hope, 102 Mo. 410, 14 S. W. 985. 334 Fraudulent Conveyances. § 31. Consideration usurious in part — ^A failing debtor may pay, or secure to be paid, a debt barred by the statute of limita- tions, or one wbick be may defend as usurious ; or if be bas agreed to pay interest upon unpaid interest, be may pay or secure its pay- ment; and, if done in good faitb, tbe payments made or security taken cannot be set aside by bis creditors.™ And the fact tbat part of tbe consideration for a conveyance is compound interest does not render it void as to creditors, where no agreement for com- pound interest was made in advance.*" The mere fact that a debtor bas paid, or agreed to pay, more than tbe legal rate of in- terest does not constitute a fraud on the debtor's other creditors, and tbe mere refusal of the debtor to contest tbe claim does not of itself amount to such fraud.*' It is only where a usurious con- tract ia entered into coUusively, as a scheme to binder and delay creditors, tbat tbe latter may have any standing to contest a judg- ment entered upon such usurious contracts *^ Only subsequent creditors can contest a prior obligation of their debtor on the ground that it is usurious;*' and tbey cannot do so unless in the inception of the contract it was intended to defraud them, by swell- ing the amount of the debt, or would necessarily have tbat effect.** A confession, of judgment is not void because it includes usury ;*^ and a mistake in tbe computation of interest is no evidence that the confession of judgment was made to defraud creditors.*' The Okla. — Jaffray v. Wolfe, 4 Okla. 298 ; Appeal of Second Nat. Bank, 85 303, 47 Pac. 490. Pa. St. 528; Cahn v. Farmers' & Trad- Tea!. — Blair v. Finlay, 75 Tex. 210, ers' Bank, 1 S. D. 237, 46 N. W. 185; 12 S. W. 983 ; Brasher v. Jamison, Spaulding v. Austin, 2 Vt. 555. 75 Tex. 139, 12 S. W. 809. 8Z. Appeal of Lenning, supra; 79. Mellen v. Banning, 72 Hun (N. Wheeloek v. Wood, supra. Y.), 176, 25 N. Y. Supp. 542; Mills v. 83. Lombaert v. Morris, 2 Del. Co. Camley, 1 Bosw. (N. Y.) 159. See R. (Pa.) 457; Building Assoc, v. also Pennington v. Woodall, 17 Ala. O'Connor, 3 Phila. (Pa.) 453, 16 Leg. 685; Spencer v. Ayrault, 10 N. Y. Int. 300. 202. 84. Loucheimv. First Nat. Bank, 98 80. Stewart V. Petree, 55 N. Y. 621; Ala. 521, 13 So. 374; Harris v. Rus- McConnell v. Barber, 86 Hun (N. Y.), sell, 93 Ala. 59, 9 So. 541; Lranbaert 360. V. Morris, supra. 81. Appeal of Lenning, 93 Pa. St. 85. Miller v. Clarke, 37 Iowa, 325. 301 ; Wheeloek v. Wood, 93 Pa. St. 86. Scales v. Scott, 13 Cal. 76. COJVSIDEKATION. 335 fact that tisurimis interest is included in a judgment taken by de- fault is of itself no evidenoe; of an intent to defraud creditors." TJut a judgment recovered by default in an action commenced at tlie suggestion, of the debtor is fraudulent so far as it includes compound interest, for which there was no valid agreement.*' A pretended sale of property to secure usurious advances and protect it against the vendor's creditors is fraudulent, and may be at- tacked by any of them." § 32. Voluntary conveyances — Effect of want of considera- tion. — A voluntary conveyance is one without any valuable con- sideration and implies the total want of any substantial considera- tion.'" A conveyance or transfer of property made voluntarily and without a valuable consideration by a debtor, while insolvent or in contemplation of insolvency, with the actual intent to de- fraud either existing or subsequent creditors, is void as to the creditors intended to be defrauded." The fact that the grantor 87. Cahn v. Farmers' & Traders' Bank, 1 S. D. 237, 46 N. W. 185. 88. Peyser v. Myers, 56 Him (N. Y.), 175, 9 N. y. Supp. 229, rev'g 5 N. Y. Supp. 827. 89. Gravier's Curator v. Carraby's Ex'r, 17 La. 118, 36 Am. Dec. 608. See also Chandler v. Powers, 9 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 169. 90. Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 430; Washband v. Washband, 27 Conn. 431. 91. Cal. — ^Nixon v. Goodwin (Cal. App. 1906), 85 Pac. 169. Fla. — ^UUman v. Loekhart (Fla. 1906), 41 So. 452, when the grantee is a party to the fraudulent intent, it is immaterial whether the grantor was solvent or insolvent at the time of the execution of the conveyance. Oa. — Ernest v. Merritt, 107 Ga. 61, 32 S. E. 898; May v. Huntington, 66 Ga. 208; Westmoreland v. Powell, S9 Ga. 256. Ind. — Johnson v. Jones, 79 Ind. 141. Mo. — ^Klauber v. Schloss, 198 Mo. 502, 95 S. W. 930. N. J. — lie Herisse v. Hess (Ch. 1904), 57 Atl. 808; Mead v. Combs, 19 N. J. Eq. 112. Or. — ^Marks v. Orow^ 14 Or. 382, 13 Pac. 55. Term. — Churchill v. Wells, 7 Coldw. 364. 7*.— Corey v. Morrill, 71 Vt. 51, 42 Atl. 976. W. Va. — Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234, 23 S. E. 812. A Tolnntary conveyance by an insolvent, thongh iritliout in- tent to defrand, is fraudu- lent. James v. Mallory (Ark. 1905), 89 S. W. 472. wnen n person, as a mere donee, is put in possession of land, without any promise of a conveyance, and rents it, collecting the rents for' 336 Feaudulent Conveyances. retained property sufficient to satisfy his creditors is no defense to an attack made upon the conveyance hy creditors whom he in- tended to defraud; it is only where a voluntary conveyance is made in good faith, ^at it will be upheld hy proof that the grantor retained an ample estate to pay his debts. '^ If the conveyance were made with intent to hinder or delay creditors, it should, be set aside, without regard to the financial condition of the fraudu- lent transferrer. > A rich man may make a fraudulent deed as well as one who is insolvent." A wife is within the protection of the statute against fraudulent oonveyanoes, and a voluntary conveyance of property, made Avith the specific intent to defraud a future wife of her marital rights, is void to the same extent as if it was in- tended to dfefraud future creditors, although the grantor has not at the time of the conveyance selected any particular person as his wife, but makes the conveyance with the general intention to defraud any person whom he might marry of her marital rights.'* § 33. Voluntary conveyances as to existing creditors. — The doctrine was maintained by the early English cases,'^ by the lead- hia own use, but expends neither Compare Flannagan v. Donaldson, labor nor money thereon, nor puts 85 Ind. 517. any improvements on it, he cannot 93. Hager v. Shindler, 29 Cal. 47. hold the same as against the creditors 94. Higgins v. Higglns, 219 III. of the insolvent donor. Ansell v. Cox 146, 76 N. E. 86. (W. Va. 1905), 50 S. E. 806. 95. White v. Sansom, 3 Atk. 410, 92. W. Y. — Fox V. Moyer, 54 N. Y. 26 Eng. Reprint, 1037; Fitzer v. Fit- 125; Harding v. Elliott, 92 Hun, zer, 2 Atk. 511, 26 Eng. Reprint, 708; 502 36 N. Y. Supp. 648. Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 481, 26 Cal.—FiTst Nat. Bank v. Maxwell, Eng. Reprint, 688, Ambl. 13, 27 Eng. 123 Cal.' 360, 55 Pae. 980, 69 Am. St. Reprint, 7; Russell v. Hammond, 1 r[jgp g4 Atk. 13, 26 Eng. Reprint, 9; Shears 7ZJ.— Phillips V. Kesterson, 154 111. v. Rogers, 3 B. & Ad. 362, 1 L. J. K. 572, 39 K E. 599. B. 89, 23 E. C. L. 164; Doe v. Miss.— Edmunds v. Mister, 58 Martyr, 1 B. & P. N. R. 332, 2 Rev. Miss 765. ^P- ^2^ ' Gardiner v. Painter, Cas. Sre6.— Shreck v. Hanlori, 66 Neb. t. King, 65, 25 Eng. Reprint, 225; 451, 92 N. W. 625; Mclntyre v. Ma- Doe v. Manning, 9 East, 59, 9 Rev. lone, 3 Neb. (Unoff.) 159, 91 N. W. Rep. 503; Tonkin v. Ennis, 1 Eq. Cas. 24g ' Abr. 334, 21 Eng. Reprint, 1084; :p7(_wilson v. Spear, 68 Vt. 145, Hill v. Exeter, 2 Taunt. 69, 11 Rev. 34 Atl. 429. ^^P- ^^^» N'unn v. Wilsmore, 8 T. CONSIDEBATIOK. 337 ing American case,'^ and has been followed by autharities in some of tie states,'' tbat a voluntary conveyance is, as to existing cred- R. 521, 5 Rev. Rep. 434; Ex parte Berry, 19 Ves. Jr. 218, 34 Eng. Re- print, 499; Buckle v. Mitchell, 18 Ves. Jr. 100, 11 Rev. Rep. 155, 34 Eng. Reprint, 255; Townshend v. Windham, 2 Ves. 1, 28 Eng. Reprint, 1 ; Beaumont v. Thorpe, 1 Ves. 27, 27 Eng. Reprint, 869; Harman v. Rich- ards, 10 Hare, 81, 22 L. J. Ch. 1066, 44 Eng. Ch. 78. 96. Reade v. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 481, 8 Am. Dec. 520. This decision of Chancellor Kent has been declared to be " the greatest monument of legal acumen and wide and varied erudition which New York has ever produced," and it was also asserted that " unless indications are wholly delusive the learned Chancel- lor was not more than a, century in advance of his age." Fraudulent Conveyances to Bona Fide Purchas- ers, etc., by John Reynolds, Esq. This case was subsequently over- ruled by Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. (N. Y.) 406, and the contrary rule is now established by statute. Hol- den V. Burnham, 63 N. Y. 74; Dy- gert V. Remerschnider^ 32 N. Y. 636. 97. U. S. — ^Hopkirk v. Randolph, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,698, 2 Brock. 132. ^la. — ^Wood V. Potts, 140 Ala. 425, 37 So. 253; Guyton v. Terrell, 132 Ala. 66, 31 So. 83; Henderson v. Far- ley Nat. Bank, 123 Ala. 547, 26 So. 226, 82 Am. St. Rep. 140; McClarin V. Anderson, 109 Ala. 571, 19 So. S82; Wooten v. Steele, 109 Ala. 563, 19 So. 972., 55 Am. St. Rep. 947; Ruse V. Bromberg, 88 Ala. 619, 7 So. 384; Lockard v. Nash, 64 Ala. 385; Bibb V. Freeman, 59 Ala. 612; Spen- eer v. Godwin, 30 Ala. 355; Gannard 22 V. Enslava, 20 Ala. 732; Foote v. Cobb, 18 Ala. 585; High v. Nelms., 14 Ala. 350, 48 Am. Dec. 103; Moore v. Spencer, 6 Ala. 506; Doe v. McKin- ney, 5 Ala. 719; Miller v. Thompson, 3 Port. 196. N. ./,— Kinsey v. Feller, 64 N. J. Eq. 367, 51 Atl. 485; Hancock v. El- mer, 61 N. J. Eq. 558, 49 Atl. 140, aff'd 63 N. J. Eq. 802, 52 Atl. 1131; Long Branch Banking Co. v. Dennis, 56 N. J. Eq. 549, 39 Atl. 689; Severs V. Dodson, 53 N. J. Eq. 633, 34 Atl. 7, 51 Am. St. Rep. 641; Merchants', etc., Transp. Co. v. Borland, 53 N. J. Eq. 282, 31 Atl. 272; Francis v. Law- rence, 48 N. J. Eq. 508, 22 Atl. 259; Gardner v. Kleinke, 46 N. J. Eq. 90, 18 Atl. 457 ; Palmer v. Martindell, 43 N. J. Eq. 90, 10 AU. 802; Aber v. Brant, 36 N. J. Eq. 116; Budd v. Atkinson, 30 N. J. Eq. 530; Randall V. Vroom, 30 N. J. Eq. 353; Kuhl v. Martin, 26 N. J. Eq. 60; Hecht v. Koegal, 25 N. J. Eq. 135; Phelps v. Morrison, 24 N. J. Eq. 195; Annin V. Annin, 24 N. J. Eq. 184; Sayre v. Fredericks, 16 N. J. Eq. 205; Smith V. Vreeland, 16 N. J. Eq. 198; Coley V. Coley, 14 N. J. Eq. 350; Cook v. Johnson, 12 N. J. Eq. 51, 72 Am. Dec. 381. S. G. — Woody V. Dean, 24 S. C. 499; Hudnall v. Teasdall, 1 McCord, 227, 10 Am. Dec. 671. Tbe only qualification to the general rule is, that when the in- debtedness is slight, as for the cur- rent expenses of the family, or the debts inconsiderable as compared with the value of the donor'. 525, 7 Am. Dec. 237. III. — Stevens v. Dillman, 86 111. 233; Austin v. First Nat. Bank, 47 111. App. 224; Eussell v. Fanning, Z 111. App. 632. Ind. — Burtch v. Elliott, 3 Ind. 99. lovM. — Gameet v. Simmons, 103 Iowa, 163, 72 N. W. 444. Xi/.— Trimble v. Eatcliff, 9 B. Mon. 511; Adams v. Branch, 3 Ky. L. Eep> 178. Me. — Wheelden v. Wilson, 44 Me. 11. Md. — ^Benson v. Benson, 70 Md. 253, 16 Atl. 657; Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 Md. 359, 10 Atl. 202; Eichards v. Swan, 7 Gill, 366. Jfo.— Snyder v. Free, 114 Mo. 360, 21 S. W. 847; Donovan v. Dunning, 69 Mo. 436; Dunlap v. Mitchell, 80 Mo. App. 393. y. J. — Den V. Lippencott, 6 N. J. L. 473. ff. C— Burton v. Farinholt, 86 N. C. 260; Black v. Coldwell, 49 N. C. 150. Ohio. — ^Humbert v. Cincinnati M.. E. Church, Wright, 213. Pa.— Kern's Estate, 4 Pa. Dist. 73.. Tenn. — Carpenter v. Scales (Ch. App. 1897), 48 S. W. 249. Tex. — Van Bibber v. Mathis, 52: Tex. 406. Va. — Coleman v. Cocke, 6 Rand. 618, 18 Am. Dec. 757. CONSIDEEATION. 345 I- § 34. Conveyance in accordance with prior parol gift. — A parol gift of land, made by a parent to his child, is void and confers no right that can be enforced either at law or in equity. If subsequently, a deed b^ executed in consummation of the gift, it is voluntary; it takes effect from the time of its execu- tion, and cannot prejudice the rights of existing creditors.^^ A voluntary conveyance by a grantor to his children, made when indebted, is not valid, though in, compliance with a previous verbal promise made when unembarrassed.^^ Where, however, a father, in solvent circumstances, made an oral gift of land to a son, and the son entered into possession and made valuable im- provements, it was held' that the son's title in equity was para- mount to that of the father's subsequent creditors." And the removal of a son to certain land, on the faith of a promise by his father to give him the land, the father being at that time sol- vent, and Ae parting with that land afterwards by the son for the purpose of effecting an exchange, was held to be a valuable consideration to support a conveyance by the father to the son of other lands, even though at the time of the latter conveyance the father had become insolvent." § 35. Statutory rule — In some jurisdictions the statute pre- scribes that the fraudulent intent to hinder, delay and defraud creditors by a conveyance of property shall be deemed a question of fact and not of law, and that no conveyance shall be ad- judged fraudulent as against creditors solely upon the ground that it was voluntary or not founded upon a valuable considera- tion.^^ In other jurisdictions the statute provides that every 11. Hubbard v. Abell, 59 Ala. 283. ment setting aside the deed was 12. Ruclcer v. Abell, 8 B. Mon. proper. (Ky.) 566. !*• Humbold v. Parr, 51 Mo. 592. 13. Dozier v. Matson, 94 Mo. 328, 15. N. T.— Smith v. Reid, 134 N. 7 S. W. 268, 4 Am. St. Rep. 388; Y. 568, 31 N. g. 1082; Kain v. Layton v. Bank of Calhoun, 22 Ky. Larkin, 131 N. Y. 300, 30 N. E. 105; L. Rep. 872, 59 S. W. 322, on failure Fuller Electrical Co. v. Lewis, 101 N. to prove the parol agreement, a judg- Y. 674, 5 N. E. 37; Genesee River 346 Feaudulent Conveyances. conveyance made by a debtor of any of his estate without valu- able consideration therefor shall be void as to all his then exist- ing creditors.*' Under the latter statute the fact that at the time of the conveyance the debtor had other property subject to Nat. Bank v. Mead, 92 N. Y. 637; Carr v. Breeae, 81 N. Y. 584; Cole v. Tyler, 65 N. Y. 73; Holden v. Hurn- ham, 63 N. Y. 74; Dunlap v. Hawkins, 59 N. Y. 342; Erickson v. Quinn, 47 N. Y. 410; Dygert v. Eemerschnider, 32 N. Y. 629; Bab- cock V. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 623; Car- penter V. Eoe, 10 N. Y. 227 ; Multz v. Price, 82 App. Div. 339, 81 N. Y. Supp. 931 ; Saugerties Bank v. Mack, 34 App. Div. 494, 54 N. Y. Supp. 360; Royer Wheel Co. v. Fielding, 31 Hun, 274; Emmerich v. Hefferan, 53 N. Y. Super. Ct. 98; White's Bank v. Far- thing, 10 St. Eep. 830. Cal. — Cook V. Cockins, 117 Cal. 140, 48 Pac. 1025; Knox v. Moses, 104 Cal. 602, 38 Pac. 318; Threlkel V. Scott (1893), 34 Pac. 851; Mc- Fadden v. Mitchell, 54 Cal. 628; Thornton v. Hook, 36 Cal. 223; Swartz V. Haslett, 8 Cal. 118; Gillan V. Metcalf, 7 Cal. 137. ' Colo. — Wells V. Schuster-Hax Nat. Bank, 23 Colo. 534, 48 Pac. 809; Burdsall v. Waggoner, 4 Colo. 256; Thomas v. Mackey, 3 Colo. 390. Ind. — Emerson v. Opp, 139 Ind. 27, 38 N. E. 330; Heaton v. Shanklin, 115 Ind. 595, 18 N. E. 172; Cava- naugh V. Smith, 84 Ind. 380; Bishop V. State, 83 Ind. 67; Dunn v. Dunn, 82 Ind. 42; Wooters v. Osborn, 77 Ind. 513; Hardy v. Mitchell, 67 Ind. 485; Pence v. Croan, 51 Ind. 336; Parton v. Pates, 41 Ind. 456; Frank V. Kessler, 30 Ind. 8; Hubbs v. Ban- croft, 4 Ind. 388. jr. 0.— Mitchell v. Kure, 126 N. C. 77, 35 S. E. 190; Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. C. 197, 10 S. E. 482; Taylor V. Eatman, 92 N. C. 601 ; Worthy v. Brady, 91 N. C. 265. Wis. — Hyde v. Chapman, 33 Wis. 391. 16. Ky.—0'Ka.ne v. Vinnedge, 108 Ky. 34, 55 S. W. 711, 21 Ky. L. Eep. 1551; Yankee v. Sweeney, 85 Ky. 55, 8 Ky. L. Eep. 944, 2 S. W. 559; Ward V. Thomas, 81 Ky. 452; Stokes V. Coffee, 71 Ky. 523; Miller T. Desha, 66 Ky. 212; Lowry v. Fisher, 65 Ky. 70, 92 Am. Dee. 475; Todd t. Hartley, 59 Ky. 206; Mitchell t. Berry, 58 Ky. 602; Enders v. Wil- liams, 58 Ky. 346; Eucker v. Abell, 47 Ky. 566, 48 Am. Dec. 406; Han- son V. Buckner, 34 Ky. 251, 29 Am. Dec. 401; Beatty v. Thompson, 23 Ky. L. Eep. 1850, 66 S. W. 384; Hamilton v. Combs, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 1263, 60 S. W. 371; Porter v. Green, 10 Ky. L. Eep. 484, 9 S. W. 401; Marcum v. Powers, 10 Ky. L. Eep. 380, 9 S. W. 255; Dougherty v. Hal- loran, 9 Ky. L. Eep. 768, 6 S. W. 718; McElrath v. Spillman, 7 Ky.L.E.308; Leavell v. Leavell, 4 Ky. L. E. 489. Va. — Davis v. Anderson, 99 Va. 620, 39 S. E. 588 ; Norris v. Jones, 93 Va. 176, 24 S. E. 911; Bickle T. Chrisman, 76 Va. 678; Fink t. Denny, 75 Va. 663. W. Va. — Wick v. Dawson, 42 W. Va. 43, 24 S. E. 687; McCue v. Mc- Cue, 41 W. Va. 161, 23 S. E. 689; Humphrey v. Spencer, 36 W. Va. 11, 14 S. E. 410; Eogers v. Verlander, 30 W. Va. 619, 5 S. E. 847. CoNSIDEEATION. 347 execution, more than sufficient to pay his debts, constitutes no defence." But in West Virginia a husband may mate a dona- tion to his wife, or return her a loan of money augmented by a portion, of the profits of a business conducted by him, if he re- tains an amount of tangible property largely in excess of his just indebtedness, notwithstanding the statute." § 36. Voluntary conveyances as to subsequent creditors. — A voluntary conveyance is not fraudulent and void as to a subse- quent creditor of the grantor, unless aotual fraud is shown. Subsequent creditors can impeach a voluntary conveyance only by proving the existence of an actual intent in the minds of the parties at the time of the execution of the conveyance to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors by means thereof." In some juris- 17. Townsend v. Wilson, 114 Ky. 504, 24 Ky. L. Eep. 1276, 71 S. W. 440. 18. Hume & W. Co. v. Condon, 44 W. Va. 553, 30 S. E. 556; Adams v. Irwin, 44 W. Va. 740, 30 S. E. 59. 19. N. Y.— Phoenix Bank v. Staf- ford, 89 N. Y. 405 ; Shand v. Hanley, 71 N. Y. 319; Phillips v. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 412; Ebbitt v. Dunham, 25 Misc. Eep. 232, 55 N. Y. Supp. 78; Lormore v. Campbell, 60 Barb. 62; Loesehigk v. Addison, 4 Abb. Pr. N. S. 210, 19 Abb. Pr. 169; Barnum v. Farthing, 40 How. Pr. 25. U. S. — Graham v. LaCrosse, etc., E. Co., 102 U. S. 148, 26 L. Ed. 106; Hinde v. Longworth, 11 Wheat. 199, 6 L. Ed. 454; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229, 5 L. Ed. 603; Metropoli- tan Nat. Bank v. Eogers, 47 Fed. 148; Burdick v. Gill, 7 Fed. 668, 2 McCrary, 486; Herring v. Eichards, 3 Fed. 439, 1 McCrary, 570; Sedg- wick V. Place, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12,621, 12 Blatchf. 163. Sla.—Mlea v. Caldwell, Ward & Co. (1906), 42 So. 855; Wilson v. Stevens, 129 Ala. 630, 29 So. 678, 87 Am. St. Eep. 86; Elyton Land Co. v. Iron City Steam Bottling Works, 109 Ala. 602, 20 So. 51; Seals v. Eobin- son, 75 Ala. 363; Lockard v. Nash, 64 Ala. 385; Kirksey v. Snedeeor, 60 Ala. 192; Davidson v. Lanier, 51 Ala. 318; Stiles V. Lightfoot, 26 Ala. 443; Eandall v. Lang, 23 Ala. 751; Thomas v. DegrafFenreid, 17 Ala. 602. Ark. — Crampton v. Schaap, 56 Ark. 253, 19 S. W. 669; Eudy v. Austin, 56 Ark. 73, 19 S. W. Ill, 35 Am. St. Eep. 85. Cal. — Buch, etc., Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, 66 Pac. 967; Kane v. Desmond, 63 Cal. 464; Wells v. Stout, 9 Cal. 479. Colo. — Wilcoxen v. Morgan, 2 Colo. 473. Conn. — Whiting v. Ealph, 75 Conn. 41, 52 Atl. 406 ; Smith v. Gaylord, 47 Conn. 380; Converse v. Hartley, 31 Conn. 372; Benton v. Jones, 8 Conn. 186. Compare State v. Martin, 77 Conn. 142, 58 Atl. 745; Barbour v. 348 Fraudulent CoNVETAiircEs. dictions it is held that where a voluntary conveyance is made and Connecticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 61 Conn. 240, 23 Atl. 154. Fla.— Florida. L. & X. Co. v. Crabb (1903), 33 So. 523. Go.— Horn v. Boss, 20 Ga. 210, 65 Am. Dec. 621. III. — Higley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 185 111. 565, 57 N. E. 436; Faloon v. Mclntyre, 118 111. 292, 8 N. E. 315; Durand v. Weightman, 108 111. 489; Lucas v. Lucas, 103 111. 121; Jackson v. Miner, 101 III. 550; Tun- ison V. Chamblin, 88 III. 378; Lincoln V. McLaughlin, 74 111. 11; Bridgford V. Riddell, 55 111. 261; Mixell v. Lutz, 34 111. 382; Carter v. Lewis, 29 111. 500; Lamont v. Regan, 96 111. App. 359; Hunt v. Connor, 74 111. App. 298; Racine Wagon, etc., Co. v. Roberts, 54 111. App. 515; Sweet v. Bean, 43 111. App. 650; Edgerly v. First Nat. Bank, 30 111. App. 425. But see Morrill v. Kilner, 113 111. 318. Ind. — Stumph v. Bruner, 89 Ind. 556. lovxi. — ^King V. Wells, 106 Iowa, 649, 77 N. W. 338; Carbiener v. Mont- gomery, 97 Iowa, 659, 66 N. W. 900; Hook V. Mowre, 17 Iowa, 195. Kan. — Voorhis v. Michaelis, 45 Kan. 255, 25 Pac. 592. Xjf.— Place V. Rhem, 70 Ky. 585; Duhme v. -Young, 66 Ky. 343 ; Hurdt V. Courtenay, 61 Ky. 139; Enders v. Williams, 58 Ky. 346; Hanson v. Buckner, 34 Ky. 251, 29 Am. Dec. 401; Cosby v. Ross, 26 Ky. 290, 20 Am. Dec. 140; Hunt v. Nance, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 1188, 92 S. W. 6; Rose v. Campbell, 25 Ky. L. Rep. 885, 1263, 76 S. W. 505, 77 S. W. 707; Little v. Eagan, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 391; Fletcher r. Harl, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 335. La. — Hopkins v. Buck, 5 La. Ann. 487; Brunet v. Duvergis, 5 La. 124; Morgan v. Davis, 4 La. 141; Heniy V. Hyde, 5 Mart. N. S. 633; Hesser v. Black, 5 Mart. N. S. 96. Me. — Davis v. Herrick, 37 Me. 397; Howe V. Ward, 4 Me. 195. Md. — ^Miller v. Johnson, 27 Md. 6; Ward v. Hollins, 14 Md. 158; Bohn V. Headley, 7 Harr. & J. 257. Mich. — Bark worth v. Palmer, 118 Mich. 60, 76 N. W. 151; Cole v. Brown, 114 Mich. 396, 72 N. W. 247, 68 Am. St. Rep. 491. Miss. — Pennington v. Seal, 49 Miss. 618. Mo. — ^Welch V. Mann, 193 Mo. 304, 92 S. W. 98; Krueger v. Vorhauer, 164 Mo. 156, 63 S. W. 1098; Caldwell V. Smith, 88 Mo. 44; Payne v. Stan- ton, 59 Mo. 158; Pepper v. Carter, 11 Mo. 540; Baker v. Welch, 4 Mo. 484; Loy V. Rorick, 100 Mo. App. 105, 71 S. W. 842; Bracken v. Milner, 99 Mo. App. 187, 73 S. W. 225; Bauer Gro- cery Co. V. Smith, 74 Mo. App. 419; Boatman's Sav. Bank v. Overall, 16 Mo. App. 510; Mittelburg v. Harri- son, 11 Mo. App. 136; Mutual L. Ins. Co. V. Sandfelder, 9 Mo. App. 285. Neb. — Jayne v. Hymer, 66 Neb. 785, 92 N. W. 1019; Ayers v. Wol- cott, 66 Neb. 712, 92 N. W. 1036; Racek v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Neb. 669, 87 N. W. 542; Wake v. Griffin, 9 Neb. 47, 2 N. W. 461. N. H. — Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510; Smyth v. Carlisle, 16 N. H. 464; Carlisle v. Rich, 8 N. H. 44. N. J.— Kinsey v. Feller, 64 N. J. Eq. 367, 61 Atl. 485; Minzesheimer v. Doolittle, 56 N. J. Eq. 206, 39 Atl. 386; Long Branch Banking Co. v. Dennis, 56 N. J. Eq. 649, 39 Atl. 689; CoNSIDEEATION. 349 received with actual intent to defraud then existing creditors of the grantor, it is not a bona fide conveyance which can, protect the Bouquet v. Heyman, 50 N. J. Eq. 114, 24 Atl. 266; Burne v. Kunzman (Ch. 1900), 19 Atl. 667; Campbell v. Tompkins, 32 N. J. Eq. 170; Carpen- ter V. Carpenter^ 27 N. J. Eq. 502. Tf. C. — Clement v. Cozart, 109 N. C. 173, 13 S. E. 862. N. i>.— Ked River Valley Nat. Bank V. Barnes, 8 N. D. 432, 79 N. W. 880. Ohio. — Creed v. Lancaster Bank, 1 Ohio St. 1; Kobinson v. Von Doleke, 3 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 107, 1 Ohio N. P. 429. Or. — Seed v. Jennings (1905), 83 Pac. 872; Morton v. Denham, 39 Or. 227, 64 Pac. 384. Pa.— Best V. Smith, 193 Pa. St. 89, 44 Atl. 329, 74 Am. St. Rep. 676; Reese v. Reese, 157 Pa. St. 200, 27 Atl. 703; Staller v. Kirkpatrick, 1 Mona. 486 ; Lieber v. Lieber, 17 Mont. Co. Rep. 34; Tatham v. Crawford, 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 365. 8. G. — Gentry v. Lanneau, 54 S. C. 514, 32 S. E. 523, 71 Am. St. Rep. 814; Jackson v. Phyler, 38 S. C. 496, 17 S. E. 255, 37 Am. St. Rep. 782; Walker v. BoUman, 22 S. C. 512; Richardson v. Rhodus, 14 Rich. 95; Footman v. Pendergrass, 3 Rich. Eq. 33; Brock v. Bowman, Rich. Eq. Cas. 185; King v. Clarke, 2 Hill Eq. 611; Blake v. Jones, Bailey Eq. 141, 21 Am. Dec. 530; Henderson v. Dodd, Bailey Eq. 138; Smith v. Littlejohn, 2 Mc- Cord, 362. 8. D. — ^Aldous V. Olverson, 17 S. D. 190, 95 N. W. 917. Tenn. — ^Nelson v. Venden, 99 Tenn. 224, 42 S. W. 5; Hickman v. Perrin, 46 Tenn. 135; Nicholas v. Ward, 38 Tenn. 323, 73 Am. Dec. 177; Dillard V. Dillard, 22 Tenn. 41; Hamilton v. Bradley, 5 Hayw. 127. Compare Trez- evant v. Terrell, 96 Tenn. 528, 33 S. W. 109; Hester v. Wilkinson, 25 Tenn. 215, 44 Am. Deo. 303. Tex. — ^Moulton v. Sturgis Nat. Bank (Civ. App. 1901), 65 S. W. 1114; O'Neal v. Clymer (Civ. App. 1900), 61 S. W. 545; Heath v. First Nat. Bank, 19 Tex. Civ. App. 63, 46 S. W. 123. Vt. — Fair Haven Marble, etc., Co. V. Owens, 69 Vt. 246, 37 Atl. 749; Mc- Lane v. Johnson, 43 Vt. 48; Church V. Chapin, 35 Vt. 223. Va. — ^New South BIdg., etc., Assoc. V. Reed, 96 Va. 345, 31 S. E. 514, 70 Am. St. Rep. 858; Johnston v. Zane, 11 Gratt. 552; Davis v. Payne, 4 Rand. 332. W. Va. — Enslow v. Sliger, 51 W. Va. 405, 41 S. E. 173; Bronson v. Vaughn, 44 W. Va. 406, 29 S. E. 1022; Green v. O'Brien, 36 W. Va. 277, 15 S. E. 74; McClaugherty v. Morgan, 36 W. Va. 191, 14 S. E. 992; Rogers V. Verlander, 30 W. Va. 619, 5 S. E. 847; Rose v. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122; Lockhard v. Beckley, 10 W. Va. 87. Wis. — ^Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Monahan, 63 Wis. 198, 23 S. W. 127. Eng. — Russel v. Hammond, 1 Atk. 13, 26 Eng. Reprint, 9; Holmes v. Penny, 3 Jur. N. S. 80, 3 Kay. & J. 90, 26 L. J. Ch. 179, 5 Wkly. Rep. 132; Spirett v. Willows, 10 L. T. Rep. N. S. 450; HoUoway v. Millard, 1 Madd. 414, 56 Eng. Reprint, 152; Battersbee v. Farrington, 1 Swanst. 106, 36 Eng. Reprint, 317, 1 Wils. Ch. 88, 18 Rev. Rep. 32, 37 Eng. Re- print, 40; George v. Milbanks, 9 Ves. Jr. 190, 7 Rev. Rep. 157, 32 360 Fbaudulent Conveyances. grantee against claims of subsequent creditors.^" In other juris- dictions the contrary rule is maintained.^' A voluntary convey- ance, made by a debtor with the actual intent to defraud subse- quent creditors, is fraudulent and void as to them."^ To render a Eng. Reprint, 575; Townshend v. Windham, 2 Ves. 1, 28 Eng. Reprint, 1 ; Meggison v. Forster, 7 Jur. 546, 12 L. J. Ch. 415, 2 y. & Coll. 336, 21 Eng. Ch. 336. Sabsequent pnrcliaser. — A vol- untary conveyance, made in good faith by a, person not indebted at the time, to his child, is valid as against a subsequent purchaser from the grantor with notice of the convey- ance. Verplank v. Sterry, 12 Johns. (N. Y.) 536, 7 Am. Dec. 348. 20. N. y.— King v. Wiloox, 11 Paige, 589; Partridge v. Stokes, 66 Barb. 586. Ala. — Heintz v. White, 105 Ala. 670, 17 So. 185; Huggins v. Pcrrine, 30 Ala. 396, 68 Am. Dee. 131. Ark. — ^May v. State Nat. Bank, 59 Ark. 614, 28 S. W, 431; Toney v. Mc- Gehee, 38 Ark. 419; Dodd v. Me- Crav?, 8 Ark. 83, 46 Am. Dec. 301. Conn. — State v. Martin, 77 Conn. 142, 58 Atl. 745; Barbour v. Connec- ticut Mut. L. Ins. Co., 61 Conn. 240, 23 Atl. 154. Me. — Harston v. Marston, 54 Me. 476. Mass. — Brooks v. DalT3miple, 12 Allen, 102; Thaeher v. Phinney, 7 Allen, 146. Tenn. — Nelson v. Vanden, 99 Tenn. 224, 42 S. W. 5. 21. 17. S.— Schreyer v. Piatt, 134 U. S. 405, 10 Sup. Ct. 579, 33 L. Ed. 955. Miss. — Simmons v. Ingram, 60 Miss. 886, overruling Vertner v. Humphreys, 22 Miss. 130; Henry v. Fullerton, 21 Miss. 631. Mo. — Welch V. Mann, 193 Mo. 304, 92 S. W. 98; Davidson v. Dockery, 179 Mo. 687, 78 S. W. 624. Neb. — State Bank v. Frey, 3 Neb. (Unoflf.) 83, 91 N. W. 239. Po.— Kimble v. Smith, 95 Pa. St. 69; Harlan v. Maglaughlin, 90 Pa. St. 293. Va. — New South Bldg., etc., Assoc. V. Reed, 96 Va. 345, 31 S. E. 514, 70 Am. St. Rep. 858. The Texas statute provides that a voluntary conveyance shall not be void as to subsequent creditors merely because it is void as to prior credi- tors. Lewis V. Simon, 72 Tex. 470, 10 S. W. 554. 22. U. S.— Horbach v. Hill, 112 U. S. 144, 5 Sup. Ct. 81, 28 L. Ed. 670; Burdick v. Gill, 7 Fed. 668, 2 Mc- Crary, 486; United States v. Stiner, 28 Fed. Cas. No. 16,404, 8 Blatchf. 544. Ark. — ^May v. State Nat. Bank, 59 Ark. 614, 28 S. W. 431. Cal. — Bush, etc., Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, 66 Pae. 967. D. (7.— Holladay v. Towers, 20 D. C. 577 ; ' Walter v. Lane, 1 MacAr- thur, 275. Ind. — ^Petree v. Brotherton, 133 Ind. 692, 32 N. E. 300; Barrow v. Barrow, 108 Ind. 345, 9 N. E. 371. Kan. — ^MePherson v. Kingsbaker, 22 Kan. 646. Me. — Laughton v. Harden, 68 Me. 208; Marston v. Marston, 54 Me. 476; Pullen v. Hutchinson, 25 Me. 249, Md.—Ma.ttha.i v. Heather, 57 Md. 483. CoNSIDEEATION. 351 voluntary conveyance fraudulent as to subsequent creditors, it must appear that it was made by the grantor in contemplation of future indebtedness, with the intent to contract and continue future indebtedness, and to avoid payment of his debts by placing his property beyond the reach of those who should give him such future credit,^ or that there was intentional fraud contemplated by the grantor in the creation of future debts.^* A voluntaiy conveyance, made when the grantor is about to enter upon a new and hazardous business, or with a view to incurring liabilities, which are contracted soon after the conveyance, is presumed to Miss. — Wynne v. Mason, 72 Miss. 424, 18 So. 422; Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749, 2 Am. Rep. 653; Bullitt T. Taylor, 34 Miss. 708, 69 Am. Dec. 412. Mo. — Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. Over- all, 90 Mo. 410, 3 S. W. 64, aff'g 16 Mo. App. 510. N. H.— Carlisle v. Rich, 8 N. H. 44. Ohio. — ^Evans v. Lewis, 30 Ohio St. 11; Bowlus V. Shanabarger, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 137, 10 Ohio Civ. Dec. 167. Po.— Haak's Appeal, 100 Pa. St. 59; Murphy v. Solens, 6 Pa. Co. Ct. 264; Andress v. Lewis, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 293, 17 Wkly. N. Cas. 270; Connell's Estate, 13 Phila. 393. Tenn. — Churchill v. Wells, 47 Tenn. 364. Tece. — Rives v. Stephens (Civ. App. 1894), 28 S. W. 707. W. Va. — Billingsley v. Clelland, 41 W. Va. 234, 23 S. E. 812. See also cases cited in note 19, supra. Z3. N. T. — Savage v. Murphy, 34 N. y. 508, 90 Am. Dee. 733, aff'g 8 Bosw. 75. p. £f._Smith V. Vodges, 92 U. S. 183, 23 L. Ed. 481. AZa.— Echols V. Orr, 106 Ala. 237, 17 So. 677. Colo. — ^Arnett v. CoflFey, 1 Colo. App. 34, 27 Pac. 614. /M.— Morrill V. Kilner, 113 111. 318; Bridgford v. Riddell, 55 111. 261; Bay v. Cook, 31 111. 336; Cra- mer V. Bode, 24 III. App. 219. Kan. — First Nat. Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 694; 21 Pac. 242. Kif. — ^Haskell v. Bakewell, 49 Ky. 206. Mo. — ^Kinealy v. Macklin, 89 Mo. 433, 14 S. W. 507; Fisher v. Lewis, 69 Mo. 629. N. J.— City Nat. Bank v. Hamil- ton, 34 N. J. Eq. 158; Carpenter v. Carpenter, 25 N. J. Eq. 194; Cramer V. Eeford, 17 N. J. Eq. 367, 90 Am. Dec. 594; Beekman v. Montgomery, 14 N. J. Eq. 106, 80 Am. Dec. 229. Pa.— Buckley v. DuflF, 114 Pa. St. 596, 8 Atl. 188; Haak's Appeal, 100 Pa. St. 59; Bonslough v. Bonslough, 68 Pa. St. 495; Wateraon v. WiUon, 1 Grant Cas. 74; In re Greenfield's Estate, 14 Pa. St. 489. 8. C— Cohen v. Meyer, 19 S. C. 190; Kidd V. Mitchell, 1 Nott & M. 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702. Tenn. — Churchill v. Wells, 47 Tenn. 364; Hickman v. Perrin, 46 Tenn. 135; Russell v. Stinson, 4 Tenn. 1. 24. Walker v. Lane, 1 MacArthur (D. C), 275. 352 Eeaudui-ent Conveyances. be made with intent to defraud subsequent creditors and may be set aside by them as fraudulent.^^ But unless a voluntary codc- veyance was made with the intein,t to defraud such subsequent creditors ; or there was secrecy in the transaction by which knowl- edge of it was withheld from such creditors Tvho dealt with the grantor upon the faith of his owning the property transferred; or the transfer was made with the view of entering into some new and hazardous business, the risk of which the grantor in- tended should be cast upon the parties having dealings with him in a new business, siich a conveyance is good aa against subse- quent creditors.^' A voluntary conveyance is valid as against subsequent creditors, when it does not appear, as one step in a fi'audulent design, that it was made with the deliberate purpose to put the property beyond the reach of debts which the grantor then intended to contract;" or where although it was the intent of the grantor to enter into a hazardous business, he did not in fact enter into such business.^* A mere expectation of future indebtedness, or an intent to contract debts, not coupled with a purpose to convey the property to keep it from the reach of creditors, it not within the letter or spirit of the statutes, and win not avoid the conveyance as against subsequent creditors.^ § 37. Insufficiency or inadequacy of consideration. — Mfere inadequacy of price or consideratiom unattended by other ciroum- 25. N. y.— Case v. Phelps, 39 N. St. 413, 84 Am. Dec. 461; Snyder v. Y. 164; Carr V. Breese, 18 Hun,' 134. Christ, 39 Pa. St. 499; Thomson t. U. iSr.— Ridgeway v. Underwood, 20 Dougherty, 12 Serg. & R. 448. - Fed. Cas. No. 11,815, 4 Wash. 129. 26. Neuberger v. Klein, 134 N. Y. Afo.— Fisher v. Lewis, 69 Mo. 629. 35, 31 N. E. 268, affg 53 Hun, 60, 5 ' jfeb. Ayers v. Wolcott, 62 Neb. N. Y. Supp. 94; Todd v. Nelson, 109 805, 87 N. W. 906. N. Y. 316, 16 N. E. 360; Sohreyer v. N. /.— Hildebrand v. Willig, 64 N. Scott, 134 U. S. 411. .J. Eq. 249, 53 Atl. 1035 ; City Nat. 27. Hilton v. Morse, 75 Me. 258. Bank v. Hamilton, 34 N. J. Eq. 28. Williams v. Davis, 69 Pa. St. 158. 21. Pa.— Buckley v. Dufif, 114 Pa. St. 29. Snyder v. Christ, 39 Pa. St. 956, 8 Atl. 188; Monroe v. Smith, 79 499; In re Connell's Estate, 13 Phila. Pa. St. 459; Appeal of Woolston, 51 (Pa.) 393, fraud intended against Pa. St. 452; Mullen v. Wilson, 44 Pa. the creditor must be shown. CoNSIDEEATION. 353 stances casting suspicion upon the fairness of the transaction, is not sufficient proof to esitablish fraud in a sale or conveyance, as against creditors.'" A debtor may sell his property to pay his debts for such consideration as he may agree to accept, and, if there is nothing illegal in the transaction and no fraudulent purpose involved it will be good as against creditors.'* Inade- quacy of consideration is a badge and evidence of fraud. '^ Where 30. N. T. — Jaeger v. Kelley, 52 N. Y. 274; O'Connor v. Docen, 50 App. Div. 610, 64 N. Y. Supp. 206; An- dreae v. Bourke, 33 App. Div. 638, 53 N. Y. Supp. 885; Hardt v. Deutsch, 22 Misc.'Bep. 66, 48 N. Y. Supp. 564. V. 8. — Kempner v. Churchill, 8 Wall. 362, 19 L. Ed. 461. Conn. — ^Washband v. Washband, 27 Conn. 424. D. G. — Clark v. Krause, 2 Maekey, 559. Go.— Sharp v. Hicks, 94 Ga. 624, 21 S. E. 208. III. — ^Klemm v. Bishop, 56 111. App. 613. /owo. — ^Rusie v. Jameson, 62 Iowa, 52, 17 N. W. 103. E^. — ^Talbott V. Hooser, 12 Bush, 408. La. — Montgomery v. Wilson, 31 La. Ann. 196; Keller v. Blanchard, 19 La. Ann. 53. Md. — ^Feigley v. Feigley, 7 Md. 537, 61 Am. Dec. 375. But see Worthing- ton V. Bullitt, 6 Md. 172. Miss. — Foster v. Pugh, 20 Miss. 416. Mo. — Lionberger v. Baker, 88 Mo. 447; Nelson Distilling Co. v. Voss- meyer, 25 Mo. App. 578; Demuth v. Boehler, 11 Mo. App. 588. Mont. — ^Mueller v. Renkes (1904), 77 Pac. 512; Maloy v. Berkin, 11 Mont. 138, 27 Pac. 442. N. d^.— Hudnit v. Tomson, 26 N. J. Eq. 239. 23 2f. C. — ^Wachonia Loan, etc., Co. v. Forbes, 120 N. C. 355, 27 S. E. 43. Ohio. — Jones v. Leeds, 10 Ohio, S. & C. PI. Dec. 173, 7 Ohio N. P. 480. Or. — Brown v. Case, 41 Oreg. 221, 69 Pac. 43. Po.— Goddard v. Weil, 165 Pa. St. 419, 30 Atl. 1000, 36 Wkly. N. Cas. 98; Shatz v. Kirker, 1 Pa. Cas. 332, 2 Atl. 93. 8. C. — ^McPherson v. McPherson, 21 S. C. 261. Tex. — ^Moore v. Lowery, 27 Tex. 541. To. — Sutherlin v. March, 75 Va. 223; Moore v. Triplett (1885)', 23 S. E. 69. W. Fa.— Bierne v. Ray, 37 W. Va. 571, 16 S. E. 804. Eng. — ^Blount v. Blount, 3 Atk. 481, 26 Eng. Reprint, 1076. 3il. Lowery v. Howard, 35 Ind. 170, 9 Am. Rep. 676; Frank v. Peters, 9 Ind. 343; Hubbs v. Bancroft, 4 Ind. 388; Rosenheimer v. Krenn, 126 Wis. 617, 106 N. W. 20. Compare Far- mers' Bank of Virginia v. Douglass, 11 Sm. & M. (Miss.) 469. 32. N. r.— First Nat. Bank of Amsterdam v. Miller, 163 N. Y. 164, 57 N. E. 308; Maasch v. Grauer, 58 App. Div. 560, 69 N. Y. Supp. 187; Andreae v. Bourke, 33 App. Div. 638, 53 N. Y. Supp. 885; Delaware v. En- sign, il Barb. 85; Stoddard v. But- ler, 20 Wend. 507; Osgord v. Frank- lin, 2 Johns. Ch. 1, 7 Am. Dec. 513. 354 Feaudulent Conveyances. a sale is made for considerably less than tlie actual value, it is such, evidence of fraud as requires explanation, and may, when coupled with other facts, be controlling proof of dishonesty and fraud.'' Great inadequacy of price is a strong badge and evi- dence of fraud, and in many cases will render a sale void; but it may be explained.'* Gross inadequacy of price is a strong^ U. 8. — Hudgins v. Kemp, 20 How. ' 45, 15 L. Ed. 853; Bartles v. Gibson, 17 Fed. 293; Wright v. Stanard, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 18,094, 2 Brock. 311. But mere inadequacy in honest family settlements is not a badge of fraud. Voorhees v. Blanton, 83 Fed. 234. Ala. — McCaskle v. Amarine, 12 Ala. 17; Seamans v. White, 8 Ala. 656. Colo. — Rose V. Dunklee, 12 Colo. App. 403, 66 Pac. 342. Fla. — Barrow v. Bailey, 5 Fla. 9. 6a. — ^Hawkinsville Bank, etc., Co. V. Walker, 99 Ga. 242, 25 S. E. 205. III. — ^Mathews v. Eeinhardt, 149 111. 635, 37 N. E. 85, aff'g 43 111. App. 169; McArtee v. Engart, 13 111. 242. Ind. — Hubbs v. Bancroft, 4 Ind. 388. Compare Milburn v. Phillips, 136 Ind. 680, 34 N. E. 983, 36 N. E. 360; Cagney v. Cuson, 77 Ind. 494. Iowa. — ^Urdangen v. Doner, 122 Iowa, 533, 98 N. W. 317; Cathcart v. Grieve, 104 Iowa, 330, 73 N. W. 835, inadequacy is not material where a deed was intended as a mortgage. Ky. — Easum v. Pirtle, 81 Ky. 661, 5 Ky. L. Eep. 572; Diamond Coal Co. V. Carter Dry Goods Co., 20 Ky. L. Kep. 1444, 49 S. W. 438. Md.— City of Baltimore v. Wil- liams, 6 Md. 235. Mass. — Schaefer Brewing Co. v. Moebs, 187 Mass. 571, 73 N. E. 858. Jlfo.— State T. Mason, 112 Mo. 374, 20 S. W. 629, 34 Am. Rep. 390; Rob- inson V. Robards, 15 Mo. 459. N. H.— Claflin v. Batchelder, 65 N. H. 29, 17 Atl. 1060. N. J. — Gnitchel v. Jewell (Oh. 1888), 41 Atl. 227. Or. — Brown v. Case, 41 Or. 221, 69 Pac. 43. Pa. — Rhoads v. Blatt, 84 Pa. St. 31. Tex. — ^Moore v. Lowery, 27 Tex. 541; Mills v. Waller, Dall. Dig. 416, the inadequacy must be shown to have existed at the time of the sale Fa.— Tebbs v. Lee, 76 Va. 744. Wis. — Fisher v. Shelver, 53 Wis. 498, 10 N". W. 681. Can. — Carradice v. Currie, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 108; Crawford v. Meldrum, 3 Grant Err. & App. (U. C.) 101. 33. Dodson v. Cooper, 50 Kan. 680, 32 Pac. 370. 34. U. /S.— Byers v. Surget, 60 U- S. 303, 15 L. Ed. 670, aff'g Surget v. Byers, 24 Fed. Cas. No. 13,629, Hempst. 715. Ala. — Fairfield Packing Co. v. Ken- tucky Jeans Clothing Co.,' 110 Ala. 536, 20 So. 63; Gordon v. Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202; Bozman v. Draughan, 3 Stew. 243. Ark. — Galbreath v. Cook, 30 Ark. 417; Beebe v. DeBaun, 8 Ark. 510. Fla. — Gainer v. Russ, 20 Fla. 157. III. — Jewett V. Cook, 81 III. 260; Monell V. Schenick, 54 111. 269; Bay- V. Cook, 31 111. 336. CONSIDEEATION. 35'5 though not conclusive badge of fraud; but, coupled with other circumstances tending to prove fraud, it becomes conclusiva'' Where the disparity between the true value of the property transferred and the price paid or agred to be paid was so great as to strike the understanding with the conviction of unfair dealing or fraud, or that the transaction was not bona fide/^ or Ky. — Cincinnati Tobacco Ware- house Co. V. Matthews, 24 Ky. L. Rep. 2443, 74 S. W. 242; Carter v. Richardson, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1204, 60 S. W. 397. La. — Shultz V. Morgan, 27 La. Ann. 616. Me.— Jones v. Light, 86 Me. 437, 30 Atl. 71 ; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 139. Mich. — Shay v. Wheeler, 69 Mich. 254, 37 N. W. 210. Minn. — Carson v. Hawley, 28 Minn. 204, 84 N. W. 746. Miss. — Foster v. Pugh, 20 Miss. 416; Taylor v. Eckford, 19 Miss. 21. Mo. — State v. Mason, 112 Mo. 374, 20 S. W. 629, 34 Am. St. Rep. 390; Ames V. Gilmore, 59 Mo. 537. m. C— Shober v. Wheeler, 113 N. C. 370, 18 S. E. 328. Pa. — Hamet v. Dundass, 4 Pa. St. 178; Bossart's Estate, 11 Pa. Super. Ct. 100, the transaction is not fraud- ulent if the parties mistakenly be- lieve the price is a fair one. Tex. — Bryant v. Kelton, 1 Tex. 415. W. Va. — Livesay v. Beard, 22 W. Va. 585. Can. — Toronto Bank v. Irwin, 28 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 397. JSn(?.— Strong v. Strong, 18 Beav. 408, 52 Eng. Reprint, 161. 35. Boyd V. Ellis, 11 Iowa, 97. 36. N. 7- — Morris v. Morris, 71 Hun, 45, 24 N. Y. Supp. 579. 17. S. — Jenkins v. Einstein, 13 Fed. Cas. No. 7,265, 3 Biss. 128. Ala. — Gamble v. C. Aultman, 125 Ala. 372, 28 So. 30; Prosser v. Hen- derson, 11 Ala. 484; Borland v. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104; Pope v. Brandon, 2 Stew. 401, 20 Am. Dec. 49. Ind. — Cagney v. Cuson, 77 Ind. 494. Mich. — Noble v. Laidlaw (1904), 100 N. W. 179, 11 Det. L. N. 199. Mo. — Wells V. Thomas, 10 Mo. 237. NeJ>. — Knight v. Darby, 55 Neb. 16, 75 N. W. 48. Ohio. — Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Wehrle, 18 Ohio Cir. Ct. 535, 9 Ohio Cir. Dec. 330; Hamill v. Wright, 8 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 467. 5 Ohio N. P. 9. R. /.—Sweet's Petition, 20 R. I. 557, 40 Atl. 502. Tenn. — ^McTeer v. Huntsman (Ch. App. 1898), 49 S. W. 57; Merriman V. Lacefield, 4 Heisk. 209. Tex. — ^Numsen v. Ellis, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 134, but the sale will not be invalidated where the purchase money has been applied to the pay- ment of the debts. F«.— Church v. Chapin, 35 Vt. 223. W. Va. — Wood V. Harmison, 41 \V. Va. 376, 23 S. E. 560; Douglass v. Douglass, 41 W. Va. 13, 23 S. E. 671, but the fact that a larger price could have been obtained, had the debtor sold on credit instead of for cash, is no ground for setting the conveyance aside. 366 Fkaudulent Conveyances. so great as to aihoek the conscience or a correct mind," it will be sufficient to avoid the sale. § 38. Transactions between husband and wife; nature, adequacy, and sufficiency of consideration. — A conveyance or transfer of propearty by a debtor to his wife in consideration of natural love and effection/^ or for a merely nominal amount/' or for a consideration which is fictitious and fraudulent/" is not made on a valuable consideration sufficient to sustain it as against creditors. The general rules as to the nature, adequacy, and sufficiency of consideration for conveyances or transfers of prop- erty made by a debtor, as discussed in the preceding sections of this chapter, apply to such transactions, between husband and wife in determining the validity or invalidity thereof, as against creditors.*^ An agreement by a wife to go from a city to the Wis. — Crocker v. Huntzicker, 113 Wis. 181, 88 N. W. 232. Wyo. — Stirling v. Wagner, 4 Wyo. 5, 31 Pac. 1032, 32 Pac. 1128. 37. McGhee v. Wells, 57 S. C. 280, 35 S. E. 529, 76 Am. St. Eep. 567; Flook V. Armentrout's Adm'r, 100 Va. 638, 42 S. E. 686; Harbottle v. Rawlins, 11 Hawaii, 105. 38. Houston v. Blackman, 66 Ala. 559, 41 Am. Rep. 756; Baker v. Hol- lis, 84 Iowa, 682, 51 N. W. 78; Shaw V. Manchester, 84 Iowa, 246, 50 N. W. 985; Baldwin v. Tuttle, 23 Iowa, 66; MilhoUand v. Tiffany, 64 Md. 455. 39. Houston v. Blackman, supra; Shaw V. Manchester, supra. 40. Smith v. Perrine, 49 Hun (N. Y.), 605, 1 N. Y. Supp. 495; Hodges V. Hickey, 67 Miss. 715, 7 So. 404; Robert v. Hodges, 16 N. J. Eq. 299. 41. W. Y. — Sandman v. Seaman, 84 Hun, 337, 32 N. Y. Supp. 338. Conn.— Paulk v. Cooke, 39 Conn. 566. lU.—Fos. V. Peck, 151 111. 226, 37 N. E. 873, aff'g 45 111. App. 239. Ind. — Gable v. Columbus Cigar Co., 140 Ind. 563, 38 N. E. 474; Secor V. Souder, 95 Ind. 95; Schaef- fer V. Fithian, 17 Ind. 463. lovia. — Cox V. Collis, 109 Iowa, 270, 80 N. W. 343; Davis v. Garrison, 85 Iowa, 447, 52 N. W. 359. Ky.-^'Ra.y v. Life Assoc, of America, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 514. La. — Preslar & Tier v. Walker, 116 La. 661, 40 So. 1033. Mich. — Otis V. Sprague, 118 Mich. 61, 76 N. W. 154. Miss. — Wynne v. Mason, 72 Miss. 424, 18 So. 422. N. J. — Faitoute v. Sayer (Ch. 1894), 28 Atl. 711; Aber v. Brant, 36 N. J. Eq. 116. N. G.— Walton v. Parish, 95 N.C.259. Ohio. — German Nat. Bank v. Gun- ther, 3 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 686, 3 Ohio N. P. 311. Pa. — Duffy V. Mechanics', etc., Ins. Co., 8 Watts & S. 413. CoNSIDEKATION. 35'Y coiunitiy, and live with her husband, is not a siifficient considera- tion to support a conveyance from her husband, as against credi- tors.** Maintenance for the wife and childrea of the marriage is a sufficient consideration to support a settlement by a husband from whom the wife has separated because of his haviortg lived in a state of adultery/^ A conveyance by a husband to his wife of all his property, without consideration other than the pur- ported release of the obligation of the husband thereafter to support his wife, is fraudulent as to creditors existing at the time of the making thereof/* A conveyance by a land owtner to his wife, in order to prevent him from dissipating the property and making bad sales, is subject to any judgments which may be recovered against him on existing demands/* A wife has a right to purchase at a foreclosure sale against her husband, and a deed to her in pursuance of such sale and a deed from her to a third person are not fraudulent as to creditors, in the absence of actual fraud/* A husband when free from debt, may convey property to his wife without consideration, if the conveyance is not in contemplation of the contracting of future indebtedness and to place the same beyond the reach of his future creditors." § 39. Release of wife's dower right. — The relinquishment by a wife of her inchoate interest or right of dower in the lands 42. Radley v. Eiker, 80 Hun (N. her husband and obtained an injune- Y.), 353, 30 N. Y. Supp. 130. tion against his. disposing of his prop- 43. Hobbs V. Hull, 1 Cox Ch. 445, erty, enters into a contract with him 20 Eng. Reprint, 1242. whereby he agrees to cease drinking 44. Auburgh v. Lydston, 117 111. and to properly support her, and to App. 574, appeal dismissed, 216 111. execute to her a deed to be placed in 210 74 N. E. 796. escrow, to be delivered to her on his 45. Tanner v. Bckhardt, 107 App. breaking his agreement, she agree- Div (N. Y.) 79 94 N. Y. Supp. 1013. ing to continue her suit and live with 46. Hesseltine v. Hodges, 188 Mass. him, such deed is not voluntary to 247 74 N E 319. ^"^ extent, as regards the question of 47. Clark v. Else (S. D. 1906), fraudulent conveyance, though the HON W 88 property conveyed was worth more -Wlien conveyanoe not volnn- than she could have recovered as ali- tary.— Where a wife, having com- mony. Pippin v. Tapia (Ala. 1906), menc^d divorce proceedings against 42 So. 545. 358 Fbaxjdulent Conveyances. of her husband is a valuable and sufficient consideration to sup- port a conveyance or transfer by him, or procured by him, to her, of a part of his lands or other property, or for a settlement on her from the husband's property, and such a conveyance is valid as against creditors of the husband.^* Although the value 48. J7. S.— Mattoon v. McGrew, 112 U. S. 713, 5 Sup. Ct. 369, 28 L. Ed. 824; Eitz V. National Metropolitan Bank, 111 U. S. 722, 4 Sup. Ct. 613. 28 L. Ed. 577. Ala.— Keel v. Larkin, 83 Ala. 142, 3 So. 296, 3 Am. St. Rep. 702; Gor- don V. Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202. Ark. — Davis v. Yonge (1905), 85 S. W. 90; Hershy v. Latham, 46 Ark. 542. Fla. — Pettit v. Coachman (1906), 41 So. 401; Nalle v. Lively, 15 Fla. 130. Ill.—Payne v. Miller, 103 111. 442. But see McCaffrey v. Dustln, 43 111. App. 34. Ind. — Baldwin v. Heil, 155 Ind. 682, 58 N. E. 200; Citizens' Bank v. Bolen, 121 Ind. 301, 23 N. E. 146; Sedgwick v. Tucker, 90 Ind. 271; Brown v. Rawlings, 72 Ind. 505; Hol- lowell v. Simonson, 21 Ind. 398. E:y.— Potter v. Skiles, 114 Ky. 132, 70 S. W. 301, 71 S. W. 627, 24 Ky. L. Hep. 910, 1457; Harrow v. John- son, 60 Ky. 578; Marshall v. Hutchi- son, 44 Ky. 298; Darling v. Haanks (1897), 42 S. W. 1130; Jones v. Ba- sham (1891), 16 S. W. 88; Green V. Green, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 250. Md. — Unger v. Price, 9 Md. 552. Mass. — ^Mathews v. Thompson, 186 Mass. 14, 71 N. E. 93, 104 Am. St. Rep. 550, 66 L. R. A. 421; Holmes v. Winchester, 133 Mass. 140; Bullard V. Briggs, 24 Mass. 533, 19 Am. Deo. 292. Mich. — German-American Semi- nary V. Saenger, 66 Mich. 249, 33 N. W. 301. Neb. — ^Adler, etc., Clothing Co. v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266, 75 N. W. 877. N. ff.— Rundlett v. Ladd, 59 N. H. 15. Ohio. — Singree v. Welch, 32 Ohio St. 320; Williams v. Williams, 2 Ohio Dec. 467, 3 West. L. Month. 157. Vo.— Runkle v. Runkle, 98 Va. 663, 37 S. E. 279; Ficklin's Adm'r v. Rixey, 89 Va. 832, 17 S. E. 325, 37 Am. St. Rep. 891; Strayer v. Long, 86 Va. 557, 10 S. E. 574; Keagy v. Trout, 85 Va. 390, 7 S. E. 329; Bur- well's Ex'r V. Lumsden, 24 Gratt. 443, 18 Am. Rep. 648 ; Taylor v. Moore, 2 Rand. 563; Lewis v. Caperton, 8 Gratt. 148; Harrison v. Carroll, 11 Leigh, 476; Harvey v. Alexander, 1 Rand. 219, 10 Am. Dec. 519; Blanton v. Taylor, Gilm. 209; Quarles v. Lacy, 4 Munf. 251. W. Ta. — Glascock v. Brandon, 35 W. Va. 84, 12 S. E. 1102. ^n^.— Mills V. Eden, 10 Mod. 487. Compare In re Conlan, L. R. 29, Ir. 199. Can. — ^Morris v. Martin, 19 Ont. 564; Beavis v. Maguire, 7 Ont. App. 704; Forrest v. Laycock, 18 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 611; Patulo v. Boyington, 4 U. C. C. P. 125. Contra. — Sharff v. Hayes (1906), 110 N. W. 24; Haynes v. Kline, 64 Iowa, 308, 20 N. W. 453 ; Le Saulnier V. Krueger, 85 Wis. 214, 54 N. W. 774. CONSIDEEATION. 35'9 of the wife's riglit of dower is much less than the value of land conveyed or property transferred to her, yet such convey- ance or transfer is not absolutely void, but in a court of law must be adjudged valid." In equity, however, such a convey- ance or transfer will be considered as valid only to the extent of the value of the dower right released by the wife.^" Where the value of the dower right relinquished is too inadequate a con- sideration to support the conveyance as against creditors, it will render the conveyance constructively fraudulent and invalid as to creditors.^^ The foregoing rules are applicable both where the release of dower was made at the same time as the con- veyance or transfer,^^ and where it Avas made in pursuance of an agreement preceding the conveyance or transfer.^' A convey- ance in comeideration of a previous assignment of the right of dowfer would be voluntary as to existing creditors.^* A mere joinder by the wife for the purpose of conveying her inchoate interest, in a fraudulent conveyance of real property by the husband, through a trustee, to himself and his wife, to hold by entireties, does not form such a consideration as will support the coeveyance.^^ ITor is the joinder of the grantor's wife in the conveyance of property encumbered to its full value a sufficient 49. Smith v. Seiberling, 35 Fed. 51. Gordon v. Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202; 677; Wright v. Stanard, 30 Fed. Cas. Garvey v. Moore, 12 Kj. L. Rep. 732, No. 18,094, 2 Brock. 311; Hoot v. Sor- 15 S. W. 136; Clinton Bank v. Cum- rell, 11 Ala. 386; Peaslee v. Collier, mins, 38 N. J. Eq. 191; Black v. 83 Mich. 549, 47 N. W. 353. Fountain, 23 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 174. 50. N. Y. — Smart v. Haring, 14 52. Gordon v. Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202. Hun, 276, modifying 52 How. Pr. 505. 53 United States Bank v. Lee, 13 U. S.— Wright V. Stanard, supra. p^^ ^u. S.) 107, 10 L. Ed. 81, aff'ff BTy.— Ward v. Crotty, 61 Ky. 59; g Fed. Cas. No. 922, 5 Cranch C. C Darling v. Hanks (1897), 42 S. W. gjg. q^^^^j^ ^ Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202; 1130. Payne v. Hutcheson, 32 Gratt. (Va.) ATeft.— Adler, etc., Clothing Co. v. gjg pompore Harrison v. Carroll, 11 Hellman, supra. Leigh (Va.), 476. Va.— Johnston v. Gill, 27 Gratt. -^ w j t. 1 ,m.< ».„ » ^i^^• T^ • OK n,„4-+ sa?. 54. Woodson V. Pool, 19 Mo. 340. 587; Davis v. Davis, 25 Gratt. 587; Taylor v. Moore, 2 Rand. 563; Blan- 55. Phillips v. Kennedy, 139 Ind. ton V. Taylor, Gilm. 209. 419, 38 N. E. 410, 39 N. E. 147. 360 Feaudulent Conveyances. oomsideration, as against creditors, for the conveyance of other property by him to her.^' § 40. Release of homestead right. — The relinquishment of homestead rights by a wife, like the release of dower rights, is a sufficient oomsideration to support a conveyance or transfer of property to her by her husband, or a reasonable settlement upon her out of the proceeds of the sale of the property, as against the husband's creditors, although the husband was in failing circumstances or insolvent." § 41. Property vested in husband by marriage. — The fact that by virtue of the marriage a husband acquired property of his wife is not sufficient to support, as against creditors, a con- veyamce to her or for her use made by the husband. Such a conveyance must be considered as a voluntary conveyance.^* But 56. Commonwealth Title Ins., etc., Co. V. Brown, 166 Pa. St. 477, 31 Atl. 205, 36 Wkly. N. Cas. 190. 57. Arfc.— Davis v. Yonge (1905), 85 S. W. 90. III.— Payne v. Miller, 103 111. 442, such a conveyance will be sustained to the extent of the consideration. Mich. — Sullivan v. Parkinson, 128 Mich. 527, 87 N. W. 639, where the wife's claim for money invested in the property and her homestead interest exceeded the value of the property conveyed to her, no part of the prop- erty was subject to the husband's debts. Mo.— Novelty Mfg. Co. v. Pratt, 21 Mo. App. 171, the conveyance is good in law for the whole property con- veyed, and in equity to the value of the wife's interest in the homestead. Tex. — Bumham v. McMichael, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 496, 26 S. W. 887. TPis.— Allen v. Perry, 56 Wis. 178, 14 N. W. 3. The use of proceeds of a mort- sage on a homestead standing in the wife's name, in paying for a machine purchased by the husband, constitutes a sufficient consideration, as against creditors, for a bill of sale executed by the husband transferring the machine to his wife. Farmers' Trust Co. V. Linn, 103 Iowa, 159, 72 N. W. 496. 58. 17. S.— Lee v. HoUister, 5 Fed. 752. Ala. — Jaffrey v. McGough, 83 Ala. 202, 3 So. 594. But see Bradford v. Goldsborough, 15 Ala.311, holding that a deed by a husband to his wife of all his interest in her distributive share of the estate of her deceased father may be enforced in equity against an execution creditor of the husband, who brought suit to subject the prop- erty to the satisfaction of his debt after the wife had taken possession. /«.— Bridgford v. Riddell, 55 111. 261. CoNSIDEEATIOK. 361 such a oonveyanoe is valid if the husband was solvent at the time, and it was not made with intent to defraud subsequent csreditors.^' § 42, Effect of failure to reduce property to possession. — Where the husband does not assert Lis marital rights to the per- sonal property of his wife by reducing it into his possession, but borrows money from her agreeing to repay it, the agreement is for a good oonsideration, and inposes an equitable obligation upon the husband to repay it.'* Lands purchased by the wife or for her use with funds belonging to her which have not been reduced to possessioni by the husband, cannot be subjected to the payment of the husband's debts so as to defeat the equity of the wifa" Ky. — Anderson v. Anderson, 80 Ky. 638; Hurdt v. Courtenay, 61 Ky. 139; I^ne V. Bank of Kentucky, 28 Ky. 545; Darling v. Hanks, 21 Ky. I/. B^. 145, 147, 42 S. W. 1130, 51 S. W. 792; Tapp v. Todd, 16 Ky. L. Rep. 382, 28 S. W. 147; Davis Ex'rs v. Justice, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 741, 21 S. W. 529; Garvey v. Moore, 12 Ky. L. Rep. 732, 15 S. W. 136. Md.—Wy\ie v. Basil, 4 Md. Cih. 327. Mass. — ^Pierce v. Thompson, 34 Mass. 391. Mo. — ^Vandeventer v. Goss, 116 Mo. App. 316, 91 S. W. 958; Columbia Sav. Bank v. Winn, 132 Mo. 80, 33 S. W. 457; Hart v. Leete, 104 Mo. .■515, 15 S. W. 976; Benne v. Sehnecko, 100 Mo. 250, 13 S. W. 80. ]V. J.— Taylor v. Dawes (Oh. 1888), 13 Atl. 593; Smock v. Jones (Ch. 1887), 11 Atl. 497. N. C— Allen v. Allen, 41 N. C. 293. Pa. — Gicker's Adm'rs v. Martin, 50 Pa. St. 138. 8. C— Suber v. Chandler, 36 S. O. 344, 15 S. E. 426; Irby v. Henry, 16 S. 0. 617; Sibley v. Tutt, 1 McMul. Eq. 320. Term. — Joiner v. Franklin, 80 Tenn. 420. Vt. — ^Warren v. Ranney, 50 Vt. 653. To. — ^Rixey's Adm'r v. Detrick, 85 Va. 42, 6 S. E. 615; Poindexter v. Jeffries, 15 Grat. 363; Harvey v. Alex- ander, 1 Rand. 219, 10 Am. Dec. 519. W. 7o.— Clarke v. King, 34 W. Va. 631, 12 S. E. 775. Wis.— Howe V. Colby, 19 Wis. 583. Contra. — Comer v. Allen, 72 Ga. 1 ; Sperry v. Haslam, 57 Ga. 412, prop- erty of the wife, reduced to his pos- session for his wife, and as her es- tate, affords a good and sufficient con- sideration for a conveyance by the husband to the wife. 59. Dick V. Hamilton, Fed. Cas. No. 3,890, Deady, 322. 60. Jaycox v. Caldwell, 51 N. Y. 395, aff'g 37 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 240; Woodworth v. Sweet, 51 N. Y. 8, aff'g 44 Barb. (N. Y.) 268; Drury v. Briscoe, 42 Md. 154. 61. Bank of United States v. Brown, Rilfey Eq. (S. C.) 131, 2 Hill 362 Fraudulent Conveyances. § 43. Earnings, services, and savings of wife. — ^Wliere the common la,w rule still prevails that the wife's eamiugs belong to the husband and he cannot gjve them to her to the prejudice of existing creditors, such earnings are not a sufficient con- sideration for a conveyance or transfer by the husband, or through a third person, to the wife, and suoh a conveyance or transfer is fraudulent as to existing creditors of the husband, but is valid as to subsequent creditors unless tainted with a fraudulent intent.'^ The rule stated applies although a promise had been previously made by the husband that the wife should be entitled to the proceeds of her labor to her own use.^^ But where the earnings of a wife are her separate property and estate, in ac- cordance with constitutional or statutory provisions, they are sufficient consideration for such conveyances or transfers." K^either the services of a wife to her husband,*^ or to a member of his household,'' nor savings from money given to her by him," are a sufficient consideration to sustain a conveyance by the Eq. (S. C.) 558, 30 Am. Dec. 380; Cox V. Scott, 68 Tenn. 305. 62. U. S. — Union Trust Co. v. Fischer, 25 Fed. 178. Ala. — Glaze v. Blake, 56 Ala. 379; McLemore v. Nuckolls, 37 Ala. 662; Pinkstou V. McLemore, 31 Ala. 308. Conn. — ^Hinman v. Parkis, 33 Conn. 188. ind.— Kedey v. Petty, 153 Ind. 179, 54 N. E. 798. 8. C— McAfee v. McAfee, 28 S. C. 188, 5 S. E. 480. To. — Campbell v. Bowles' Adm'r, 30 Gratt. 652. 63. McAfee v. McAfee, 28 S. C. 188, 5 S. E. 480. But see Bartlett v. Behrens, 94 Mo. 530, 7 S. W. 581; Carpenter v. Franklin, 89 Tenn. 142, 14 S. W. 484. 64. Hedge v. Glenny, 75 Iowa, 513, 39 N. W. 818, 1 L. E. A. 479; Falken- burg V. Johnson, 102 Ky. 543, 44 S. W. 80, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1606, 80 Am. St. Eep. 369; Draper v. Buggee, 133 Mass. 258. See also chap. IV, | 8, supra. 65. Lee v. Savannah Guano Co., 99 Ga. 572, 27 S. E. 159, 59 Am. St. Eep. 243; Dumas v. Neal, 51 Ga. 563; Kedey v. Petty, 153 Ind. 179, 54 N. E. 798; McAfee v. McAfee, 28 S. C. 188, 5 S. E. 480; Farmers' Nat. Bank v. Thomson, 74 Vt. 442, 52 Atl. 961. 66. Coleman v. Burr, 93 N. Y. 17, 45 Am. Eep. 160, afTg 25 Hun (N. Y.), 239. 67. Petingale v. Barker, 21 D. C. 156; Wisconsin Granite Co. v. Eay, 144 111. 77, 33 N. E. 31, rev'g 44 111. App. 240, money given for housekeep- ing purposes. But see Smyth v. Reber (N. J. Ch. 1889), 18 Atl. 462; Carpenter v. Franklin, 89 Tenn. 142, 14 S. W. 484. CoNSIDEEATIOH. 363 Imsband to the wife, as against his creditors. A contract be- tween a husband and wife, by which the latter is to be paid for her services rendered in the household, is void as against creditors of the husband; and, if his estate is transferred to the wife in a payment of such services and in performance of such a contract, the transfer is void as against the creditors of the husband, and the property so trans- ferred or purchased with the avails of such a contract may be reached by his creditors.^ § 44. Consideration paid by husband for property purchased in name of wife. — Where a husband purchases property with his own funds, taking the title in the name of his wife, tlie con- veyance or transfer to her is Avithout consideration, and is fraud- ulent and void as against his existing creditors.*' Where prop- 68. Conger v. Corey, 39 App. Div. (N. Y.) 241, 57 N. Y. Supp. 236, citing In re Callister, 153 N. Y. 294, 4T N. E. 268; Porter v. Dunn, 131 N. Y. 314, 30 N. E. 122; BlaecMnska v. Howard Mission, 130 N. Y. 497, 29 N. E. 755; Coleman v. Burr, 93 N. Y. 17; Talcott v. Thomas, 21 N. Y. Supp. 1064. 69. Jf. T. — Stokes v. Ammerman, 55 Hun, 605, 7 N. Y. Supp. 733; Tappan v. Butler, 20 N. Y. Super. Ct. 480, but it is not necessarily fraudu- lent and void as to subsequent cred- itors. Ala. — Stoutz V. Huger, 107 Ala. 248, 18 So. 126; Peevey v. Cabaniss, 70 Ala. 253. Ark. — Stix v. Chaytor, 55 Ark. 116, 17 S. W. 707; Baldwin v. John- ston, 8 Ark. 260. CoZo.— Phillips V. Rhodes, 2 Colo. App. 70, 29 Pao. 1011. Gonn. — ^Trumbull v. Hewitt, 62 Conn. 448, 26 Atl. 350. D. C— Thyson v. Foley, 1 App. D. C. 182. Fla. — ^Eeel v. Livingston, 34 Fla. 377, 16 So. 284, 43 Am. St. Eep. 202 ; Alston V. Eowles, 13 Fla. 117; Craig V. Gamble, 5 Fla. 430. III. — Bowman v. Ash, 143 111. 649, 32 N. E. 486, aff'g 36 111. App. 115; New V. Oldfield, 110 111. 138; Pratt V. Myers, 56 111. 23. Compare Can- non V. Castleman, 164 Ind. 343, 73 N. E. 689. Ind. — ^Laird v. Davidson, 124 Ind. 412, 25 N. E. 7; Wilds v. Bogan, 55 Ind. 331; Mendenhall v. Treadway, 44 Ind. 131. lotoa. — Peckenhaugh v. Cook, 61 Iowa, 477, 16 N. W. 530; Gear v. Schrei, 57 Iowa, 666, 11 N. W. 625. See also Van Hoesen v. Teachout, 88 Iowa, 458, 55 N. W. 486. Ey. — Dickinson v. Johnson, 110 Ky. 236, 61 S. W. 267, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 1686, 96 Am. St. Eep. 434, 54 L. E. A. 566; Adams v. O'Eear, 80 Ky. 129, 364: Fraudulent Conveyances. erty is alleged to have been purchased by a wife, or a conveyance of propei'ty is made to her during coverture, the presumption is that her husband furnished the means to pay for it, and the burden is on her to pi'ove affirmatively that it was paid for with her own separate estate.'" Property conveyed to a wife, but paid for by the husband, is prima facie a gift by him to her; and, where it does not appear that he was indebted at the time, or intended to defraud his subsequent creditors, the proceeds of such gift belong to her, free from claims by him or his credi- tors.'^ In the absence of fraud, such a conveyance is valid against all but the existing creditors of the husband.'^ But where an actual fraudulent intent is shown, the conveyance is 3 Ky. L. Rep. 605; Hearn v. Lander, 74 Ky. 669; Fink v. Nolan, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1305, 54 S. W. 948; Straus V. Head, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 740, 21 S. W. 537; McBride v. McLaughlin, 5 Ky. L. Rep. 174; Yates v. Fisher, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 721. Compare MoChord v. Noe, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 344, 1 S. W. 644. Me. — Berry v. Berry, 84 Me. 541, 24 Atl. 957; Call v. Perkins, 65 Me. 439. Miss. — Bernheim v. Beer, 56 Miss. 149. Mo. — Osborne v. Evans, 185 Mo. 509, 84 S. W. 867; Miller v. Leeper, 120 Mo. 466, 25 S. W. 378; Rinehart V. Long, 95 Mo. 396, 8 S. W. 559; Reppy V. Reppy, 46 Mo. 571. N. G. — ^Markham v. Whitehurst, 109 N. C. 307, 13 S. E. 904, cUsUn- guishing Osborne v. Wilkes, 108 N. C. 651, 13 S. E. 285. Ohio. — ^Parish v. Rhodes, Wright, 339. Pa. — See Bucher v. Ream, 68 Pa. St. 421. S. O.— Watt V. Morrow (1906), 103 N. W. 45. Va — Quarles v. Lacy, 4 Munf. 251. W. Fo.— Rose V. Brown, 11 W. Va. 122. Wis. — Hoxie t. Price, 31 Wis. 82. See also Purchase of property in name of third person — ^Husband and wife, chap. II, § 6, supra. 70. Bowman v. Ash, 143 111. 649, 32 N. E. 486, aft'g 36 111. App. 115; Burt v.- Timmous, 29 W. Va. 441, 2 S. E. 780, 6 Am. St. Rep. 664; Mc- Masters v. Edgar, 22 W. Va. 673. See also Purchase of property in name of third person — ^Husband and wife, chap. II, § 6, supra. In Minnesota, the statute im- putes a fraudulent intent to a debtor who pays the purchase money of lands granted to his wife, and, there- fore, a finding that there is no evi- dence of fraudulent intent, and that the debtor was solvent, cannot defeat the creditor's right to subject the land to his debt. Wolford v. Fam- ham, 42 Minn. 159, 46 N. W. 295; Mathews v. Torinus, 22 Minn. 132. 71. Pitkin v. Mott, 56 Mo. App. 401. 72. Irvine t. Greever, 27 W. Va, 206. CoNSIDEEATIOir. 365 fraudulent and void as to subsequent, aa vreH as existing, credi- tors of the husband." :§ 45. Asstunption of husbaiid's debts. — The assumption by a wife of the debts of her husbaaid is a valid consideration, as against his creditors, for a conveyance by him to her, at leasit to the amount of the debts assumed.^* But a conveyance from a husband of all his property to his wife, in consideration of her assuming certain preferred debts, the property being worth more than the debts secured, is void as againist imsecured creditors.'" A!nd the fact that the wife, on receipt of a deed from her hus- band, promises to pay all his debts, does not preclude a finding that it is in fraud of his creditors, since it may have been intended, to give her an advantage as to the time of payment.'* § 46. Payment of pre-existing debts in general. — ^Where a husband, in, good faith, transfers property to his wife, in pay- ment of, or as security for, a bona fide debt due by him to her, the consideration is a valuable one and the transfer or convey- ance is valid, as against other existing creditors." The rule is 73. Marshall v. Whitney, 43 Fed. W. Va. — ^Wood v. Hanniaon, 41 W. 343; Holmes v. Harshberger, 31 W. Va. 376, 23 S. E. 560. Va. 516, 7 S. E. 452; Core v. Cun- See also Assumption of liability, ningham, 27 W. Va. 206. chap. VIII, § 14, supra. 74. Ind. — Huffman v. Copeland, 86 75. Park v. Battey, 80 Ga. 353, 5 Ind. 224. S. E. 492. ye6.— Farmers' & Merchants' Irr. 76. Threlkel v. Scott (Cal. 1893), Co. V. Brumbaugh (1906), 110 N. W. 34 Pac. 851. 663. 77. 2V. Y. — ^Lassiter v. Hoes, 11 S. C. — Ferguson v. Harrison, 41 S. Misc. Kep. 1, 31 N. Y. Supp. 850; C. 340, 19 S. E. 619; McAfee v. Mc- Ocean Nat. Bank v. Hodges, 9 Hun, Afee, 28 S. C. 188, 5 S. E. 480, al- 161; Schaffuer v. Keuter, 37 Barb, though the note given by the wife in 44; Flannigan v. Barter, 12 St. Rep. satisfaction of the husband's debts is (N. Y.) 554. Compare Blumenthal not paid, and part of the debts were v. Michel, 33 App. Div. 636, 54 N. Y. barred by limitation when she gave Supp. 81. the note. V. S. — ^Metsker v. Bonebrake, 108 Fo.— Barton v. Brent, 87 Va. 385 U. S. 66, 2 Sup. Ct. 351, 27 L. Ed. 15 Va. L. J. 257, 13 S. E. 29. 654; Bean v. Patterson, 12 Fed. 739, 366 Feaudulent Conveyances. the same if, with fraud on the part of the husband, but with- out knowledge thereof or participation therein by the wife, he 4 McCrary, 179; Lee v. Hollister, 5 Fed. 752. Ala. — First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 93 Ala. 97, 9 So. 548; Lyne v. Wann, 72 Ala. 43; Warren v. Jones, 68 Ala. 449; Barclay v. Plant, 50 Ala. 509. Compare Robinson v. Moseley, 93 Ala. 70, 9 So. 372. Cal. — Greenwalt v. Mueller, 126 Cal. 636, 59 Pac. 137. Del. — Jones v. Cannon, 8 Houst. 1, 31 Atl. 521; Hood v. Jones, 5 Del. Ch. 77. Oa. — Booher v. Worrill, 57 Ga. 235. /Ji.— Thomas v. Mueller, 106 111. 36; Dean v. Plane, 96 111. App. 428, affd 195 111. 495, 63 N. E. 274. Ind. — Jones v. Snyder, 117 Ind. 229, 20 N. E. 140; Cornell v. Gibson, 114 Ind. 144, 16 N. E. 130, 5 Am. St. Rep. 605; Schreeder v. Werry (App. 1905 ) , 73 N. E. 832. Compare Bunch V. Hart, 138 Ind. 1, 37 N. E. 537. lovia. — Meyer v. Houck, 85 Iowa, 319, 52 N. W. 235; Neighbor v. Hob- litcel, 84 Iowa, 598, 51 N. W. 53; Peck V. Lincoln, 76 Iowa, 424, 41 N. W. 61; McFarland v. Elliott, 71 Iowa, 755, 36 N. W. 418; Jones v. Brandt, 59 Iowa, 332, 10 N. W. 854, 13 N. W. 310. Ky. — Noel v. Gaines, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2093, 66 S. W. 625. Compare Clay V. Trimble, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 61, 16 S. W. 83. Mich. — Ullman v. Thomas, 126 Mich. 61, 85 N. W. 245; Parker v. Barkenowitz, 116 Mich. 58, 74 N. W. 290; Strauss v. Parshall, 91 Mich. 475, 51 N. W. 1117; Meigs v. Dibble, 73 Mich. 101, 40 N. W. 935; Hyde v. Powell, 47 Mich. 156, 10 N. W. 181; First Nat. Bank v. McAllister, 46 Mich. 397, 9 N. W. 446. Miss. — Graham v. Morgan, 83 Miss. 601, 35 So. 874; Rogers v. Mayer, 59 Miss. 524. Mo. — Hart v. Leete, 104 Mo. 316, 15 S. W. 976. N. J. — Knickerbocker Trust Co. v. Carhart (Ch. 1906), 64 Atl. 756; Berla v. Meisel (Ch. 1902), 52 Atl. 899; Dresser v. Zabriskie (Ch. 1898), 39 Atl. 1066; Rue v. Scott (Ch. 1891), 21 Atl. 1048; Cole v. Lee, 45 N. J. Eq. 779, 18 Atl. 854; Hager- man v. Buchanan, 45 N. J. Eq. 292, 17 Atl. 946, 14 Am. St. Rep. 732; Jones V. Davenport, 44 N. J. Eq. 33, 13 Atl. 652. Ohio. — ^Hitesman v. Donnel, 40 Ohio St. 287. Pa.— Rine v. Hall, 187 Pa. St. 264, 40 Atl. 1088; Grabill v. Moyer, 45 Pa. St. 530. 8. C— McElwee v. Kennedy, 56 S. C. 154, 34 S. E. 86; McGee v. Wells, 62 S. O. 472, 30 S. E. 602; Gerald v. Gerald, 28 S. C. 442, 6 S. E. 290. Term. — Rosenbaum v. Davis (Ch. App. 1898), 48 S. W. 706; Blackmore V. Crutcher (Ch. App. 1898), 46 S. W. 310; Sanford v. Allen (Ch. App. 1897), 42 S. W. 183. Tex. — Cooper v. Sawyer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 73 S. W. 992; Bonds V. Eagle, etc., Mfg. Co. (Civ. App. 1898), 44 S. W. 539. Vt.— Drew v. Corliss, 65 Vt. 650, 27 Atl. 613. To. — Robinson v. Bass, 100 Va. 190, 40 S. E. 660; McConville v. National Valley Bank, 98 Va. 9, 34 S. E. 891; Spence v. Repass (1897), Consideration. 367, maikes sucli transfer.™ A husband indebted to his wife is en- titled to prefer her to his other creditors.'* Claims against the husband purchased by the wife with her separate estate are sufficient consideration for a conveyance from him to her.'" An advancement of money by a wife to her husband, without any agreement for repayment, or money given by a wife to her husband to be employed in his business, or money of the wife which the husband has collected and used with her knoiwledge and consent, and without any promise of repayment, or money advanced under any other circumstances not sufficient in law to create the relation of debtor and creditor between them, is not a valid consideration for a subsequent conveyance or transfer of property by the husband to the wife, as against his creditors." 27 S. E. 583. Compare Perry v. Ruby, 81 Va. 317. Compare Stockslager v. Mechanics' Loan, etc., Inst., 87 Md. 232, 39 Atl. 742; Hoagland v. Wilson, 15 Neb. 320, 18 N. W. 78. If tbe consideration be inade- quate for a. conveyance of property by a husband to his wife in payment of an indebtedness to her, it will be construed as a mortgage. German Nat. Bank v. Gunther, 3 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 686, 3 Ohio N. P. 311. 78. Kiley v. Vaughn, 116 Mo. 169, 22 S. W. 707, 38 Am. St. Eep. 586; Williams v. Harris, 4 S. D. 22, 54 N. W. 926, 46 Am. St. Rep. 753. See also Effect of want of knowledge or notice of grantee, chap. XIII, § 4, supra. 79. Schreder v. Werry (Ind. App. 1905), 73 N. E. 832. 80. Strong v. Skinner, 4 Barb. (N. y.),546; Wingerd V.Fallon, 95 Pa. 184. The fact that a wife destroyed a note given her hy her father, which had been given him by her hus- band for money advanced him by her father to pay for certain lands, does not create such an indebtedness from her husband to her as to justify his conveying the land to her, as against his creditors. Meredith v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 92 Ind. 343. 81. 2f. r.— Clift v. Moses, 75 Hun, 517, 27 N. Y. Supp. 728. Ark. — Waters v. Merrit Pants Co. (1905), 88 S. W. 879; Reeves v. Slade, 71 Ark. 611, 77 S. W. 54. /«J.— Victor V. Swisky, 200 111. 257, 65 N. E. 625, rev'g 87 111. App. 583 ; Coale V. Moline Plow Co., 134 III. 350, 25 N. E. 1016. Ind. — Hoffman v. Henderson, 145 Ind. 613, 44 N. E. 629. Iowa. — Woods V. Allen, 109 Iowa, 484, 80 N. W. 540; Dunham v. Bent- ley, 103 Iowa, 136, 72 N. W. 437; Iseminger v. Criswell, 98 Iowa, 382, 67 N. W. 289; Carbiener v. Mont- gomery, 97 Iowa, 659, 66 N. W. 900; Tyler v. Budd, 96 Iowa, 29, 64 N. W. 679; Peninsular Stove Co. v. Roark, 94 Iowa, 560, 63 N. W. 326; Porter v. Goble, 88 Iowa, 565, 55 N. W. 530; Hanson v. Mauley, 72 Iowa, 48, 33 N. 368 Featidulent Conveyances. Though, the law will not imply the relation of debtor and creditor between husband and wife from the mere transfer of her separate property to him, such relation may nevertheless be established, as against otiber creditors of the husband, by evidence that such was the intention of the parties at the time of the transfer.'* To establish the relation of debtor and creditor between husband and wife an express promise to repay need not be shown, but where the wife advances money to her husband and the circum- stances attending the receipt of the money are such as to show that they dealt with each other as debtor and creditor, a convey- ance or transfer to her to pay or secure the indebtedness is valid as against creditors.*' The general rules as to a pre-existing debt W. 357; Moore v. Orman, 56 Iowa, 39, 8 N. W. 699. Kan. — Bailey v. Kansas Mfg. Co., 32 Kan. 73, 3 Pac. 756. Md. — ^Diggs V. McCuUough, 69 Md. 592, 16 Atl. 453; Grover, etc.. Sewing Mach. Co. V. Eadcliff, 63 Md. 496; Kuhn V. Stansfield, 28 Md. 210, 92 Am. Dec. 681. Mich. — Sykes v. City Sav. Bank, 115 Mich. 321, 73 N. W. 369, 69 Am. St. Rep. 562. ye6.— Wake v. Griffin, 9 Neb. 47, 2 N. W. 461. N. J.— Cole V. Lee, 45 N. J. Eq. 779, 18 Atl. 854; Luers v. Brunjes, 34 N. J. Eq. 19, 561 ; Post v. Stiger, 29 N. J. Eq. 554, a claim by a wife against her husband, first put in writing when his liabilities began to jeopardize, will be regarded with suspicion and rejected, unless clearly proved, when attempted to be en- forced as against the husband's cred- itors. N. M. — First Nat. Bank v. McClel- lan, 9 N. M. 636, 58 Pac. 347. Pa.— Grabill v. Moyer, 45 Pa. St. 530. Va. — New South Bldg, etc., Assoc. V. Reed, 96 Va. 345, 31 S. E. 514, 7 Am. St.- Rep. 858; Flynn v. Jackson, 93 Va. 341, 25 S. E. 1. W. Va. — Bennett v. Bennett, 37 W. Va. 396, 16 S. E. 638, 38 Am. St. Rep. 47; Maxwell v. Hanshaw, 24 W. Va. 405; McGinnis v. Curry, 13 W. Va. 29. Wis. — Le Saulner v. Krueger, 85 Wis. 214, 54 N. W. 774. Promise of repayment not im- plied. — Where a wife delivers money or property of her own to her hus- band, which he uses in his business, the presumption is that such delivery was intended as a, gift; and in order to constitute such delivery a loan, as against the creditors of the husband, the wife must prove an express promise of the husband to repay, or establish by the circumstances that it was a, loan, and not a gift. Zinn V. Law, 32 W. Va. 447, 9 S. E. 871 ; Grover, etc.. Sewing Mach. Co. v. Rad- cliff, 63 Md. 496. 82. Willis V. Willis, 79 App. Div. (N. Y.) 9, 79 N. Y. Supp. 1028. 83. Bailey v, Kansas Mfg. Co., 32 Kan. 73, 3 Pac. 756; Sykes v. City Sav. Bank. 115 Mich. 321, 73 N. W. COHSIDISEATION. 389 as consideration for a conveyance are applicable to transactions between husband and wife.^* :§ 47. Repayment of money loaned by wife. — A conv^ance by the husband to his wife, in oonsiderationi of money loaned by the wife to him out of her separate estate, and not made to hinder, delay, and defraud hisi oreditoirs, the amount of which bears a reasonable proportion to the property conveyed, is valid as against the creditors of the husband.^^ But where the loan was used for the benefit of the wife's separate estate, a subse- quent transfer of property by the husband in trust for the wife's benefit is without consideration. '° A judgment honestly con- 369, 69 Am. St. Rep. 562; Steadman V. Wilbur, 7 R. I. 481. 84. See cases cited in note 77; and Pre-existing debt, chap. VIII, § 18, supra. 85. N. Y.— Savage v. O'Neil, 44 N. y. 298, rev'g 42 Barb. 374; Brooklyn V. Lamon, 56 Hun, 647, 9 N. Y. Supp. 849, although the loan was made prior to the passage of the married woman's acts, the wife had an equit- able right to its repayment sufficient to support a conveyance for the pur- pose, which would not be defeated by mere lapse of time. V. S.— Vansickle v. Wells, 105 Fed. 16. Ga. — ^Robinson v. Stevens, 93 Ga. 535, 21 8. E. 96, and it is not ren- dered fraudulent by the fact that the wife failed to disclose to her hus- band's creditors that she had loaned him money, no inquiry having been made. ' 7H.— McQuown v. Law, 18 111. App. 34. Ind. — Fulp v. Beaver, 136 Ind. 319, 36 N. K 250; Dillen v. Johnson, 132 Ind. 75, 30 N. E. 786 ; Hogan v. Rob- 24 inson, 94 Ind. 138; Kyger v. F. Hull Skirt Co., 34 Ind. 249. Iowa. — ^Mahaska County v. Whitsel (1907), 110 N. W. 614; Muir v. Mil- ler, 103 Iowa, 127, 72 N. W. 409; Citi- zens' Nat. Bank v. Webster, 76 Iowa, 281, 41 N. W. 47; Rockford Boot, etc., Mfg. Co. V. Mastin, 75 Iowa, 112, 39 N. W. 219. See also Payne v. Wilson, 76 Iowa, 377, 41 N. W. 45. Kan. — Monroe v. May, 9 Kan. 466. Ki/. — ^Latimer v. Glenn, 85 Ky. 535. See Ahlering's Ex'r v. Speekman (1907), 99 S. W. 973. Me. — ^Randall v. Limt, 51 Me. 246. Mass. — Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Tave- ner, 130 Mass. 407. Neb. — Weis v. Farley (1907), 110 N. W. 656; Lipscomb v. Lyon, 9 Neb. 511, 27 N. W. 73J. Pa. — In re Jamison, 183 Pa. St. 219, 38 Atl. 604; Mancil v. Mancil, 2 Del. Co. R. 531. Tex. — Shryock v. Latimer, 57 Tex. 674. W. Fa.— First Nat. Bank v. Par- sons, 42 W. Va. 137, 24 S. E. 554. 86. Grevils v. Smith, 29 Tex. Civ. App. 150, 68 S. W. 291. 370 Feaudulent Conveyances. fessed bj an insolvent man in favor of his wife, to secure lier for money loianed to him by her out of her separate estate, is not fraudulent as against creditors, merely because it includes in- terest oU the loan, when there was in fact no agi'eement that the sum loaned should bear interest'^ § 48. Appropriation of wife's separate estate. — A bona fide conveyance or transfer of pi'operty by a husband to his wife^ or for her benefit, in payment of or as security for a debt arising out of the husband's appropriation and conversion of his wife's separate estate to his own use, is valid as against the husband's creditors, though he was insolvent at the time of the execution of the conveyance.** A bill of sale, executed by the husband to secure his wife a sum of money belonging to her in her own right, but received by him and invested in his business with her knowledge and acquiescence, is void as to prior credi- tors, where there was no agreement by the husband to repay the money, and the creditors are without other security for their demands.** § 49. Rents and profits of wife's separate estate. — ^Where, by direction of a wife, the rents of her separate estate are paid to her husband with the understanding that he will invest them for her benefit, this creates a debt sufficient to constitute a valid consideration for a subsequent deed from him to her.*" But where, under a statute, the husband, as trustee of the statutory separate 87. Hawley v. Griffith, 187 Pa. St. S. 0.— Taylor v. Heriot's Ex'r, 4 306, 41 All. 30; Appeal of Meekley, Desaus. 227. 102 Pa. St. 536. Tex. — ^MeKamey v. Thorp, 61 Tex. 88 Ala.-Ymcent v. State, 74 Ala. "48. But see Allen v. Merriwether o». \t xt.- -1. ■E'oi^.r i;9 Ala (Kv.), 9 S. W. 807. See also Con- 274; Northington v. Faber, 52 Ala. , , , , . 45- Bowland y. Plummer, 50 Ala. ^«y^"<=e« ^7 ^^^^''^^ *» <>'• ^^^ ^'^^' ' chap. IV, § 33, supra. ^ 89. Kuhn v. Stansfleld, 28 Md. 210, Ind. — ^Lenard v. Barnett, 70 Ind. gg Am. Deo. 681. 367; Thompson v. Mills, 39 Ind. 528. qq Tarsney v. Turner, 48 Fed. /oico.— Dunham v. Bentley, 103 818. See Conveyance by husband to Iowa 136, 72 N. W. 437. or for wife, chap. IV, § 33, supra. CONSIDEKATION. 371 estate of his wife, lias the right to control it, without liability to account to the wife for the rents, income, and profits, a convey- ance of property by him to his wife, in consideration of such rents and profits, is voluntary amd frcudulent as to the husband's creditors.'^ § 50. Satisfaction of wife's paraphernal rights The trans- fer of property by a husband to his wife in payment of an in- debtedness on account of paraphernal property or rights, pro- portionate in value to his indebtedness to her, is founded upon a suffioieot consideration, and is valid as against creditors of tlie husband.'^ The essentials to the validity of a dation en paiement by the husband to the wife, in satisfaction of her paraphernal rights, are the just and honest claim of the wife against the husband, the just proportion of the value of the thing given to the amount of the wife's claim, and the delivery to the wife of that which is the subject of the dation.^^ § 51. Property in excess of debt — A conveyance or transfer made by a husbamd to his wife, in consideration of a valid pre- existing debt, is subject to the general rules as to transfers in consideration of pre-existing debts, as stated in previous sections 91. O'Neal v. Seixas, 85 Ala. 80, 1417, 15 So. 677; Hyman v. Schlen- 4 So. 745; Gilkey v. Pollock, 82 Ala. ker, 44 La. Ann. 108, 10 So. 623: Ren- 503, 3 So. 99; Wing v. Roswald, 74 shaw v. Dowty, 39 La. Ann. 608, 2 Ala. 346; Early v. Owens, 68 Ala. So. 58; Burns v. Thompson, 39 La. 171, overruling Brevard's Ex'r v. Ann. 377, 1 So. 913; Chaflfe v. Seheen, Jones, 50 Ala. 221; Boiling v. Jones, 34 La. Ann. 684; Payne v. Kemp, 33 67 Ala. 508. See also Long v. Efurd, La. Ann. 818; Levi v. Morgan, 33 La. 86 Ala. 267 5 So. 482, the statute Ann. 532; Lehman v. Levy, 30 La. providing that such rents, etc., shall Ann. 745; Barus v. Bidwell, 23 La. not be subject to the husband's Ann. 163; Murrison v. Seiler, 22 La. debts, land purchased in the name of Ann. 327 ; Judiee v. Neda, 8 La. Ann. his wife with such rents can not be 484; Spurlock v. Mainer, 1 La. Ann. subjected to the husband's debts. 301. 92 Ardis v. Theus, 47 La. Ann. 93. Colvin v. Johnston, 104 La. 1436 17 So. 865 ; Hewitt v. Wil- Ann. 655, 29 So. 274. See also Pres- liamL, 48 Lai Ann. 686, 19 So. 604; lar & Tier v. Walker, 116 La. 661, 40 Freibiirg v. Laugfelder, 46 La. Ann. So. 1033. 372 Fkauduleht Conveyances. of this chapter.'* The value of the property conveyed or secured should be reasonably proportionate to the amount of the debt paid or secured j'' the indebtedness should not be so much less than the value of the property ooaiveyed as to make the con- sideration grossly inadequate ;°^ and there should not be such a disparity in value between the debt and the property trans- ferred as to affect the grantee with notice of a fraudulent intent in the transfer, '' in order to render such a conveyance valid as against creditors. It has been held that the value of the prop- erty conveyed is what it would sell for in cash, in the ordinary course of trade, in the manner in which property is ordinarily sold in the market lat the place where the property is located.'* A judgment confessed by a husband to his wife for an amount in excess of that actually due her will not be set aside at the instance of creditors of the husband, where it appears that there was an honest mistake on the part of the wife as to the amount due,'' § 52. Laches of wife in asserting claim ^Where the money or estate of a married woman, which she might have secured to her own use, is, with her knowledge and consent, received and used by her husband, or allowed to go into the business of her husband, be mixed with his property, and applied to the pur- chase of real estate, or otherwise invested, for his advantage, or for the purpose of giving him credit in business, amd is thus used for a series of years, being dealt with by the husband as his own and debts contracted on the faith of such ownership, no 94. See chap. VIII, §§ 18-24, eron, 73 Tex. 583, 11 S. W. 840; supra. Webb v. Ingham, 29 W. Va. 389, 1 95. MeQuo-wn v. Law, 18 111. App. S. E. 816. 34; Brigham v. Hubbard, 115 Ind. 97. DePrato v. Jester (Ark. 1892), 474, 17 N". E. 920; Columbia Sav. 20 S. W. 807. Bank v. Winn, 132 Mo. 80, 33 S. W. „ 457 98. Torrey v. Cameron, 73 Tex. 96. Paulk V. Cooke, 39 Conn. 566; ^^^' 11 S. W. 840. Case Mfg. Co. v. Perkins, 106 Mich. 99. Falkman v. Bedillion, 131 Pa. 349, 64 N. W. 201; Torrey v. Cam- St. 385, 18 Atl. 922. Consideration. 373 evideace of indebtedness being given when the loan was made or afterwards, and no daim being asserted thereto nor any in- terest or principal paid thereon during many years, a conveyance or transfer of property by the husband to the wife, or for her benefit, will not be sustained, but will be held as fraudulent and void as against creditors, especially where it is made upon the occurrence of his financial embarrassment, insolvency or bankruptcy.^ A quiet acquiescence on the part of the wife that her husband should use her estate as his own, mingling it indis- criminately with his own in business, for a period of many years, without the recognition of its separate existemice by even a written receipt, memorandum, or separate investment, and without any accounting during that period for principal or in- terest, or without its even being talked about until the bona fide creditors were about to ciall for it, constitutes such a trust or settlemenit as could not be allowed by any rule of law or equity to stand against the rights of antecedent creditors.^ ;§ 53. Conveyance in execution of prior agreement. — lA con- veyance or transfer of properly made by a husband to his wife 1. U. «.— Humes v. Scruggs, 94 U. L. Rep. 600, 9 S. W. 807; Floyd v. S. 22, 24 L. Ed. 51. Martin, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 891 ; Anderson Ala. — ^Wood V. Riley, 121 Ala. 100, v. Anderson, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 579. 25 So. 723; Evans v. Covington, 70 ilfo. — Balz v. Nelson, 171 Mo. 682, Ala. 440. 72 S. W. 527. Ga. — ^Nollis V. Rodgers, 106 Ga. 13, Neh. — ^Brownell v. Stoddard, 43 31 S. C. 783.' Neb. 177, 60 N. W. 380. 7Z?.— Hault V. Van Ingen, 196 111. N. J.— Lee v. Cole, 44 N. J. Eq. 20, 63 N. E. 705, aff'g 97 lU. App. 318, 15 Atl. 531; Leathwhite v. Ben- 642; Dillman v. NadelhofFer, 56 111. net (Ch. 1887), 11 Atl. 29; Hubbard App. 517, aif'd 162 111. 625, 45 N. B. v. Little (Ch. 1887), 10 Atl. 839; 680; Schuberth v. Schillo, 76 111. App. Jackson v. Beach (Ch. 1887), 9 Atl. 356, aft'd 177 111. 346, 52 N. E. 319; 380; Borden v. Doughty, 42 N. J. Miller v. Payne, 4 111. App. 112. Eq. 314, 3 Atl. 352; Watson v. Cum- Ind. — Brookville Nat. Bank v. Kim- mins, 40 N. J. Eq. 483, 4 Atl. 629. ble, 76 Ind. 195. W. Fa.— Kanawha Valley Bank v. lotoa. — Williams v. Snyder (1903), Atkinson, 32 W. Va. 203, 9 S. E. 175, 94 N. W. 845; McCreary v. Skinner, 25 Am. St. Rep. 806. 83 Iowa, 362, 49 N. W. 986. 2. Briggs v. Mitchell, 66 Barb. (N. jf^.—Allen V. Meriwether, 10 Ky. Y.) 288. 374 Fkaudulenx Conveyances. or by a wife to her husband, in pursuance of a previous valid agreement between them based upon a sufficient consideration, is founded on a valuable amd adequate consideration, and is not fraudulent as to creditors of the grantor.' § 54. Conveyances to confirm prior conveyance. — .Where a deed by a husband to his wife was made before the passage of a statute authorizing conveyances between, husband and wife direct, while the gi'antor was not indebted, and without intent to defraud, a subsequent deed of the same premises by a hus- band to the wife is valid, and vests the legal title in her, as against creditors of the husband whose claims accrued after the first deed and before the second deed. The first deed having effectually divested the husband of the equitable and beneficial ownership of the premises, and having transferred it to the wife, the subse- quent conveyance of a naked legal title to the same property, though it may have been without substantial consideration, can in no sense be deemed fraudulent as against creditors of the grantor.* But, although a statute authorizes transfers from a husband to his wife founded om love and affection, where a deed of gift made while the husband is solvent is withheld from record because he believes it is ineffectual and inoperative, a subsequent conveyance, made in contemplation of insolvency, to a third person who conveys the land to the wife, is fraudulent as to creditors, though made to effectuate the first conveyance.' 3. N. T.— Odell v. Mylins, 53 How.; -Ky. L. Rep. 1563, 71 S. W. 923. Pr. 250. ' JIfd— Stockett v. Holliday, 9 Md. Conn. — Clarke v. Black, 78 Conn. 480. 467, 62 Atl. 757. Mich. — Popendick v. Frobenius, 66 Ind. — Summers v. Hoover, 42 Ind. MicIk 317, 33 N. W. 887. 153. Compare Cannon v. Castleman, Neb. — Van Duzen v. Peacock, 11 164 Ind. 343, 73 N. E. 689. Neb. 245, 9 N. W. 90. Kan. — Sproul v. Atchison Nat. Tenn. — Ready v. Bragg, 38 Tenn. Bank, 22 Kan. 336. 511. Ky. — Craig v. Conover, 24 Ky. L. 4. Fitzpatrick v. Burchill, 7 Rep. 1682, 72 S. W. 2; Hackworth v. Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 463, 28 N. Y. Johns, 10 Ky. L. Rep. 568, 9 S. W. Supp. 389. 656. Compare Chinn v. Curtis, 24 5. Talcott v. Levy, 20 N. Y. Supp. CONSIDEEATIOM. 375 i§ 55. Effect of want or insufficiency of consideration. — A conveyance from the husband to the wife, without consideration^ or a voluntary conveyance, is a fraud upon the creditors of the liusband and void as against them, irrespective of his want of intention to commit a fraud,^ and even in the abseoice of an actual fraudulent intention.' A voluntary conveyanice by an insolvent debtor to his wife is good as against subsequent credi- tors, unless made with intent to defraud.^ In general, the general rules as to the effect of the want, or inadequacy, or insufficiency of consideration already set forth in this chapter,' are applied by the courts to transactions between husband and wife.^" 440, 29 Abb. N. Cas. 3, off'd without opinion 3 Misc. Eep. (N. Y.) 615, 23 N. Y. Supp. 1162. 6. V. 8.— Wiswell v. Jarvis, 9 Fed. S4; Beecher v. Clark, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,223, 12 Blatchf. 256, modified Clark V. Beecher, 154 U. S. 631, 14 Sup. Ct. 1184, 24 L. Ed. 705. Co?.— Threlkel v. Scott (1893), 34 Pac. 851. III. — Smith V. J. A. Sommers Mfg. €o., 69 111. App. 230. Iowa. — Gardner v. Baker, 25 Iowa, 343; Sargent v. Chubbuck, 19 Iowa, 37. Me. — Robinson v. Clark, 76 Me. 493. Md. — ^Myers v. King, 42 Md. 65. Mich. — Fallows v. Smith, 40 Mich. 689. Miss. — Warren v. Brown, 25 Miss. 66, 57 Am. Dec. 191. Mo. — ^Reppy v. Reppy, 46 Mo. 571; Woodson V. Pool, 19 Mo. 340. W. J. — Phelps V. Morrison, 24 N. J. Eq. 195; Annin v. Annin, 24 N. J. Eq. 184. Or.— Elfelt V. Hineh, 5 Or. 255. J»o.— Carl V. Smith, 8 Phila. 569. W. Va. — Humphrey v. Spencer, 36 W. Va. 11, 14 S. E. 410; Core v. Cun- ningham, 27 W. Va. 206. 7. 2V. T. — Smart v. Harring, 52 How. Pr. 505. Colo. — Phillips V. Rhodes, 21 Colo. 217, 40 Pae. 453, aff'g 2 Cblo. App^ 70, 29 Pac. 1011. Ind. — Spinner v. Weick, 50 Ind. 213. Iowa. — ^Watson v. Eiskamire, 45 Iowa, 231. Ohio. — Fowler v. Trebein, 16 Ohio St. 493, 91 Am. Dee. 95. 8. N. r.— Phillips V. Wooster, 36 N. Y. 412. Ala. — Davidson v. Lanier, 51 Ala. 318. CaJ.— Wells V. Stout, 9 Cal. 479. III. — Lucas V. Lucas, 103 111. 121. Ky.—Duhms v. Young, 66 Ky. 343. Md. — Miller v. Johnson, 27 Md. 6. Mo. — ^Boatmen's Sav. Bank v. Over- all, 16 Mb. App. 510. Pa.— Tatham v. Crawford, 2 Wkly. Notes Cas. 365. W. Va. — ^McClaugherty t. Morgan, 36 W. Va. 191, 14 S. E. 992. 9. See chap VIII, |§ 32-37. 10. N. Y. — Holden v. Burnham, 63 N. Y. 74; Bennett r. McGuire, 5 376 Feaudulent Conveyances. § 56. Transactions between parent and child; nature, adequacy, and sufficiency of consideration.— A parent, "who is perfectly solvent, or who, although in debt, is not embarrassed in his circumstances, may make a valid conveyarice to his chil- dren, and it cannot be impeached for want of conisideration. Natural love and affection is a good and valid consideration in a conveyance from a parent to a child." A voluntary oon- Lans. 183; Cropsey v. McKinney, 30 Barb. 47. 17. S. — Brittain v. Crowther, 54 Fed. 295, 4 C. C. A. 341; Wilson v. Jordan, 30 Fed. Cas. No. 17,814, 3 Woods, 642; Caller v. McNabb, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,322. 6a. — ^Hawkinsville Bank, etc., Co. V. Walker, 99 Ga. 242, 25 S. E. 205. III.— Rank V. Van Ingen, 196 LU. 20, 63 N. E. 705, aff'g 97 111. App. 642; Keady v. White, 168 111. 76, 48 N. E. 314, modifying 69 III. App. 405; McCaffrey v. Dustin, 43 111. App. 34. loica. — ^Langford v. Thurlby, 60 Iowa, 105, 14 N. W. 135; Boulton v. Hahn, 58 Iowa, 518, 12 N. W. 560. Kjf.— Plant V. Geffinger, 22 Ky. L. Eep. 1475, 60 S. W. 520; Clarkson v. Clarkson, 4 Ky. L. Eep. 901. Jlfe.— Motley v. Sawyer, 38 Me. 68. Mass. — Williams v. Thomson, 30 Mass. 298. Mieh.—Rigga v. Whitaker, 130 Mich. 327, 89 N. W. 954; Palmer v. Smith, 126 Mich. 352, 85 N. W. 870; Blue V. Schurtz, 115 Mich. 690, 74 N. " W. 178. Mo. — Jordan v. Buachmeyer, 97 Mo. 94, 10 S. W. 616; State v. Jones, 83 Mo. App. 151. We6.— Hill V. Smuck, 65 Neb. 173, 90 N. W. 928. N. ff.— Claflin v. Batchelder, 65 N. H. 29, 17 Atl. 1060. N. C— Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. C. 197, 10 S. E. 482. Pa. — In re McKown, 198 Pa. St. 96, 47 Atl. 1111; Henderson v. Hender- son, 133 Pa. St. 399, 19 Atl. 424, 19 Am. St. Eep. 650; Stickney v. Bor- man, 2 Pa. St. 67. Tenn. — Grlbble v. Ford (Ch. App. 1898), 52 S. W. 1007. Tex. — Castro v. lilies, 22 Tex. 479, 73 Am. Dec. 277. Utah. — Gustin v. Mathews, 25 Utah, 168, 70 Pac. 402. Vt. — Farmers's Nat. Bank v. Thom- son, 74 Vt. 442, 52 Atl. 961. Fo.— Tebbs v. Lee, 76 Va. 744. Wash. — ^Klosterman v. Harrington, 11 Wash. 138, 39 Pac. 376. W. Va. — ^Wick v. Dawson, 42 W. Va. 43, 24 S. E. 587. Wis. — ^Bloodgood v. Meissner, 84 Wis. 452, 54 N. W. 772; Wheeler, etc., Mfg. Co. V. Monahan, ,63 Wis. 198, 23 N. W. 127; Fisher v. Shelver, 53 Wis. 498, 10 N. W. 681; Horton v. Dewey, 53 Wis. 410, 10 N. W. 599. 11. N. Y. — Brown v. Austen, 35 Barb. 341. U. 8. — King V. Thompson, 34 U. S. 204, 9 L. Ed. 102. D. C— Offutt V. King, 1 MacAr- thur, 312. III. — Davis V. Kennedy, 105 111. 300. S. C— Smith V. Smith, 24 S. 0. 304. Vt. — Brackett v. Waite, 4 Vt. 389. Va. — Charlton v. Gardner, 11 Leigh, 281. Contra. — Folmar v. Lehman Durr Co. (Ala.), 41 So. 750. CONSIDEEATION. 377, veyamioe of a parent to a child, in consideration ot love and affection, is not per,se fraudulent and void, as to existing credi- tors;*^ but a conveyance by a debtor to his child of all his property, based on love and afiection only, is voluntary and fraudulent as to creditors.*' Where the effect of a conveyance by a parent to a child, for a consideration of love and affection, is to hinder and delay creditors, such conveyance is voluntary and void as to such creditors." And where the consideration for a conveyance from a parent to a child is so grossly inadequate as to raise a presumption of fraudulent intent, the conveyance "will be set aside as fraudulent as to creditors.*^ Tlie general rules on the subject of the nature, source, adequacy, and sufficiency of consideration, set forth in preceding sections of this chapter," are in the main applicable to transactions between parent and child." Where a mother received certain funds to be used for V. Shipley, 5 Wilmarth, 91 Kohlheim, 46 12. N. 7. — Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. 406. 17. S.— Hinde v. Longworth, 24 U. S. 199, 6 L. Ed. 454. Conn. — Salmon v. Bennett, 1 Conn. 525, 7 Am. Dec. 237. Md. — Worthington Gill. 499. Mass. — ^Lerow v. Hass. 382. Miss. — Wilson v. Miss. 346. But see Campbell v. Campbell (Iowa, 1906), 105 N. W. 583, hold- ing such a conveyance constructively fraudulent as to existing creditors, unless the- grantor has remaining af- ter the conveyance sufficient property to satisfy his creditors. 1,3. W. T.— Holmes v. Clark, 48 Barb. 237. III. — Russell v. Fanning, 2 111. App. 632. Mo.— Siqrder v. Free, 114 Mo. 360, 21 S. W. 847. 2f . J. — Laurence v. lappencott, 6 TS. 3. L. 473; Lockyer v. DeHart, 6 N. J. L. 450. Pa. — ^In re Kern's Estate, 4 Pa. Dist. R. 73. 14. Yankee v. Sweeney, 85 Ky. 55, 2 S. W. 559, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 944; Franklin v. Cooper, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1976, 44 S. W. 976; Dunlap v. Mit- chell, 80 Mo. App. 303, 2 Mo. App. Rep. 600; Hayes v. Moore, 5 Ohio S. & C. PL Dee. 520, 5 Ohio N. P. 220. 15. Johnston Harvester Co. v. Cibula, 62 Iowa, 697, 13 N. W. 418; First Nat. Bank v. Cummins, 38 N. J. Eq. 191. See also chap. 9, §§• 29- 37, supra. 16. See chap. VIII, §§ 1-37, supra. 17. ISf. F.— Hyde v. Houston, 77 Hun, 609, 29 N. Y. Supp. 818; Law- renoeville Cement Co. v. Parker, 60 Hun, 586, 15 N. Y. Supp. 577, 21 Civ. Proc. R. 263. Ala. — ^Abney v. Kingsland, 10 Ala. 355, 44 Am. Dee. 491. 378 FKArDULENT CoBTVEYANCES. the benefit of her daughters from their grandfather, and she used the same with the daughters' apparent consent, for the maintenance of a college boarding house, in which she received the daughters' services, such gift did not create a trust in favor of the daughters, so that its use would constitute a sufficient con- sideration for a conveyance by the mother to the daughters, as against the mother's creditors.^* Oal. — Salmon v. Wilson, 41 Cal. 695. /nd.— Proctor v. Ctole, 104 Ind. 373, 4 N. E. 303, a son may, without being guilty of maintenance, assist his father in conducting an action, and the promise of the father to repay the sum advanced is a valid one, as against creditors; Goff v. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459. lovxk. — Bunn v. Cheney, 36 Iowa, 697. Kan. — Hunt v. Spencer, 20 Kan. 126. ^y.— Trimble v. Ratcliff, 48 Ky. 511; Walker v. Todd, 33 Ky. 503, 28 Am. Dec. 94; Caldwell v. Deposit Bank, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 156, 35 S. W. 625; Daniel v. Brandenburgh, 14 Ky. L. Rep. 310, 20 S. W. 255; Merritt V. Merritt, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 493, 11 S. W. 593; Green v. Green, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 250. La. — Maurin v. Rouquer, 19 La. 594. Me. — Bowman v. Handlette, 18 Me. 245. Ud. — Benson v. Benson, 70 Md. 253, 16 Atl. 657; Bullett v. Worthington, 3 Md. Ch. 99. Mo. — Dozier v. Watson, 94 Mo. 328, 7 S. W. 268, 4 Am. St. Rep. 388 ; Don- avan v. Dunning, 69 Mo. 436; Rum- bolds V. Parr, 51 Mo. 592. 2f. J. — Taylor v. Dawes (Ch. 1888), 13 Atl. 593 ; Hoboken Bank v. Beck- man, 33 N. J. Eq. 53. y. «7.— Webb V. Atkinson, 124 N. C. 447, 32 S. W. 737; National Bank of Greensboro v. Gilmer, 116 N. C. 684, 22 S. E. 2; Morris v. Allen, 32 N. C. 203; Buie v. Kelly, 27 N. C. 169. Pa. — ^Ketner v. Don ten, 15 Pa. Super. Ct. 604; Harmon's Lessee v. Reese, 1 Browne, 11. 8. G. — Jackson v. Lewis, 29 S. C. 193, 7 S. E. 252. Term. — Gaugh v. Henderson, 39 Tenn. 628; Phillips v. Cunningham (Ch. App. 1899), 58 S. W. 463; Grimmett v. Midgett Ch. App. 1899), 57 -S. W. 399; Carpenter v. Scales (Ch. App. 1897), 48 S. W. 249. Tex. — Wylie v. Posey, 71 Tex. 34, 9 S. W. 87; Hawkins v. Cramer, 63 Tex. 99. Va. — Parr v. Saunders (1880), 11 S. E. 979; Stokes v. Oliver, 76 Va. 72; Braxton v. Gaines, 4 Hen. & M. 151. W. Fa.— Sturm v. Chalfant, 38 W. Va. 248, 18 S. E. 451. A motber-iii-laiv may pay ber son-in-lair for her board and living expenses, while a member of his family, without any previous agreement for compensation, as against her other creditors. Petty- john V. Newhart, 7 Kan. App. 64, 51 Pac. 69, citing Howard v-. Rynear- son, 50 Mich. 307, 15 N. W. 486. 18. Vreeland v. Rogers (N. J. Ch. 1905), 61 Atl. 486. CoKSIDEEATIOW. 379 § 57. Ejimings of minor child A father, by investing the earnings of his minor children in real estate, and taking title in their names, cannot protect the property from his debts,^* since he is entitled to the earnings of such children where there has been no emancipation before the earnings were made;^" nor are the earnings of a minor son a sufficient consideration to support a conveyance to him from his father, as against the father's creditors, but such a conveyance is fraudulent and void.*^ But where a father has emancipated his children, giving them the right to receive and appropriate to their own use their eam- ings,^^ they are entitled to their earnings as against their father's creditors; and where such earnings were loaned to the father or received by him under a valid agreement to repay the same, or to coravey property to them in consideration therefor, they constitute a good consideration for a conveyance from him to them, as against his creditors.^' § 58. Services rendered by minor child. — The services of a child, rendered during minority to his father, are not a valuable consideration for a conveyance from the father to him, since a child is in law bound to labor for his parents in consideration 19. Bell V. Hollenbach, Wright Mass. — Jenney v. Alden, 12 Mass. (Ohio), 751. 375. 20. See Wages of debtor's minor N. J. — Beria v. Meisel (Ch. 1902), child, chap. IV, § 10, supra. 52 Atl. 999, son entitled, as against 21. Winchester v. Eeid, 53 N. C creditors of the debtor, to a mortgage 377. Compare Rains v. Dunnegan given him on property conveyed by 71 Mo. 148. See also Wages of the debtor to his wife and paid for in debtor's minor child, chap. IV, § 10, part by the son's earnings. supra; Services rendered by minor Or. — Flynn v. Baisley, 35 Or. 268, child, chap. VIII, § 58, infra. 57 Pac. 908, 76 Am. St. Rep. 495, 45 22. Atwood V. Holcomb, 39 Conn. h. R. A. 645. 270, 12 Am. Rep. 386, a father acting Tenn. — ^Rosenbaum v. Davis (Ch. in good faith, may, though insolvent App. 1898), 48 S. W. 706, child thir- at the time, make a valid gift to his teen years of age. Tninor son of his time and future F*.— Chase v. Elkins, 2 Vt. 290. earnings. Can.— Jack v. Greig, 27 Grant Ch. 23. y. Y. ^McCaffrey v. Hickey, 66 (U. C.) 6. See also as above last Barb. 489. ="*«■ 380 Eeaudulent Conveyaitces. of the latter's furnishing him maintenance and education, and, therefore, such a conveyance is purely voluntary, and void as to creditors of the parents,^* and may be set aside like other con- veyances of this character for -want of considerationi.^^ But a father, as stated elsewhere, may emancipate his minor children, in which case they would become competent to contract as if of full age,^* and if the father, though insolvent, enters into a bona fide contract with his children to pay for services performed by them under such contract, or to compensate them by giving them certain property, such services are a sufficient consideration for conveyances executed by him in satisfaction or security of their claims against him, and the same will be upheld as against his creditors." § 59. Services rendered by a child after majority. — ^In the absence of an eixpress contract or clear evidence of a contract to pay for such service, services rendered by childrem who have attained their majority, to their parents iwhile residing and living with them, do not constitute a valuable consideration for con- 24. U. 8. — Dowell v. Applegate, 15 for the mother are not a sufficient Fed. 419, 8 Sawy. 427. consideration. Ala. — Godfrey v. Hays, 6 Ala. 501, Or. — Flynn v. Baisley, 35 Or. 268, 41 Am. Dec. 58. 57 Pac. 908, 76 Am. St. Rep. 495, 45 Cal. — Schwartz v. Hazlett, 8 Cal. L. E. A. 645. See Wages or earnings 118. of debtor's minor child, chap. IV, g Iowa. — Garnet v. Simmons, 103 10, supra. Iowa, 163, 72 N. W. 444, services of 25. See Effect of want of considera- o. minor stepchild are not a sufficient tion, chap. VIII, §§ 32-36, supra. consideration. 26. See Wages or earnings of Kan. — Stumbaugh v. Anderson, 46 debtor's minor child, chap. IV, § Kan. 541, 26 Pac. 1045. 10, supra. Ifd.— BuUett V. Worthington, 3 Md. 27. N. T.— Kain v. Larkin, 131 N. Ch. 99. Y. 300, 30 N. E. 105, rev'g 17 N. Y. M-iss. — Dick v. Grissom, 1 Freem. Supp. 223, conveyance, by a father to Ch. 428( but such a conveyance is void his daughter in consideration of ser- as between father and son. vices rendered by her in support of W. J. — Gardner's Adm'r v. Schoo- the family under a promise of the ley, 25 N. J. Eq. 150. See Vreeland father to give her real estate in re- V. Eogers (Ch. 1905), 61 Atl. 486, turn, sustained, services of the minor child rendered U. 8. — Wilson v. Jones, 76 Fed. 484. CoNSIDEEATION. 381 veyanoes or transfers of property from the parents to them, as against the creditors of the parents ; the law implies no promise to pay for services rendered each other by persons standing in this relation, but such services are deemed gratuitous.^' A con- veyance by an insolvent parent, however, to his child, in pay- menb of a bona fide debt due the child for services actually rendered, after majority and while living with the parent, under an agreement for a specified and reasonable rate of compensa- tion, is valid as against creditors of the parent,^' Ga. — ^Wilson v. McMillan, 62 Ga. 16, 35 Am. Rep. 115, where the father promised his minor child a rea- sonable part of a prospective crop for the child's labor. 7JJ.— Heeren v. Kitson, 28 III. App. 259, where a father agreed to pay his minor son as much as any other man would give him for his services. Kjf. — ^Perry's Adm'r v. Cornelius, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 25, 63 S. W. 23, where a father agreed to give his minor children a certain portion of the crops raised on the farm for their services. Neb. — Clemens v. Brillhart, 17 Neb. 335, 22 N. W. 779, a mortgage given by a father to his minor son, to secure alleged wages due, sustained as against a creditor of the father. Pa. — ^Appeal of Brown, 86 Pa. St. 524, confession of judgment, by an insolvent father in favor of his minor son for services rendered on a ver- bal promise to pay, held valid as against creditors. See also Wages or earnings of debtor's minor child, chap. IV, § 10, supra; § 56, supra. Contra, where the child remains at home and lives with the father. Dowell v. Applegate, 15 Fed. 419, 8 Sawy. 427; Godfrey v. Hays, 6 Ala. 501, 41 Am. Dee. 58. But where an infant son supported himself, and paid his board at home, he was eman- cipated. Donegan v. Davis, 66 Ala. 382. 28. N. r.— Breen v. Henry, 34 Misc. Rep. 232, 69 N. Y. Supp. 627. III. — Guffin V. First Nat. Bank, 74 111. 259. Iowa. — Irish v. Bradford, 64 Iowa, 303, 20 N. W. 447; Hart v. Flinn, 36 Iowa, 366. Mich. — Ionia County Sav. Bank v. McLean, 84 Mich. 625, 48 N. W. 159. Minn. — McCord v. Knowlton, 79 Minn. 299, 82 N. W. 589. Mo. — Snyder v. Free, 114 Mo. 360, 21 S. W. 847. N. H.— Lord v. Locke, 62 N. H. 566. N. J. — ^Miller v. Sauerbier, 30 N. J. Eq. 71. Pa. — Sanders v. Wagonseller, 19 Pa. St. 248; Hack v. Stewart, 8 Pa. St. 213. 29. V. S.— Vansickle v. Wells, 105 Fed. 25. Ala. — Halsey v. Connell, 111 Ala. 221, 20 So. 445. Iowa. — Citizens' State Bank v. Wes- ton, 103 Iowa, 736, 72 N. W. 542; Chadwick v. Devore, 69 Iowa, 637, 29 N. W. 757; Collier v. French, 64 Iowa, 577, 21 N. W. 90; Hunt v. Hoover, 34 Iowa, 77. 382 Fraudulent Cokvetances. § 60. Services rendered by grandchild. — A conveyance to a grandchild, pursuant to a promise to convey, in consideration of the grandchild remaining with the grandparent and working for him during minority, is based upon a snfficient considera- tion, as against creditors of the grandparent; he being under no obligation to work without renumeration, as is the rule in the case of a parent and a minor child.'" § 61. Future support generally. — As a rule, an agreement between a parent and his child for the future support by the latter of his parents, is not such a consideration as will support a conveyance or transfer of property from the parent to the child, as against eixisting creditors of the parent who are prejudiced thereby, but such conveyance is a voluntary settlement, and void as against them.'^ It is, however, valid as to subsequent Kan. — ^Mitchell v. Simpson, 62 Kan. 343, 63 Pac. 440. Minn. — Leque v. Stoppel, 64 Minn. 152, 66 N. W. 124. N. J. — ^Low V. Wortman, 44 N. J. Eq. 193, 7 Atl. 654, 14 Atl. 586, where no account of such services had been kept. Tenn. — Gardenshire r. White (Ch. App. 1900), 59 S. W. 661. Tex. — Barnett v. Vincent, 69 Tex. 685, 7 S. W. 525. W. Fo.— Stuart v. Neely, 50 W. Va. 508, 40 S. E. 441. Wis. — Byrnes v. Clarke, 57 Wis. 13, 14 N. W. 815; Manseau v. Mueller, 45 Wis. 430; Seymour v. Briggs, 11 Wis. 196. Compare Haney v. Nugent, 13 Wis. 283. 30. Dowell V. Applegate, 15 Fed. 419, 8 Sawy. 427. 31. N. r.— Spotten v. Keeler, 12 St. Rep. 385; Jackson v. Parker, 9 Cow. 73. Compare Seward v. Jack- son, 8 Cow. 406, rev'ff 5 Cow. 67. i.to.— Stokes V. Jones, 21 Ala. 731. Conn. — Graves v. Atwood, 52 Conn. 512, 52 Am. Rep. 610. /«.— Guffin V. First Nat. Bank, 74 111. 259 ; Funk v. Lawson, 12 111. App. 229. Ind. — ^Tjmer v. Somerville, Smith, 149. Io^Da. — Strong v. Lawrence, 58 Iowa, 55, 12 N. W. 74; Graham v. Rooney, 42 Iowa, 567. Xy.— Howell v. Smith, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 415. Compare Layton v. Cal- houn Bank, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 872, 59 S. W. 322. Me. — Sidensparker v. Sidensparker, 52 Me. 481, 83 Am. Dec. 527; Hap- good V. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 56 Am. Dec. 663. Mass. — Slater v. Dudley, 35 Mass. 373; Gunn v. Butler, 35 Mass. 248, but such a conveyance is not fraudu- lent per se. Mich. — Rynearson v. Turner, 52 Mich. 7, 17 N. W. 219; Pursel v. Armstrong, 37 Mich. 326. Ohio. — Bowlus v. Shanabarger, 19 CONSIDEEATION. 383 creditors.'* A conveyance by a fa,tiher to his son, in eonsiderar tion that the grantee shall support his invalid brothers, is not a voluntary deed, but rests on a valuable consideration, and to avoid it as to creditors a fraudulent intent must be shown." §, 62. Future support as part of consideration. — ^An agree- ment by a child to support his parents in the future, as a part of the consideration of a conveyance from his father, does not necessarily show the conveyance to be fraudulent as to the gran- tor's creditors.'* A conveyance by a parent to a child on the con- sideration, in part, that the grantee will provide support and Ohio Cir. Ct. 137, 10 Ohio Cir Dee. 16%. Pa.— G!«iger v. Welsh, 1 Rawle, 349. See also chap. IX, § 10, supra. Compare Worthington v. Jones, 23 Vt. 546. A stipnlation that tbe lessee shall keep a cow for the lessor, contained in a lease of property by an insolvent to his son, is not such a contract for the support of the lessor as will avoid the lease. Stanley v. Robbins, 36 Vt. 422. Security for agreement to support. — Where an insolvent debtor attempts to appropriate his property to the benefit of himself and wife dur- ing their several lives, by a convey- ance to his son in consideration of future support, the agreement being secured by a, mortgage back on the property, such mortgage is fraudu- lent and void as to creditors. De- witt V. Vansickle, 29 N. J. Eq. 209. Where a. father conveyed land to his son, the deed expressing a valuable consideration, but the son verbally en- gaging to support the grantor during life; and a year afterwards the son, being about to die insolvent, gave a mortgage to the father conditioned for his support during the residue of his life, it was held, in an action by the father against one claiming the land by virtue of a sale by the son's administrator, that the mortgage was good, even against creditors of the son. Tyler v. Carlton, 7 Me. 175, 20 Am. Dec. 357. An agreement ly a son to sup- port his father's family and culti- vate his farm, in consideration of the residue of the crops after feeding the stock, is valid, in the absence of ex- trinsic evidence of fraud. Glasgow V. Turner, 91 Tenn. 163, 18 S. W. 261. 32. Faloon v. Mclntyre, 118 111. 292, 8 N. E. 315; Buchanan v. Clark, 28 Vt. 799; Rutland, etc., R. Co. V. Powers, 25 Vt. 15. But see McLean v. Button, 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 450, holding a conveyance of personal property to be a transfer of personal property in trust for the use of the grantor within the prohibition of the statute, and, therefore, void against subsequent creditors. 33. Worthy v. Brady, 91 N. C. 265. 34. Vial V. Mathewson, 34 Hun (N. Y.) 70; Hapgood v. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 56 Am. Dec. 663; Doughty v. Harsel, 91 Mo. 500, 3 S. W. 63. 384 Feaudulent Conveyances. maintenance for the grantor or members of his family, is, how- ever, fraudulent and void as to existing creditors, where the agreement for such support furnishes a substantial part of the loonsideration, and the remainder is inadequate.^^ But, if a conveyance by a parent to his child is otherwise valid, and is supported by a sufficient consideration, the fact that the grantee gratuitously agrees to support his parents for life does not in- validate the conveyance, as in fraud of creditors.^' ,§ 63. Past support as part of consideration. — Services ren- dered and money expended by a child in caring for and support- ing a parent, in aeeordainoe with an agreement between them, is a sufficient consideration for a subsequent conveyance from the parent to the child, and such conveyance is not fraudulent as to creditors, the ccaiveyanc© being in payment of a valid debt due for past, support.^' But services so rendered and money ex- pended, in the absence of a prior contract, do not constitute a valuable consideration for a conveyance by the parent of all his property to his child, so as to render it valid as against his creditors.'* §' 64. Assumption of debts. — A conveyance from a parent to his child or from a child to his parent, im consideration of i35. N. Y. — ^Kain v. Larkin, 4 App. K^. — ^Easum v. Pirtle, 81 Ky. 561 ; Div. 209, 38 N. H. Supp. 546. Nichols v. Walker, 7 Ky. L. Rep. III. — Gordon v. Reynolds, 114 111. 295. 118, 28 N. E. 455; Lawson v. Funk, Mo. — Jones v. Geery, 153 Mo. 476, 108 111. 502 ; Vanston v. Davidson, 41 55 S. W. 73. 111. App. 646. Or.^olly v. Kyle, 27 Or. 95, 39 Ky. — ^Marshall v. Strange, 10 Ky. Pae. 999. L. Rep. 410, 9 S. W. 250. 37. Nichols, Shepard & Co. v. N. H. — ^Morrison v. Morrison, 49 N. Burch, 128 Ind. 324, 27 N. E. 737; H. 69; Albeev. Webster, 16 N.H. 362. Sweatman v. Spears, 6 Ky. L. Rep. Pa. — Sanders v. Wagonseller, 19 515; Howard v. Rynearaon, 50 Mich. Pa. St. 248; Miner v. Warner, 2 307, 15 N. W. 486; Kelsey v. Kelley, Grant, 448; Johnson's Heirs v. Har- 63 Vt. 41, 22 Atl. 597, 13 L. R. A. vey, 2 Pen. & W. 82, 21 Am. Dee. 426. 640. 36. 2f. r.— Bent v. Bent, 50 Hun, 38. Snyder v. Free, 114 Mo. 360, 602, 3 N. Y. Supp. 750. 21 S. W. 847. CONSIDEEATION. 385 an agreement on the part of the grantee to pay the debts of the grantor, is not fraudulent and void as to creditors of the gran- tor.^ But a conveyance by a father to his child, made and ac- cepted with the initention of hindering and delaying the father's creditors, is fraudulent and void as to creditors/* Likewise, a conveyance from a father to his child, where the value of the property conveyed is so gi-eatly in excess of the amount of the debts assumed as to raise the presumption of fraud, will be held fraudulent as to creditors." Where a father conveys land to his child, the latter agreeing to discharge the incumbrances thereon, the conveyance as to the surplus of the value of the land above the incumbrances, is without consideration, and void as to creditors of the father." § 65. Pa3mient of pre-existing debts. — A bona fide pre-exist- ing debt or other liability is a valuable and sufficient considera- tion for a conveyance or transfer of property from a parent to his child, or from a child to its parent, where the property con- veyed or transferred is fairly proportionate in value to such a debt or liability, or the indebtedness is not materially less than the reasonable value of the property." Advancements made by 39. Jenkins v. Peace, 46 N. C. 413; 61 N. Y. Supp. 521, aff'g 26 Misc. Jolly V. Kyle, 27 Or. 95, 39 Pac. 999; Rep. 541, 57 N. Y. Supp. 486; Sau- Pattison v. Stewart, 6 Watts & S. gerties Bank v. Mack, 34 App. Div. (Pa.) 72; Willis v. Heath (Tex. 494, 54 N. Y. Supp. 360; Foote v. 1891), 18 S. W. 801. See also chap. Stryker, 10 N. Y. Supp. 472, 12 N. Y. VIII, § 14, supra. Supp. 178. 40. Grieb v. Caraker, 69 111. App. V. B. — Gorrell v. Dickson, 26 Fed. 236; Brady v. Briscoe, 25 Ky. 212, a 454. transfer by a father of all his prop- Ala. — Donegan v. Davis, 66 Ala. erty to his son to pay just debts, and 362. to evade the payment of unjust debts. III. — Schuberth v. Schillo, 177 HI. is fraudulent. 346, 52 N. E. 319, aff'g 76 111. App. 41. Clark v. Raymond, 86 Iowa, 356. 661, 53 N. W. 353; Jessup v. John- Ind. — Clow v. Brown (App. 1904), stone, 48 N. C. 335, 67 Am. Dec. 243. 72 N. E. 534. 42. Priest v.Conklin, 38 111. App. 180. Iowa. — Rockford Boot, eta, Mfg. 43. N. Y.— National Bank of Port Co. v. Mastin, 75 Iowa, 112, 39 N. Jervis v. Bonnell, 46 App. Div, 302, W. 219. 25 386 Fbaudulent Conveyances. a parent to a child, who thereafter becomes financially embar- rassed, cannot be changed in character so as to become debts to the injury of creditors, and, hence, cannot constitute a valid consideration as lagainst creditors for a conveyance by the child to the parent." Money furnished by a parent to a child, with- out any contemporaneous understanding or agreement concern- ing its repayment, will be presumed to have been intended as an advancement, with no present purpose to treat it as a debt, and it cannot afterwards be converted into a debt without the inter- vention of some new consideration.*^ A subsequait deed con- firming a prior valid conveyance of the same property is not in fraud of creditors, as where a father conveys lamd to his sons,. retaining sufficient property to pay his creditors, and delivers the deed in escrow, and such deed is destroyed before the grantees have performed the condition necessary for the passage of title.*^ Kam,. — ^Beavers v. McKinley, 50 Kan. 602, 32 Pac. 363, 33 Pao. 359, fictitious debt. Md.— McNeal v. Glenn, 4 Md. 87. Mass. — F. & M. SohaeflFer Brewing Co. V. Moebs, 187 Mass. 571, 73 N. B. 858. Mich. — ^Rindge v. Grow, 99 Mich. 482, 58 N. W. 468; Nichols v. Ban- croft, 74 Mich. 191, 41 N. W. 891; WoodhuU V. Whittle, 63 Mich. 575, 30 N. W. 368, aff'g State Bank v. Whittle, 48 Mich. 1, 11 N. W. 756. Miss. — ^Davis v. Harris, 21 Miss. 9, debt due from parent as guardian of child. "Neb. — Carson v. Murphy, 1 Neb. not invalidate as fraud- ulent a judgment note given by a debtor to his son; Sebring v. Brick- Icy, 7 Pa. Super. Ct. 198, 42 Wkly. Notes Cas. 189, assignment by an in- solvent father to his son "of policies on his wife's life is not necessarily fraudulent. B. G. — Weaver v. Wright, 13 Rich. 9. B. D. — Studebaker Bros. Mfg. Co. V. ZoUaxs, 12 S. D. 296, 81 N. W. 292. Term. — ^Rosenbaum v. Davis (Ch. App. 1898), 48 S. W. 706. W. Fa.— Miller v. Gillispie, 54 W. Va. 450, 46 S. E. 451; Farmers' Transp. Co. v. Swaney, 48 W. Va. 272, 37 S. E. 592; Douglass v. Douglass, 41 W. Va. 13, 23 S. E. 671; Hardin V. Wagner, 22 W. Va. 356. Wis. — Missinski v. McMurdo, 107 Wis. 578, 83 N. W. 758; Bleiler v. Moore, 88 Wis. 438, 60 N. W. 792; Barr v. Church, 82 Wis. 382, 52 N. W. 591. Eng. — See Golden v. Gillam, 51 L. J. Ch. 503. Contra. — Business dealings between parents and children are to be treated as are the transactions ■ of other peo- ple, and if the bona fides thereof is attacked, the fraud alleged must be Confidential Relations of Pabties. 409 of the transaction, rather than otherwise.'^ Whether convey- ances from parent to child or from child to parent are fraudu- lent or not has been held to depend on the intent with which they were made-*® Land conveyed to a father in trust for his miaor child, who pays the consideration with money given to him by the father while solvent, cannot be reached by creditors of the father where he has transferred it to the son after becom- ing insolvent." Where the wife's father paid one-third of the consideration for the land purchased by the husband under an agreement, to which the wife was a party, that she should own one-third of the land and its proceeds, but the husband took the title to himself, a deed executed by him after he became in- solvent, and after the wife's death, conveying one-third of the land to her infant son by direction of the father, will not be set aside at the instance of the husband's creditors.** A con- veyance by a father to his children! in settlement of bona fide gifts received from their deceased mother's father, although made with a fraudulent intent on his part, is not illegal if they did not share in the fraudulent purpose.** A voluntairy conveyance by a married woman to her children is void against a mechanic's proved. Curry v. Lloyd, 22 Fed. 258 ; Gilmore v. Swisher, 59 Kan. 172, 52 Eeehling v. Byers, 94 Pa. St. 316. Pao. 426. No more stringent proof of good 85. Maurin v. Eougner, 19 La. faith is required than in the instance 594; State v. True, 20 Mo. App. 176; of transactions between strangers. Weaver v. Wright, 13 Eich. (S. C.) Seitz V. Rennig, Lehigh Val. L. Rep. 9; Bleiler v. Moore, 88 Wis. 438, 60 130. N. W. 792. A voluntary conveyance from 86. Barnard v. Davis, 54 Ala. 565; father to child is constructively Miller v. Thompson, 3 Port. (Ala.) fraudulent as to an existing creditor, 196; May v. Hoover, 48 Neb. 199, 66 unless the grantor has remaining N. W. 1134. after the conveyance sufficient prop- 87. Hayford v. Wallace (Cal. erty to satisfy his creditors. Camp- 1896), 46 Pac. 293. bell V. Campbell ( Iowa), 105 N.W. 583. 88. Sparks v. Colson, 109 Ky. 711, It is error to charge that relation- 22 Ky. L. Eep. 1369, 60 S. W. 540, 23 ship affords ground for suspicion as Ky. L. Rep. 145, 63 S. W. 739. to the good faith of the mortgagee, 89. Gleitz v. Schuster, 168 Mo. as against other creditors, and calls 298, 67 S. W. 661, 90 Am. St. Rep. for satisfactory proof of good faith. 461. 410 Feaudulent Conveyances. lien for a debt contracted by her for the improvement of the land comiveyed."' But a conveyance from a mother to her daugh- ter is not in fraud of creditors, where the conveyance was made in consideration of money to the value of the property given to the mother for the use of the daughter by the grandmother of the daughter, and which the mother had applied to her own use." While a voluntary conveyance to a child of the grantor, or a conveyance for less than the fair value of the property, when the grantor is insolvent or greatly indebted at the time, is prima facie evidence of fraud, or presumptively --fraudulent,'^ the presumption may be rebutted by proof of good faith, and the want or inadequacy of consideration is not of itself necessarily conclusive evidence of fraud.'* Where ^e ^father, without con" sulting the daughter, purchased for her certain land, and paid a part of the price with money belonging to her, amid the daughter later ratified the purchase and paid another installment on the price, and the father, being indebted at the time of the pur- 90. Banlcard v. Shaw, 23 Pa. Co. Ct. 561, 16 Montg. Co. L. E. 137, 30 Pittsb. L. J. N. S. 413. 91. National Bank of Port Jervis V. Bonnell, 26 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 541, 57 N. Y. Supp. 486. 92. 2V. Y.— First National Bank v. Moffatt, 77 Hun, 468, 28 N. Y. Supp. 1078; Pell V. Tredwell, 5 Wend. 661. Ind. — Tynerv.Somerville, 1 Ind. 175. Iowa. — Johnston Harvester Co. v. Cibula, 62 Iowa, 697, 13 N. W. 418. Ky. — Cincinnati, etc., Co. v. Mat- thews, 24 Ky. L. Eep. 2445, 74 S. W. 242; City Nat. Bank v. Gardner, 5 Ky. L. Eep. 689. Mo. — Mason v. Perkins, 180 Mo. 702, 79 S. W. 683, 103 Am. St. Eep. 591; Imhoff V. McArthur, 146 Mo. 371, 48 S. W. 456; Lionberger v. Baker, 14 Mo. App. 353. Af. J. — Le Herisse v. Hess (Ch. 1904), 57 Atl. 808; Mason v. Somers, 59 N. J. Eq. 451, 45 Atl. 602; First Nat. Bank v. Cummins, 38 N. J. Eq. 191. W. C. — ^McCanless v. Flinchum, 89 N. C. 373; Tredwell v. Graham, 88 N. C. 208. W. Fo.— Blaekshire v. Pettit, 35 W. Va. 547, 14 S. E. 133. Can. — ^McDonald v. McQueen, 9 Manitoba, 315. 93. Caldwell v. Deposit Bank, 18 Ky. L. Eep. 156, 35 S. W. 625; Green v. Green, 4 Ky. L. Eep. 250; Commonwealth Bank v. Kearns, 100 Md. 202, 59 Atl. 1010; F. & M. Shaefer Brew. Co. v. Moebs, 187 Mass. 571, 73 N. E. 858; Eichards v. Vacarro, 67 Miss. 516, 7 So. 506, 19 Am. St. Eep. 322, the burden of show- ing good faith is on the grantee; Gibson v. Hill, 23 Tex. 77, the evi- dence of good faith should be indis- putable. CoHPIDENTIAI, KeLATIOKS OF PaBXIES. 411 chase, immediately after the service of a summons on him to recover such indebtedness, formally assigned the contract to pur- chase the land, which he had taken in his own name, to thq daughter, such purchase and transfer was not fraudulent as to his creditors.'* § 9. Procuring conveyance from third person. — ^Where a debtor purchases land with his own money and takes the con- veyance in the name of his child for the purpose of securing the land against his debts, and defrauding his creditors, the transaction is fraudulent, and the creditors, having obtained judgment, may by bill in equity, subject the land to their debts.'* A deed is not fraudulent if procured to be made by a father to his son in paymemit of a just debt, though the father be em- barrassed in circumstances.'* A purchase with his own funds by one who causes the title to land to be made to himself as trustee for a minor child is, in the absence of any valid consideration, equivalent to a gift to the child ; and the fact that the father mis- takenly supposed that the child had a valid, legal claim against him, amd intended thus to settle it, does not invalidate such deed as against creditors of the father, if he was in fact solvent at the time of the conveyance, and had no intention to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors." 94. Gehres v. Wallace, 38 Wash. N. C— Wall v. Fairley, 73 N. C. 101, 80 Pac. 273. 464. 95. Ala. — Patterson v. Campbell, 8. C. — Godbold v. Lambert, 8 Rich. 9 Ala. 933. Eq. 155, 70 Am. Dec. 192; Croft ▼. Cal. — Lander v. Beers, 48 Cal. 546. Arthur, 3 Desauss. 223. jnd. — Demaree v. Driskill, 3 Va. — Coleman v. Cocke, 6 Band. Blackf. 115. ■ 618, 18 Am. Dee. 757. /otco.— Smalley v. Mass, 72 Iowa, 96. Vattier v. Hinde, 32 U. S. 252, 171, 33 N. W. 619; State Bank of 8 L. Ed. 675, rev'g Fed. Cas. No. Indiana v. Harrow, 26 Iowa, 426. 6,512, 1 McLean, 110. La. — Frazer v. Pritchard, 6 La. 97. Cohen v. Parish, 105 G». 339, Ann. 728. 31 S. E. 205. 412 Fhauduuent Conveyances. * CHAPTER X. Resebvations anb Trusts foe Geantob, Section 1. Benefits reserved to grantor in general as element or evidence of fraud. 2. Conveyances in trust for grantor. 3. What constitutes conveyances in trust for grantor. 4. Ecservation of life estate in grantor. 6. Reservation of life estate with power of appointment at death. 6. Reservation of power to revoke. 7. Reservation of support or care of grantor or family. 8. Reservation of surplus. 9. Reservation of power to direct application of proceeds. 10. Employment of debtor. 11. Reservation of right of repurchase or return of property. 12. Reservation of power to appoint substitute trustee. 13. Reservation of exempt property. 14. Secret reservations or trusts as element or evidence of fraud. 15. What constitutes a secret reservation or trust. 16. Absolute conveyance intended as security. 17. Absolute sale with reservation of surplus. 18. Reservation of right to repurchase. 19. Employment of debtor. 20. Future support of grantor. 21. Purchase at execution or other sale for benefit of debtor. 22. Subsequent disposition of property by debtor in creditor's favor. 23. Discharge of secret trust by subsequent agreement. Section 1. Benefits reserved to grantor in general as element or evidence of fraud. — As a general rule a transfer of real or per- sonal property, or any provision in such, a transfer, by a person indebted at the time, by which, the grantor secures or reserves some benefit or advantage to himself or family, or to any other person for him, at the expense of his creditors^ unless assented to by ihem, is deemed frauduleait and voidi as to existing creditors.^ The 1. N. Y. — ^Young V. Heermans, 69 Bell, 20 Johns. 442, 11 Am. Dec. N. Y. 374; Elias v. Farley, 3 Keyes, 297; Sturtevant v. Ballard, 9 Johns. 398, 2 Abb. Dec. 11, 2 Transe. App. 337, 6 Am. Dec. 281; Cooke v. Smith, 116, 5 Abb. Pr. N. S. 39; Spotten v. 3 Sandf. Ch. 333. A mortgage by a Keeler, 12 St. Rep. 385; Austin v. corporation, reserving the power to Kesebvations and Tbtjsts foe Geantoe. 413 same rule applies to a tranBfer wliereby creditors are prevented from compelling am immediate appropriation of the debtor's prop- sell the personal property and use the income in the business, and not requiring the application of the pro- ceeds to any particular purpose, but for the use of the mortgagor, is void as to creditors. Zartman v. First Nat. Bank, 109 App. Div. 406, 96 N. Y. Supp. 633. U. 8. — Robinson v. Elliott, 22 Wall. 513, 22 L. Ed. 758 ; Clements v. Moore, 73 U. S. 299, 18 L. Ed. 786; Kellog V. Richardson, 19 Fed. 70; Howe Mach. Co. v. Claybourn, 6 Fed. 438; Burbank v. Hammond, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,137, 3 Suran. 429. See Imperial Woolen Co. v. Longbottom, 143 Fed. 483, where a conveyance was held not to be fraudulent in law or fact, where all the creditors but one assented, and such one expressed no objection. Ala. — McDowell v. Steele, 87 Ala. 493, 6 So. 288; Pritehett v. Pollock, 82 Ala. 169, 2 So. 735; Sandlin v. Robbins, 62 Ala. 477; Stokes v. Jones, 18 Ala. 734. Ark. — Sparks v. Mack, 31 Ark. 666. OoJ.— Riddell v. Shirley, 5 Cal. 488. Coio.— Wellington v. Terry (1907), 88 Pac. 467, where chattels covered by a mortgage are sold by the mort- gagor with the acquiescence of the mortgagee, and the proceeds are ap- plied to any other purpose than that of liquidating the mortgage debt, the mortgage is void at the instance of creditors of the mortgagor; Taub v. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 8 Colo. App. 213, 45 Pac. 513. Ga. — Coleman, etc., Co. v. Rice, 115 Ga. 510, 42 S. E. 5; Mitchell v. Stetson, 64 Ga. 442, two years' reser- vation of the use and possession of land sold a few weeks before judg- ment by an insolvent debtor destroys the validity of the conveyance so far as such judgment creditor is con- cerned; Edwards v. Stinson, 59 Ga. 443; Hobbs v. Davis, 50 Ga. 213; Eastman v. McAlpin, 1 Ga. 157. III. — ^Hurd V. Ascherman, 117 111, 501, 6 N. E. 160; Gardner v. Com- mercial Nat. Bank, 95 111. 298, a con- veyance made to secure an extension of time or other benefits to the grantor is void as to creditors; Hardin v. Osborne, 60 111. 93; Beid- ler V. Grane, 22 111. App. 538, aff'd 135 111. 92, 25 N. E. 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 349, an absolute assignment of letters patent which the assignee transferred to a corporation organ- ized for the manufacture of the patented article, is fraudulent and void, where the assignor controlled the operation of the corporation for his own benefit. Ey. — German Ins. Bank v. Nunes, 80 Ky. 334. La. — Bank of Mobile v. Harris, 6 La. Ann. 811. Me. — Jones v. Light, 86 Me. 437, 30 Atl. 71; Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 139; Smith v. Parker, 41 Me. 452. Jlfd.— Franklin v. Claflin, 49 Md. 24. Mass. — ^Pacific Nat. Bank v. Wind- ram, 133 Mass. 175. Minn. — Williams v. Kemper (1906), 109 N. W. 242; Pabst Brew. Co, V. Butchart, 67 Minn. 191, 69 N. W. 809, 64 Am. St. Rep. 408. Miss. — Wooten v. Clark, 23 Miss. 75 ; Arthur v. Commercial, etc., Bank, 17 Miss. 394, 48 Am. Dec. 719. 414 Fbaudulent Convetances. erty to the payment of his debts.^ Slioh a conveyance is fraudu- lent as to the creditors of the grantor, whether the benefit reserved Mo. — Bigelow v. Stringer, 40 Mo. 195; Zeigler v. Maddox, 26 Mo. 576; Monarch Rubber Co. v. Bunn, 78 Mo. App. 55. y. B. — Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510; Albee v. Webster, 16 N. H. .362; Trask v. Bowers, 4 N. H. 309, the transfer must be without any trust whatever, either express or implied. Compare Low v. Carter, 21 N. H. 433. y. C. — Holmes v. Marshall, 78 N. C. 262; Carter v. Cocke, 64 N. C. 239; Sturdivant v. Davis, 31 N. C. 365. Pa. — ^Houseman v. Grossman, 177 Pa. St. 453, 35 Atl. 736; Hennon v. McClane, 88 Pa. St. 219; Bentz v. Rockey, 69 Pa. St. 71; Johnson v. Harvey, 2 Pen. & W. 82, 21 Am. Dec. 426; Pennsylvania Knitting Mills v. Bibb Mfg. Co., 12 Pa. Super. Ct. 346; Low v. Ivy, 10 Pa. Super. Ct. 32. 8. 0.— Smith v. Hewry, 1 Hill, 16. Tenn. — ^Doyle v. Smith", 41 Tenn. 15; Austin v. Johnson, 26 Tenn. 191; Gibbs v. Thompson, 26 Tenn. 179. Tex. — ^Donnebaum v. Tinsley, 54 Tex. 362, a voluntary conveyance by a husband of all his property to his wife, reserving it to himself and his heirs after his death, should she separate from him or again marry, is void as against his existing cred- itors; Baldwin v. Peet, 22 Tex. 708, 75 Am. Dec. 806; Reynolds v. Lans- ford, 16 Tex. 286. Va. — Rucker'a Adm'rs v. Moss, 84 Va. 634, 5 S. E. 527; Young v. Wil- lis, 82 Va. 291. W. Va. — Lockhard v. Beckley, 10 W. Va. 87. Wis. — Merchants', etc., Sav. Bank V. Lovejoy, 84 Wis. 601, 55 N. W. 108; First Nat. Bank v. McDonald Mfg. Co., 67 Wis. 373, 28 N. W. 225, a provision in a deed of trust allow- ing the trustee to continue the busi- ness in the old way for an indefinite time. Eng.— Twine's Case, 3 Coke, 80a, 1 Smith Lead. Cas. 1; In re Pearson, 3 Ch. Div. 807, 35 L. T. Rep. N. S. 68, 25 Wkly. Rep. 126; Ware v. Gardner, L. R. 7 Eq. 317, 38 L. J. Ch. 348, 20 L. T. Rep. N. S. 71, 17 Wkly. Rep. 439; French v. French, 6 De G. M. & G. 95, 2 Jur. N. S. 169, 25 L. J. Ch. 612, 4 Wkly. Rep. 139, 55 Eng. Ch. 74, 43 Eng. Reprint, 1166; Neale v. Day, 4 Jur. N. S. 1225, 28 L. J. Ch. 45, 7 Wkly. Rep. 45; Higginbotham v. Holme, 12 Rev. Rep. 146, 19 Ves. Jr. 88, 34 Eng. Re- print, 451. A deed of trust reaerving t» the grantor the use of the property until creditors could order a sale (Lanier v. Driver, 24 Ala. 149), or the use and profits for a definite period by paying annual in- terest on certain debts, a sale to be made at the end of that period at the instance of the majority of the un- paid creditors (Young v. Willis, 82 Va. 291), is not per se fraudulent on its face. See also Keagy v. Trout, 85 Va. 390, 7 S. E. 329. 2. Young V. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374. An assignment of all his prop- erty by a debtor for less than one- third of its value, in order to prevent the same from being subjected to « forced sale, was fraudulent as against creditors, wh^re the assignee under- Eeseevations and Tsusts foe Geantoe. 415 to Mm was great or small,' but not -where a reservation is merely incidental/ One of the surest tests of a fraudulent conveyance is that it reserves to the grantor an advantage inconsistent veith its avowed object or purpose,^ or an unusual indulgence/ and such a conveyance is void as against creditors and subsequent purchasers. Where a conveyance, professedly to indemnify creditors, expressly or impliedly reserves to the grantor powers inconsistent with, or adequate to defeat, such purpose, it is void as to creditors.' A conveyance made to prefer one or more creditors, by which the debtor obtains a benefit for himself or his family, is fraudulent towards other creditors, as being intended to hinder, delay and de- feat them. The law allows a debtor to give a preference to one creditor over another, but it vtdll not allow him, to secure an advan- tage to himself, at the expense of creditors, as the price of such preference.* To render a transfer voidable, however, there must stood the assignor's necessities, and that the assignment covered all prop- erty available for the satisfaction of creditors, regardless of whether the assignee intended ultimately to turn any surplus over to the assignor or to keep it himself. Wahlheimer v. Truslow, 106 App. Div. (N. Y.) 73, 94 N. y. Supp. 137. But see Whit- son V. Griffis, 39 Kan. 211, 17 Pac. 801, 7 Am. St. Eep. 546, a chattel mortgage made in good faith, by which the mortgagor receives some benefit, is not void, though the prop- erty is thereby placed out of the reach of creditors. 3. Tissier v. Wailes (Ala. 1905), 39 So. 924. 4. Shoemaker v. Hastings, 61 How. Prac. (N. y.) 79; Camp v. Thomp- son, 25 Minn. 175. 5. Thompson v. Furr, 57 Miss. 484; Brockenbrough v. Brocken- brough, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 580; Lang V. Lee, 3 Rand. (Va.) 410; Kuhn v. Mack, 4 W. Va. 186. 6. Thompson v. Furr, 57 Miss. 484. 7. Saunders v. Waggoner, 82 Va. 316. 8. N. Y. — ^Mackie v. Cairns, 5 Cow. 547, 15 Am. Dec. 477; aff'g Hopkins, 373. Ark. — Sparks v. Mack, 31 Ark. 666. Ind.—Noyea v. Tootle, 2 Ind. T. 144, 48 S. W. 1031. Minn. — Carson v. Hawley, 82 Minn. 204, 84 N. W. 746, a scheme by an insolvent debtor and a preferred cred- itor to dispose of the entire stock of such debtor, to put the purchase price into a homestead for the benefit of the debtor, and fraudulently ap- ply the balance to pay the creditor, is illegal in so far, at least, as the preferred creditor is concerned. N. C. — Hafner v. Irwin, 23 N. C. 490. Pa. — ^Thornburn v. Thompson, 192 Pa. St. 298, 43 Atl. 992; Bentz t. Eoekey, 69 Pa. St. 71. 416 Fbaudulent Conveyances. be some interest left to the debtor in lie property, some reserva- tion inconsisitent with, a true sale, or some hiding or cloaking of the surplus, so as to cover it up for the benefit of the debtor or his family.' A transfer of personal property accompanied by an actual and continued change of possession is not fraudulent as to creditors because made in consideration of a promise by the transferee to use the property in a certain manner, which would' confer pe- cuniary profit on the transferrer,^" nor because the consideration is largely for servioe® to be performed in the future." A mortgage is not void as to creditors, on the ground of reserving an interest to the mortgagor, because it secures claims that certain co-sureties of his may have upon him for contribution,^^ nor because it in- cludes a small claim on behalf of another creditor in addition to the bona fide debt wbioh it was given to secure.^ A transaction in whiah one creditor consents, upon receiving security by way of mortgage, to give indulgence to his debtor, is not fraudulent as to other creditors," nor is a judgment by confession fraudulent as to creditors, as reserving a benefit for the debtor, because B. I. — ^Lennon v. Parker, 22 R. I. either in money or in his own note, 43, 46 Atl. 44. does not alter the case. S. G. — Smith v. Henry, 1 Hill, 16. Faying money to a debtor to Tenn. — Austin v. Johnson, 26 Tenn. ■eonre from bim a preferential 191. conveyance to a creditor is not Tem. — Temple Grocer Co. v. Cla- fraudulent as to creditors as in viola- baugh, 18 Tex. Civ. App. 655, 45 S. tion of the statutory provision W. 482. See also Preferences — against reservations for the benefit of Knowledge and intent of parties, the grantor. Bangs Milling Co. T. chap. XI, §§ 21, 22, infra. Burns, 152 Mo. 350, S3 S. W. 923. 9. Hobbs V. Davis, 50 Ga. 213, one lO. Lewin v. Hopping, 67 Cal. 541, has a right under the law to buy in 8 Pac. 73. good faith of a debtor in insolvent 11. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank T. circumstances, and pay in a debt due Mosher, 63 Neb. 130, 88 N. W. 552. from the insolvent to the purchaser, 12. Steele v. Farber, 37 Mo. 71. if it be in truth a purchase, if it be 13. Taylor v. Harle-Haas Drug Co. not a mere scheme to get the effects (Neb. 1903), 96 N. W. 182. away from the creditors, or if there 14. Harshaw's Ex'rs v. Woodfin, be no trust or reserve of any surplus 64 N. C. 568, the equity of redemp- to the debtor's benefit; and that, in tion is open to the creditors, and a addition to the purchaser's debt, the purchaser would have an election,, purchaser gives something more, either to pay the mortgage debt and Reseevations and Trusts fob Gbantob. 417 of a stipulation tkerein that no execution shall issue for a certain time.^^ A deed of trust of a mining company's property, authoriz- ing the company to dispose of any machinery covered thereby which cannot be advantageously used, it to replace it by other ma- chinery of at least equal value, is not within, a statute avoiding conveyances of chattels to the use of the grantor.*^ A reservation to the debtor in a deed is not a conclusive badge of fraud, if the deed can b© construed as a mortgage or otherwise sO' as to be con- sistent with, the reservation, as of the surplus; for that can be readily reached in equity, like any other property, and the pur- pose is apparent on the face of the transaction." Thus, a transfer hy an insolvent to one of his creditors is not void as to other cred- itors because it provides that, if the property transferred is of a value in excess of the debt constituting the consideration, the excess shall remain in the hands of the vendee to be paid on the order of the vendor to his other creditors, since no benefit is stipulated or provided to or for the debtor beyond what the law, without such agreement, would secure to him.^* Under the law of Pennsylvania, a reservation of title in a contract under which goods are delivered to another until the purchasei price shall have been paid is void as against creditors of the person in possession, whatever may be the form of the contract, if it is essentially one of conditional sale, and not of bailment.^* § 2. Conveyances in trust for grantor — ^It is well established as a general rule that a debtor cannot settle his estate in trust for his own use or benefit, so as to free it from liability for his debts, and such a conveyance or transfer by a debtor is fraudulent and void as against his creditors, whether prior or subsequent, and the call for title, or else take the benefit 17. Baldwin v. Peet, 22 Tex. 708, of the extended credit. ?5 Am. Dec. 806. 15. Merchants' Nat. Bank v. New- 18. Goetter v. Smith, 104 Ala. ton Cotton Mills, 115 N. C. 507, 20 481, 16 So. 534; Harmon v. McRae, g J. 765. ^^ ^^^- *°^' ^ ^°- 5*^; McDowell v. 16. Hasbronck v. Rich, 113 Mo.,! Steele, 87 Ala. 493, 6 So. 288. App. 389, 88 S. W. 131. !»■ 1° re Tice, 139 Fed. 52. 27 418 Feaudulbnt Conveyances. property may be subjected by them to the payment of their debts.** A conveyance made to the use of the grantor is fraudulent without regard to the existence of an intention to defraud and though there waa no fraudulent intent to hinder or delay creditors." The statute of Henry VII, enacted in 1487, against trusts in personal property for the use of the persons creating them, re-enacted in New York in 1787, and in many other jurisdictions with immaterial 20. N. Y. — Young v. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374; CoUumb v. Caldwell, 16 N. Y. 484; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9; Vilas Nat. Bank v. Newton, 25 App. Div. 62, 48 N. Y. Supp. 1009; Bier v. Kibbe, 43 Hun, 174; Spotten V. Keeler, 12 N. Y. St. Eep. 385. AZo.— Smith v. Hill, 103 Ala. 235, 15 So. 525, void as against creditors existing and subsequent; McDermott v. Eborn, 90 Ala. 258, 7 So. 751; Benedict v. Eenfro, 75 Ala. 121, 51 Am. Rep. 429; Sandlin v. Robbins, 62 Ala. 477; Reynolds v. Crook, 31 Ala. 634; Johnson v. Thweatt, 18 Ala. 741. Colo. — Innis v. Carpenter, 4 Colo. App. 30, 34 Pac. 1011. Go.^Coleman, etc., Co. v. Rice, 115 Ga. 510, 42 S. E. 6; Hobbs v. Davis, 50 Ga. 213; Eastman v. HcAlpin, 1 Ga. 157; Cameron v. Scudder, 1 Ga. 204. /«.— Hardin v. Osborne, 60 111. 93. /nd.— Plunkett v. Plunkett, 114 Ind. 484, 16 N. E. 612, 17 N. E. 562; Stout V. Price, 24 Ind. App. 360, 55 N. E. 964, 56 N. E. 857. Iowa. — ^Hook V. Mowre, 17 Iowa, 195. Kan. — Clark v. Robbins, 8 Kan. 574. Me. — ^Hamlin v. Bridge, 24 Me. 145; Legro v. Lord, 10 Me. 161. Minn. — Smith v. Conkright, 28 Minn. 23, 8 N. W. 876. Mo. — Bigelow v. Stringer, 40 Mo. 195; Armstrong t. Tuttle, 34 Mo. 432; Robinson v. Robarda, 15 Mo. 459; Scudder v. Payton, 65 Mo. App. 314; State of Mueller, 10 Mo. App. 87; State of Jacob, 2 Mo. App. 183. 2Ve&. — Graham v. Townaend, 62 Neb. 364, 87 N. W. 169. N. J. — Newman v. Van i)uyne, 42 N. J. Eq. 485, 7 Atl. 897. N. C. — Carter v. Cocke, 64 N. C. 239; Sturdivant v. Davis, 31 N. C. 365; Smith v. Blank, 3 N. C. 229. Pa. — Ghormiey v. Smith, 139 Pa. St. 584; Bentz v. Eoekey, 69 Pa. St. 71; Appeal of Mackason, 42 Pa. St. 330, 82 Am. Dec. 517; Hart v. Mc- Farland, 13 Pa. St. 182j Shaffer v. Watkins, 7 Watts & S. 219; Andrews v. Lewis, 1 Pa. Co. Ct. 293; Patrick v. Smith, 39 Wkly. Notes Cas. 4; In re Catherwood's Estate, 29 Wkly. Notes Cas. 344. 8. C— Ford V. Caldwell, 3 Hill, 248; Wilson v. Cheshire, 1 McCord Eq. 233. Tex. — Rives v. Stephens (Civ. App. 1894), 28 S. W. 707. ya.— Burton v. Mills, 78 Va. 468; Lewis V. Caperton, 8 Gratt. 148. Wis. — Stapleton v. Brannan, 102 Wis. 26, 78 N. W. 181; Severin v. Rueckerick, 62 Wis. 1, 21 N. W. 789. 21. Innis v. Carpenter, 4 Colo. App. 30, 34 Pac. 1011; Plunkett v. Plunkett, 114 Ind. 484, 16 N. E. 612, 17 N. E. 562; Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341, 64 N. W. 18; State v. Jacob, 2 Mo. App. 183. Eeservations and Tku3ts foe Geantoe. 419 differences in phraseology, applies, however, only to conveyances primarily and wholly for the use of the grantor, and not to instru- meints made in good faith for the actual and real use of the grantee and where the reservations to the grantor are incidental and par- tial.^ Its object is to render simply ineffectual purely nominal transfers of personal estate where the entire use and control are, by a declaration of trus't in or out of the instrument, left in him who makes the transfer. It is not in any proper sense a statute against frauds, although fraudulent practices may have led to its enactment; but it is founded on the self-evident principle that a man's property should pay his debts, although he has vested a nominal title thereto in some other person. For that purpose the statute declares the title to be in the debtor, and no transfer which is entirely nominal can stand in the way. It has no reference to intentions, whether fraudulent or honest. There may in fact be no creditors until long after the transaction, but if the debtor has property they are entitled to be paid. The simple inquiry is whether the property belongs to the debtor, not upon a theory of fraud and against the terms of his conveyance, but upon a theory of equitable title reserved to himself by the very conveyance which transfers the legal and nominal title to another.^' The statute has no application to mortgages, trusts, or other instruments created to raise money or secure a creditor. It is the necessary incideuifc of all such transactions that some beneficial interest re- mains in the debtor, and that the whole belongs to him when he .... 1 22. N. T. — Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. promise to share the crops with the Y. 9; Shoemaker v. Hastings, 61 grantor and pay certain relatives How. Pr. 79. pa,Tt of the consideration therefor; Colo. — Jefferson County Bank v. Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341, Hummell, 11 Colo. App. 337, 53 Pac. 64 N. W. 818; Camp v. Thompson, 25 286, a deed intended as a mortgage Minn. 175; Butler v. White, 25 Minn. which expresses a consideration 432, where the reservation was largely in excess of the dfebt is not merely of the surplus after satisfy- constructively fraudulent. ing the grantee's -claim; Vose v. Minn. — Hunt v. Ahnemann (1904), Stickney, 19 Minn. 367; Truitt v. 102 N. W. 376, a deed made in con- Caldwell, 3 Minn. 364, 74 Am. Dec. sideration of past services of the 764. grantee to the grantor, with his 23. Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9. \ 420 Feaddulent Conveyances. has discharged the obligation. Therefore, a debtor, whether solvent or insolvent, may, acting in good faith, mortgage a portion or the v?hole of his property to secure existing claims against him, and also future loans and advances.^* When it appears from the face of a deed that there is a trust or reservation of use to the grantor, the court, as a matter of law, will declare such deed void as against creditors; where such deed is fair on its face, but is affected with a secret trust in favor of the grantor, the existence of fraud is a question of fact.^^ While these statutes are in terms limited to goods and chattels^ the principle upon which they rest is a part of the common law, and in some jurisdictions it is applied to transfer of realty as well as personal, and a transfer of real or personal property by a debtor to a third party to be held in trust for his use and benefit is held to be void as to existing and subse- quent creditors." § 3. What constitutes conveyance in trust for grantor. — A conveyance to pay certain creditors, the surplus to be returned to the grantor, is void as a conveyance in trust for the grantor." But neither the statute nor the common, law principle, rendering a con- veyance void as to creditors which contains a reservation for the 24. Knapp v. McGowan, 96 N. Y. quent creditors for the satisfaction 75. of their claims against him, 25. Zeigler v. Maddox, 26 Mo. 575. But in Idabo it is held that a 26. Sandlin v. Eobhins, 62 Ala. conveyance of land with intent to de- 477; Williams v. Kemper (Minn. fraud the grantor's creditors is not 1906), 109 N. W. 242; Wetherill v. within a statute providing that "all Canney, 62 Minn. 341, 64 N. W. 818; deeds of gift, all conveyances, and all Racek v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Neb. transfers or assignments, verbal or 669, 87 N. W. 542, under a statute written, of goods, chattels, or things making all transfers of property in action, made in trust for the use made in trust for the use of the per- of the person making the same," are son making the same void as against void as against creditors. Brown v. existing and subsequent creditors of Perault, 5 Ida. 729, 51 Pac. 752. the transferror, where a debtor con- 27. CoUomb v. Caldwell, 16 N. Y. veys realty to his wife without any 484; Leiteh v. Hollister, 4 N. Y. 211; consideration therefor, to be held for Barney v. GrifBn, 2 N. Y. 365; Dove- the use and benefit of herself and mus v. Lewis, 8 Barb. (N. Y.) 124: such debtor, his interest therein may Goodrich v. Downs, 6 Hill (N. Y.), be seized by either prior or subse- 438. Reservations and Trusts foe Gbantoe. 421 benefit of fihe assignor, applies to an assignment made in good faith of a part of the debtor's property to creditors themselves for the purpose of securing particular demands, though a .provision for the repayment of the surplus is contained in the instrument, since such conveyance, whatever may be its form, is in effect but a mortgage of the property transferred, and the residuary interest of the assignor may be reached by legal process or bill in equity.** A conveyance or assignment of real estate, in consideration of an agreement on the part of the grantee tO' support the grantor during life, does not create a trust for his benefit so as to render th© con- veyance void as to his creditors, in the absence of fraud ;^ but a conveyance of personal property on such consideration is a convey- ance in trust for the use of the grantor within the meaning of the statute, and void as against the grantor's present or subsequent creditors.'" Where a trust deed, executed by a banking association to secure the payment of certain bonds, contained a provision that the trustees might borrow money upon or sell the property as- signed, and that after payment of the bonds the remainder of the property should be held in trust for, and subject to the direction of the company, such a reservation of an incidental benefit or re- siduary interest was held not to be such a trust as is rendered void by the statute, since the trust avoided is merely a passive one, made exclusively for the grantor's use, where the title of the trustee is merely nominal. '' A conveyance of a. stock in trade to secure a debtor, the grantor to remain in possession until the happening of one or more contingencies specified in the deed, but with no accountability for the proceeds of sales made in the meantime, is a conveyance in trust to the us© of the grantor.'* Where a debtor has mortgaged bis homestead to secure a loan of the school fund, and subsequently gave a chattel mortgage on a stock of goods to 28. Leitch V. Hollister, 4N'.Y. 211; 30. McLean v. Button, 19 Barb. Bier v. Kibbe, 43 Hun (N. Y.), 174. (N. Y.) 450; Severin v. Rusekerick, 29. Hungerford v. Cartwright, 13 62 Wis. 1, 21 N. W. 789. Hun (N. Y.), 647; McLean v. But- 31. Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. ton 19 Barb. (N. Y.) 450. But see Y. 9. Severin v. Rueckcrick, 62 Wis. 1, 21 32. Armstrong v. Tuttle, 34 Mo. ■N. W. 789.. ■^32. 422 Fraudulent Conveyances. secure (rertain specified debts, directing that the surplus be applied to the paymemt of the school fund debt, it is a conveyance for the use of the debtor, and therefore fraudulent and void as to cred- itors.^^ But where insolvent debtors have mad© a conveyance of their property to a particular creditor, the mere fact of a reserva- tion in the deed of the surplus which shall remain after payment of sucli creditor's debt will not of itself make the conveyance fraudulent, as being to the use of the grantors.'* An assignment of property in trust to sell part of it to pay for advances, and to retain part of it subject to the order of the assignor, is fraudulent as against the creditors of the assignor.^' § 4. Reservation of life estate in grantor — A person cannot place or settle his property in trust with remainder over, reserving to himself the beneficial interest for his life, subject to the ex- penses of the trust, and theireby put his life interest beyond the reach of his creditors, either prior or subsequent, by any provision restricting the power of alienation or otherwise.'* A trust to place one's property beyond the reach of creditors, while retaining full enjoyment of the income and revenue therefrom through the in- 33. Paddock-Hawley Iron Co. v. Mo. — ^Lambert v. Haydel, 96 Mo. McDonald, 61 Mo. App. 559. 439, 9 S. W. 780, 9 Am. St. Rep. 358, 34. Blgelow V. Stringer, 40 Mo. 2 L. R. A. 213; Donovan v. Dunning, 195. But see Johnson v. Sage (Ida. 69 Mo. 436; Mcllvaine v. Smith, 42 1896), 44 Pae. 641. Mo. 45, 97 Am. Dec. 295. 35. Hart v. McFarland, 13 Pa. St. Pa. — Ghormley v. Smith, 139 Pa. 182. St. 584, 21 Atl. 135, 23 Am; St. Rep. 3«. W. Y. — Schenck v. Barnes, 156 215, 11 L. R. A. 565; Appeal of Mae- N. Y. 316, 50 N.E. 967, 41 L. R. A." kason, 42 Pa. St. 330, 82 Am. Dec. 395; Young v. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 517; In re Catherwood'a Estate, 29 374. Wkly. Notes Cas. 344; Andreas T. V. 8. — De Hierapolis v. Lawrence, Lewis, 17 Wkly. Notes Cas. 270, 1 115 Fed. 761. Pa. Co. Ct. 293. Kan. — Polley v. Johnson, 52 Kan. Va. — Lewis v. Caperton, 8 Gratt. 478, 35 Pac. 8, 23 L. R. A. 258. 148. Md. — ^Brown v. Macgill, 87 Md. 161, A deed conveyine a alave for 39 Atl. 613, 67 Am. St. Rep. 334, a valuable consideration, with a reser- 39 L. R. A. 806. vation of possession to tlie vendor Mass. — Pacific Nat. Bank v. Wind- during his life or pleasure, is valid, ram, 133 Mass. 175. Gullett v. Lamberton, 6 Ark. 109. Reservations and Teusts fob Gkantoe. 423 strumentality of a trustee, cannot be created even by a married woman or a woman in contem^plation of marriage," or by an un- married woman.^' A transfer by a debtor of all bis property, botli real and personal, witbout consideration, in trust for himself and for bis benefit during life, and after bis deatb for tbe payment of bis debts, etc., is per se conclusive evidence of fraud as to existing creditors, and therefore void as against them.'' The reseirvation of a life estate iu a conveyance of property by a person largely in- debted at tbe time is generally held to be evidence of fraud, either actual or conMructive, rendering the whole conveyance fraudulent and liable to annulment a,t the instance of existing creditors," and in some jurisdictions of subsequent creditors.*' And such a con- veyance cannot be upheld as to tbe reservation of the life estate to ihe extent of requiring that the land be sold subject to the life interest as an encumbrance.*^ § 5. Reservation of life estate with the power of appointment 37. Brown v. Maogill, 87 Md. 161, 39 Atl. 613, 39 L. R. A. 806, citing Warner v. Rice, 66 Md. 436; Pacific Nat. Bank v. Windram, 133 Mass. 175; Jackson v. Von Zedlitz, 136 Mass. 342; Lampert v. Haydel, 96 Mo. 439, 2 L. R. A. 113; Ghormley v. Smith, 139 Pa. St. 584, 11 L. R. A. 565; Appeal of Mackason, 42 Pa. St. 330, 82 Am. Dec. 517. 38. Ghormley v. Smith, 139 Pa. St. 584; In re Catherwood's Estate, 29 Wkly. Notes Cas. (Pa.) 344. 39. Young V. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374. 40. Ala. — Sandlin v. Robbins, 62 Ala. 477. /«<«.— McNally v. AVhite, 154 Ind. 163, 54 N. E. 794, 56 N. E. 214. N. fl.— Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510. But a conveyance in trust for the wife and children of the grantor, and in trust for the grantor for life in case he survive his wife, is not void. Low v. Carter, 2i N.H. 433. Ohio. — Berry v. Haas, 12 Ohio Cir. Ct. 189, 5 Ohio Cir. Dec. 48. -ST. C— Ford v. Caldwell, 3 Hill, 248; De Millon v. McAUiley, 2 Mc- Mull, 499; Swindersine v. Miscally, 1 Bailey Eq. 304; Brown v. McDonald, 1 Hill, 297. Eng. — ^Taylor v. Jones, 2 Atk. 600, 26 Eng. Reprint, 758; Tarback v. Marbury, 2 Vern. Ch. 510, 23 Eng. Reprint, 926. 41. Schenck v. Barnes, 156 N. Y. 316, 50 N. E. 967, 41 L. R. A. 395; Coolidge V. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510; Ford V. Caldwell, 3 Hill (S. C), 248. A volnmtary deed of slaves, de- livered to the grantee, reserving a life estate to the grantor, is valid against purchasers and subsequent creditors. Adam v. Broughton, 13 Ala. 731. 42. McNally v. White, 154 Ind. 163, 56 N. E. 214. 424 Fkaudulent Conveyances. at death. — A oonveyance of property to be held in trust for the benefit of the grantor during his life, with remainder over, with reserved power of appointment or devise or disposition at his death, is fraudulent and void both as to existing and subsequent creditors, and both the principal and income may be subjected to> the claims of such creditors." § 6. Reservation of power to revoke. — A reservation! in a mortgage, deed of trust, or contract for the sale of property of the right or power to the maker or vendor to revoke or rescind the con- tract and resume the ownership of the property, in a certain event, is inconsistent with a fair, honest, and absolute disposition of the property, and renders the transfer fraudulent and void and sub- ject to be defeated at the instance of creditors of the maker or vendor.** The same rule applies to a conveyance reserving a power- equivalent in effect to a power of revocation.*^ The reservation to the vendee of the right to rescind or cancel the contract at any time before the purchase money is paid and thus restore the owner- ship of the property to the seller, or the right to relinquish the bax^ gain whenever he chooses and on a redelivery of the property be repaid whatever he has expended, is likewise fraudulent as to 43. Scott V. Keane, 87 Md. 709, 45. Riggs v. Murray, 2 Johns. Ch. 40 Atl. 1070, 42 L. R. A. 359; Brin- (N. Y.) 565, an assignment in trust ton V. Hook, 3 Md. Ch. 477; Ghorm- to ipay certain releasing creditors,, ley V. Smith, 139 Pa. St. 584, 21 Atl. but if they should refuse to release, 135, 27 Wkly. Notes Cas. 331, 23 Am. then in trust, after paying a debt due St. Rep. 215, 11 L. R. A. 565; Appeal one of the assignees, for such credi- of Mackason, 42 Pa. St. 330, 82 Am. tors as the assignor should appoint; Dec. 517; In re Catherwood's Estate, Lang v. Lee, 3 Rand. (Va.) 410, a 29 Wkly. Notes Cas. 344 ; Patrick v. deed of trust, the sum to be secured Smith, 2 Pa. Super Ct. 113; Hunters thereby not being specified therein, v. Waite, 3 Gratt. (Va.) 26. and it being therein agreed that the 44. Westfall v. Jones, 23 Barb. (N. goods should remain in the possession Y.) 9; Riggs v. Murray, 2 Johns. Ch. of the debtor, with authority to make (N. Y.) 565; West v. Snodgrass, 17 sales of them, but to account to the Ala. 549 ; Cannon v. Peebles, 26 N. C. trustee rf called on ; Tarback v. Mar- 204; Jenkyn v. Vaughan, 3 Drew. bury, 2 Vern. Ch. 510, 23 Eng. Re- 419, 2 Jur. N. S. 109, 25 L. J. Ch. print, 926, a reservation of a power 338, 4 Wkly. Rep. 214. to mortgage. Keseevations and Trusts fob Geantoe. 425 creditors/' But where a series of assignments were made, the first of them containing a poweir of revocation, but the last> restat- ing the appointment with some modification, was absolute, it was held that the earlier instruments, though voidable by reason of the power to revoke, wea-e capable of confirmation, and that the last assignment, no liens or proceedings of creditors having then inter- vened to prevent, was operative as a confirmation, and was legal and valid." The deposit of an assignment with a stranger after complete execution, to hold until receipt of further orders from the assignor, or to file when, in the judgment of the depositary, it shall be for the best interests of all creditors, amounts to a reserva- tion of power to revoke in the assignor and renders the assignment void.^' Where a husband conveyed to his wife certain property for her separate vise, reserving in the deed a power of revocation or appointment to otber uses, it was held that the reservation did not create an imputation on the grantor's good faith in the transac- tion as to his creditors.^' § 7. Reservation of support or care of grantor or family. — Where a debtor, in failing circumstances, stipulates in the sale of his property for the support of himself or of his family for a term of years or for life, the law will regard the transaction with great suspicion, since he thereiby secures a benefit to himself at the ex- pense of his creditors ; for a purchaser would give less for a prop- erty encumbered with such a condition than for a clear right to immediate and untrammeled possession.^" Where a conveyance contains a covenant, or a stipulation or provision, that the grantee will support the grantor or his family during life or for a term of years, as a part of the consideration for the transfer, such pro- vision creates a trust in favor of and for the benefit of the grantor 46. West V. Snodgrass, 17 Ala. How. Pr. (N. Y.) 512, 12 Daly (N. 549; Shannon v. Commonwealth, 8 Y.), 525. Serg. & R. (Pa.) 444. 49. Jones v. Clifton, 101 U. S. 225, 47. Murray v. Riggs, 15 Johns. 25 L. Ed. 908. See also Riggs v. (N. Y.) 571, rev'g Riggs v. Murray, Murray, 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 565. 2 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 565. 50. Wcoten v. Clark, 23 Miss. 48. Reichenbach v. Winkhaus, 67 75. 426 Feaudulent Conveyances. which renders the conveyance, either prima facie or conclusively, fraudulent and void as to existing creditors of the grantor, and the property sold or conveyed may be subjected to their claims either at law or in equity. ^^ Where a covenant creating a trust for the support of a grantor is inserted in a deed without the knowledge of the grantee, thus making the transfer void aa to the creditors of the grantor, and the grantee, after discovering such covenant, takes no steps to repudiate it, he will be held to have adopted the provision, and vidll be bound theraby.^^ It has been held that the law will infer no fraud from a provision for the grantor's support, if the agreement be made in good faith ; that the question as to the fraudulent character of such an arrangement is wholly one of f act.°^ It has also been held that a contract for the future support of the grantor, asi pa.rt of the consideration for the sale, does not render the sale necessarily fraudulent as to creditors, but that it must also appear that the grantor was insolvent at the time of the execution.^* On the contrary, it has been held that a debtor has no right in this way to secure his property for £be use of himself 51. N. Y. — Stearns v. Gage, 79 N. N. H.— Albee v. Webster, 16 N. H. Y. 102; Townsend v. Burapus, 29 App. 362; Smith v. Smith, 11 N. H. 460. Div. 122, 51 N. y. Supp. 513; Todd Pa. — ^Hauseman v. Grossman, 177 V. Monell, 19 Hun, 363; McLean v. Pa. St. 453, 35 Atl. 736; Hennon t. Button, 19 Barb. 450; Keep v. Keep, McClane, 88 Pa. St. 219; Miner v. 7 Abb. N. C. 240. Compare Hunger- Warner, 2 Grant, 448; Johnson t. ford V. Carwright, 13 Hun, 647. Harvey, 2 Penr. & W. 82, 21 Am. Dec. Ala. — Sandlin v. Eobbins, 62 Ala. 426; Kirker v. Johnson, 13 Wkly. 477; Green v. Branch Bank, 33 Ala. Notes Gas. 385. 643, but a conveyance by a debtor in Wis. — Stapleton v. Brannan, 102 trust for payment of his debts and Wis. 26, 78 N. W. 181; Merchants', support of his wife and children is etc., Sav. Bank v. Lovejoy, 84 Wis. not fraudulent on its face as against 601, 55 N. W. 108; Severin v. Rueck- creditors, not being vitiated by the erick, 62 Wis. 1, 21 N. W. 789. provision for the benefit of the debtor's 52. Tovfnsend v. Bumpus, 29 App. family; Stokes v. Jones, 18 Ala. 734. Div. (N. Y.) 122, 51 N. Y. Supp. La. — Duval v. Ardrey, 1 La. Ann. 513. 243. Compare Bourgeat v. Dumou- 53. Tibbals v. Jacobs, 31 Conn, lin, 12 La. Ann. 204. 428. Jfe.— Hapgood v. Fisher, 34 Me. 54. Faloon v. Mclntyre, 118 111. 407, 56 Am. Dec. 663. 292, 8 N. E. 315; Hapgood v. Fisher, Iftss.— Hunt V. Knox, 34 Miss. 655. 34 Me. 407, 56 Am. Dec. 663. Reseevations and Teusts foe Geantoe. 427 and his family to the prejudice of those to whom he is indebted at the time, even if he supposes that he has property enough left to satisfy his existing creditors and his intentions are fair; but that if it can be shown that the grantee has paid or secured to the grantor the value of the land apart from the agreement to main- tain, and this was done without any design or initention to defraud or delay creditors, the addition of the obligation to maintain will not avoid the conveyance. ^^ A conveyance of personal property, in consideration of the future support of the assignor, his wife and children, is void as to subsequent creditors, under the statutes of New York relating to transfers of personal property in trust for the use of the grantor. ^° But in other jurisdictions a conveyance in consideration of a life support of the grantor by the grantee has been held valid as against subsequent creditors, if without actual intent to defraud future ci'editors, the grantor retains property sufficient to satisfy existing creditors." § 8. Reservation of surplus. — A stipulation in a mortgage or deed of trust, or any other instrument which is in effect a mortgage of real or personal property, given by a failing debtor,, that the surplus remaining after paying th.e debt secured shall be paid to the debtor, does not vitiate it, since the mortgagor or grantor stipu- lates for nothing more than the law would have given him. The interest of a debtor in the surplus remaining after the property conveyed has been applied to the payment of his debt being aivail- able to tmsecured creditors by execution or bill in equity, the pro- vision that the surplus be paid to the debtor does not operate to hinder and delay other creditors, so as to render the deed fraudu- lent as to them. It is but the usual clause in every mortgage upon real estate.^ A conveyance of property by an insolvent debtor in 55. Albee v. Webster, 16 N. H. 362. v. Mclntyre, 118 111. 292, 8 N. E. 315, 56. McLean v. Button, 19 Barb. a conveyance, though voluntary, is (N. Y.) 50. "°* ^°'^ ''^ *® subsequent creditors. 57. Bowlus V. Shanabarger, 19 58. N. T. — ^Hine v. Bowe, 114 N. Ohio CSr. Ct. 137, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. Y. 350, 21 N. E. 733; Royer Wheel 167; Holmes v. Penny, 3 Jur. N. S. Co. v. Fielding, 101 N. Y. 504, 5 N. 80, 3 Kay & J. 90, 26 L. J. Ch. 179, E. 431; Dunham v. Whitehead, 21 N. 5 Wkly. Rep. 132. See also Faloon Y. 131; Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9; 428 Feaudttlent Conveyances. trust to pay certain creditors to the exclusion of others, with a reservation of the surplus to the debtor, or a conveyance of prop- Leitch V. HoUister, 4 N. Y. 211; Wil- liam Ottman & Co. v. Cooper, 81 Hun, 530, 30 N. Y. Supp. 1086; Bier v. Kibbe, 43 Hun, 174; Royer Wheel Co. V. Frost, 13 Daly, 233. Compare Delaney v. Valentine, 80 Hun, 476, 30 N; Y. Supp. 512; Jackson v. Brush, 20 John. 5. V. 8. — Huntley v. Kingman & Co., 152 U. S. 527, 14 Sup. Ct. 688, 38 L. Ed. 540; Fechheimer v. Baum, 43 Fed. 719, 2 L. R. A. 153. Compare Kellogg V. Richardson, 19 Fed. 70, de- cided under Missouri statute. Ala. — Louoheim v. First Nat. Bank, 98 Ala. 521, 13 So. 374; Perry Ins., etc., Co. V. Foster, 58 Ala. 502, 29 Am. Rep. 779; Miller v. Stetson, 32 Ala. 161; Brown v. Lyon, 17 Ala. 659; Hindman v. Dill, 11 Ala. 689; Ravi- sies V. Alston, 5 Ala. 297; Johnson V. Cunningham, 1 Ala. 249; Malone v. Hamilton, Minor, 286, 12 Am. Deo. 49. 6a. — Calloway v. People's Bank, 54 Ga. 441; Lay v. Seago, 47 Ga. 82; Carey v. Giles, 10 Ga. 9. III.— Bea.eh v. Bestor, 47 111. 521, an assignment of a judgment with an agreement to collect it and pay cer- tain creditors and pay the balance to the assignor was not fraudulent as to creditors. Ind. — Hays v. Hostetter, 125 Ind. 60, 25 N.'E. 134, reservation of the surplus to the grantor's wife; Des- sar V. Field, 99 Ind. 548. Md. — Fouke v. Fleming, 13 Md. 392; McCall v. Hinkley, 4 Gill, 128. Mass. — New England Marine Ins. Co. V. Chandler, 16 Mass. 275, but the surplus after paying the debt is liable to attachment by trustee pro- Jfinn.— Butler v. White, 25 Minn. 432; Camp v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 175. But see Truitt v. Caldwell, 3 Minn. 364. Mo. — ^Barton v. Sitlington, 128 Mo. 164, 30 S. W. 514; Bigelow v. Stringer, 40 Mo. 195. Compare Pad- dock-Hawley Iron Co. v. McDonald, 61 Mo. App. 559; State v. Mueller, 10 Mo. App. 87. N. J. — Muchmore v. Budd, 53 N. J. L. 369; 22 Atl. 518, where there is in fact no surplus the transfer is not void per se. N. C— Burgin v. Burgin, 23 N. C. 453. Pa.— Sheble v. Bryden, 114 Pa. 147, 6 Atl. 905. Tenn. — ^Austin v. Johnson, 26 Tenn. 191. Tea;.— McClure v. Sheek, 68 Tex. 426, 4 S. W. 552; Stiles v. Hill, 62 Tex. 429; Baldwin v. Peet, 22 Tex. 708, 75 Am. Dec. 806; Parlin, etc., Co. V. Hanson, 21 Tex. Civ. App. 401, 53 S. W. 62; Sutton v. Gregory (Civ. App. 1898), 45 S. W. 932, a trust deed for the benefit of certain cred- itors is not illegal because it pro- vides that the surplus remaining after payment of the secured debts shall be subject to the order of the grantors, on the ground that such provision makes it a negotiable in- strument; Puckett V. Richardson Drug Co., 1 Tex. Civ. App. 634, 20 S. W. 1127. Va. — ^Harvey v. Anderson (1896), 24 S. E. 914. W. Va. — Keneweg Co. v. Sehilan- sky, 47 W. Va. 287, 34 S. E. 773. Wis. — ^Kneeland v. Cowles, 3 Pinn. 316, 4 Chadl. 46. But see Grant v. Lewis, 14 Wis. 487, 80 Am. Dec. 785. Eesekvatioks and Teusts foe Geaktoe. 429 erty by tlie debtor by way of prefereoce to a creditor or certain careditors, tbe latter to retuni the surplus, after satisfying the pre- ferred debts, to the grantor, isi fraudulent and void as to other creditors because of the reservation to the debtor.^' But a convey- anee by a solvent debtor of a portion of his property to trustees to pay a portion of his creditors, caaitaimng a provision that any sur- plus after execution of the trust sihall be returned to him, is not, as matteir of law, fraudulent as to creditors not provided for.'" § 9. Reservation of power to direct application of proceeds. — An assignment of property by a debtor for the purpose of placing the proceeds under the control of the assignor, or a conveyance by a debtor to a third person in trust, to sell and apply the proceeds to such persions and in such, proportions as the debtor shall direct, is fraudulent and void as against prior creditors, since in order to make a valid transfer the debtor must not only part with his prop- erty, but must also surrender all power to interfere with or con- trol it or the proceeds thereof afterwards.'^ But a stipulation in an assdgnment of property to secure an indebtedness that, after working out the indebtedness of the grantor, the grantee shall pay balances as the grantor shall direct, or a reservation in a deed of trust, which in reality is a chattel mortgage, of the surplus to the grantor, is not fraudulent and will not avoid the instrument as against bis creditors, since it is no more than the law implies in every transfer of property as a security for debts.^^ So where property is conveyed to a creditor by way of preference it will not be invalidated because of a provision that the excess over the debt shall be paid to such other creditors as the debtor shall direct, or 59. Barney v. Griffin, 2 N. Y. 365; 128; Mitchell v. Stiles, 13 Pa. St. 306. Strong V. Skinner, 4 Barb. (N. Y.) 62. Vallance v. Miners' L. Ins. Co., 546; Jaeltson v. Brush, 20 Johns. (N. 42 Pa. St. 441; Huntley v.. Kingman Y.) 5; Eigor v. Simmons, 47 111. & Co., 152 U. S. 527, 14 Sup. Ct. 688, App. 428; Selz v. Evans, 6 111. App. 38 L. Ed. 540. See also Chicago, 466; Thompson v. Parker, 83 Ind. 96. etc., R. Co. v. Watson, 113 111. 195; 60. Knapp v. McGowan, 96 N. Y. Stockbridge v. Franklin Bank, 86 Md. 75. 189, 37 Atl. 645. See also Eeserva- 61. Kittredge v. Slack, 67 111. App. tion of surplus, § 8, supra. 430 Feaudulent Conveyances. be retained to be paid on the order of the debtor to his other cred- itors, as such a provision is merely a recognition of the debtor's legal right to make preferences and is not a reservation of a use or benefit to himself.^* Tlxe transfer being absolutely and in good faith made, there is no reason why the debtor may not as well direct payment of the surplus of the consideration by the pur- chaser upon his debts, or such debts as he may direct, as to take the money and pay it on them himself/* § 10. Employment of debtor. — The fact of a stipulation in a transfer of a stock of goods or other property by a debtor for the employment of the debtor, by the purchaser, after the sale to the latter, at a reasonable compensation for his services, to manage the property, or to assist in the sale or disposition of the goods and the collection of accounts, does not raise a presumption of fraud in the transaction or render the sale fraudulent and void as against cred- itors, on the ground that there is an implication of the reservation of a benefit to the debtor or a beneficial use of the property trans- ferred." Whether such a stipulation is valid or invalid depends upon its intention. If its object appeared on its face to have been to secure a benefit to the debtor or his family, it would be fraudu- lent in law.'' But if its sole purpose was to obtain services neces- 63. Hine v. Bowe, 114 N. Y. 350, Minn. — Wilcox v. Lundberg, 30 21 N. E. 733 ; Goetter v. Smith, 104 Minn. 93, 14 N. W. 365, it is not, as Ala. 481, 16 So. 534. a matter of law, fraudulent. The 64. Hine v. Bowe, 114 N. Y. 350, question of its character as fraudu- 21 N. E. 733; Royer Wheel Co. v. lent or not is for a jury. Fielding, 101 N. Y. 504. N. C— Cowan v. Phillips, 119 N. C. 65. N. r.— Havens v. Extein, 5 N. 26, 25 S. E. 711. Y. Supp. 735; Griffin v. Cranston, 23 Pa. — Davis v. Yoder, 173 Pa. St. N. Y. Super. Ct. 1; Nicholson v. 138, 33 Atl. 882. But see Birming- Leavitt, 6 N. Y. Super. Ct. 252. ham Dry Goods Co. v. Roden, 110 V. S.— Bamberger v. Schoolfield, Ala. 511, 18 So. 135; Blumenthal v. 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Magnus, 97 Ala. 530, 13 So. 7; Ed. 374; Smith v. Craft, 123 U. S. Stephens v. Reginstein, 89 Ala. 561, 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267, 8 So. 68, 18 Am. St. Rep. 156. aff'g 17 Fed. 705. 66. Smith v. Craft, 123 U. S. 436, Go.— Cribb v. Bagley, 83 Ga. 105, 441, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267; 10 S. E. 194, it will not per se render Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 78, the sale void. IS L. Ed. 760; Harris t. Sumner, 2 Eeseevations and Teusts foe Geabttoe. 431 saxy to wind up ihe business and turn the goods into money as promptly and economically aa possible, for the benefit of the other party, it is valid." § 11. Reservation of right of repurchase or return of prop- erty. — ^N o presumption of a fraudulent intent to hinder or de- lay other creditors arises from a transfer of property as security to a bona fide creditor, whose debt is due, because of a provision! of the instrument of transfer that the property shall be returned in case a certain contemplated adjustment of affairs of the debtor shall be made, which provision is favorable to other credi- tors,** nor will an agreement between debtor and creditor, made after an assignment of property, that, if the debtor could sell the property for more than a certain amount, he <50uld have the difference, invalidate the transfer as against creditors." Where a bill of sale ga^ve the vendor a; right to repurchase, within a certain time, and the testimony was conflicting as to whether an absolute sale or a transfer as security for moneys advanced Was intended, in the absence of any evidence of fraud, the transaction was valid as against creditors levying on goods under execution against the vendo"r.™ But an absolute conveyance by a person in failing circumstances, conditioned that the grantor may repur- chase when he chooses and the grantee be repaid whatever he has expended, is fraudulent as to creditors.'^ Where a debtor conveyed land to his creditor, retaining a right of redemption, with a contemporaneous agreement under which he remained in possession of part of the land, cultivating it for his own benefit, Pick. (Mass.) 129; McClurg T. 462, aff'g Earle v. McCartney, 112 Lecky, 3 Penr. & W. (Pa.) 83, 23 Fed. 372. Am. Dec. 64. 69. In re A. L. Robertshaw Mfg. 67. Smith v. Craft, supra; Strong Co., 133 Fed. 566. ▼. Carrier, 17 Conn. 319; Wilcoxen v. 70. Mahler v. Sehloss, 7 Daly (N. Annesley, 23 Ind. 285; Baxter v. Y.), 291. Wheeler, 9 Pick. (Mass.) 21. 71. Shaniion v. Commonwealth, 8 68. McCartney v. Earle, 115 Fed. Serg. & E. (Pa.) 444. 432 Feaudulent Conveyances. the laiw presumes such advantage to have been, the oonsidera- tioDi for the preference, which will ha thereby rendered invalid." But a conveyance by a debtor of all his property while a suit is pending against him, with a stipulation that he will repur- chase the property conveyed at the same price within a certain time, if the punehaser desires it, has been held not to be con- clusive evidence of fraud, but evidence of circumstances may be admitted to explain and justify the transaction." The fact that there was an understanding between the parties to a bill of sale that the purchaser was to reconvey the property to the seller when the purdiaser was paid a certain debt does not render the bill of sale void as to subsequent attaching creditors.'* But it has been held that a conveyance by an insolvent to his father as security for a debt due him, the property to be returned when the father got his money out of it, is constructively fraudulent, and void as to other creditors.'^ § 12. Reservation of power to appoint substitute trustee. — A deed of trust for certain creditors is not rendered fraudulent as to other creditors by the reservation therein of a power to the grantor to aippoint a substitute trustee, in case of the failure of the trustee named therein, from death or any cause, to act, at least if no attempt is made to exercise the power.'* § 13. Reservation of exempt property. — ^A deed of trust to secure an existing debt is not invalidated as against creditors by the grantor's reserving in it to himself and family all exemp- tions and property allowed by the state constitution and laws and the bankrupt laws." A reservation in an assignment for 72. Anderson v. Fuller, McMul. 76. Cook & B. Co. v. Hunt, 18 Tex. Eq. (S. C.) 27, 36 Am. Dec. 290. Civ. App. 314, 45 S. W. 153. 73. Barr v. Hatch, 3 Ohio, 527. 77. McCord v. Moore, 52 Tenn. 74. Cary-Halidy Lumber Co. v. 734; Farquharson v. McDonald, 49 Cain, 70 Miss. 628, 13 So. 239. Tenn. 404; Broekenbrough v. Brocken- 75. Frey v. Gessler, 9 Pa. Cas. 509, brough, 31 Gratt. (Va.) 580. See 12 Atl. 854. See also Grant v. Lewis, also Exempt property, chap. IV, § 41, 14 Wis. 487, 80 Am. Dec. 785. supra. Eesebvations and Trusts for Geantoe. 433 the benefit of creditors, by mistake of the assignor, of property as exempt, which he did not hold or control or which was not in fact exempt, does not render the assignment void, if in f^jt he conveys, regardless of such reservatiooi, all his property not exempt from execution.'* § 14. Secret reservations or trusts as element or evidence of fraud. — ^The general rule is well established that any secret understanding or agreement for a benefit to accrue to or be reserved by the debtor, or any secret reservation, in trust for the debtor of any interest, benefit or advantage, inconsistent with the terms of the conveyance or transfer of property by a debtor in failing circumstances," the conveyance being absolute in terms, and such reservation not apparent on the face of the conveyance but resting wholly in parol, renders the entire transaction fraud- ulent and void as against creditors of the debtor injured thereby.*" The rule applies to absolute conveyances of land," and 78. Robinson v. Belt. (Ind. T.), 5] S. W. 975. 79. Parkman v. Welch, 36 Mass. 231, actual insolvency of the grantor is not required, all that is necessary is that the grantor be deeply indebted. 80. N. Y.— Hardt v. Deutsch, 22 Misc. Rep. 66, 48 N. Y. Supp. 564; Stoddard v. Butler, 20 Wend. 507. U. iS.— Huntley v. Kingman, 152 U. S. 527, 14 Sup. Ct. 688, 38 L. Ed. 540; Dent v. Ferguson, 132 D. S. 50, 10 Sup. Ct. 13, 33 L. Ed. 242; Smith V. Craft, 123 U. S. 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267; In re Dauchy, 122 Fed. 688; Howe Mach. Co. v. Clay- bourn, 6 Fed. 438, while the reserva- tion of a secret benefit on the execu- tion of an absolute conveyance does not necessarily render the conveyance fraudulent as to creditors, the land may be charged in equity with the benefit reserved; Burbank v. Ham- mond, 4 Fed. Cas. No. 2,137, 3 Sumn. 28 429; Hamilton v. Russell, 1 Cranch, 309, 2 L. Ed. 118. Ala. — ^Davidson v. Watts Min. Car Wheel Co., 121 Ala. 591, 25 So. 758, a confession of judgment designed to cover up the leviable property of the debtor company; Smith v. Hall, 103 Ala. 235, 15 So. 525; McDermott v. Eborn, 90 Ala. 258, 7 So. 751; Prit- chett V. Pollock, 82 Ala. 169, 2 So. 735; Fellows v. Lewis, 65 Ala. 343, 39 Am. Rep. 1 ; Sims v. Oaines, 64 Ala. 392; Borland v. Walker, 7 Ala. 269. See also Crawford v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 282, 28 Am. Rep. 704, as to rule where conveyance is based upon a, valuable consideration. Ark. — Sparks v. Mack, 31 Ark. 666. Coio.— George v. Tufts, 5 Colo. 162 ; Taub v. Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co., 8 Colo. App. 213, 45 Pac. 513; Innis V. Carpenter, 4 Colo. App. 30, 34 Pac. 1011. Dak. — First Nat. Bank v. Comfort, 434 Feaudulent Convetances. a conveyance of land, with, a secret reservation that the vendor shall have the use and enjoyment of it for a long time without 4 Dak. 167, 28 N. W. 855. Del. — Button v. Jackson, 2 Del. Ch. 86. Fla. — Neubert v. Massman, 37 Fla. 91, 19 So. 625. Go. — Edwards v. Stinson, 59 Ga. 443. 721. — Best V. Fuller & Fuller Co., 185 111. 43, 56 N. E. 1077, aff'g 85 111. App. 500; Highley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 185 111. 565, 57 N. E. 436, aif'g 86 111. App. 48; Beidler V. Crane, 135 111. 92, 25 N. E. 655, 25 Am. St. Eep. 349, afg 22 111. App. 538; Hurd v. Ascherman, 117 111. 501, 6 N. E. 160; McNeil, etc., Co. v. Hovland, 91 111. App. 315; Hutchin- son Nat. Bank v. Crow, 56 111. App. 558; Perieho v. Quinn, 52 111. App. 102. /nd.— Plunkett v. Plunkett, 114 Ind. 484, 16 N. E. 612, 17 N. E. 562; Pennington v. Clifton, 11 Ind. 162, a conveyance on secret trust is a con- tinuing fraud, and therefore void in favor of all creditors during its con- tinuance. Iowa. — Parlin, etc., Co. v. Daniels, 111 Iowa, 640, 82 N. W. 1015; Brun- dage V. Cheneworth, 101 Iowa, 256, 70 N. W. 211, 63 Am. St. Rep. 382. Ky.— White v. Graves, 30 Ky. 523. Me.—Jonea v. Light, 86 Me. 437, 30 Atl. 71; Sidensparker v. Siden- sparker, 52 Me. 481, 83 Am. Dec. 527. Ifd.— Spuck v. Logan, 97 Md. 152, 64 Atl. 989, 99 Am. St. Rep. 427; Brooks V. Dent, 1 Md. Oh. 523; Jones V. Slubey, 5 Harr. & J. 372. Mass. — Plimpton v. Goodell, 143 Mass. 365, 9 N. E. 791; Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 44 Mass. 332, 37 Am. Dec. 140, a secret trust, incon- sistent with the terms of a convey- ance, is not fraud per se nor conclu- sive evidence of fraud; Parkman v. Welch, 36 Mass. 23i; Cutler v. Dick- inson, 25 Mass. 386. Compare Strat- ton V. Edwards, 171 Mass. 374, 54 N. E. 886, a conveyance in trust for the grantor, made for the 'purpose of pro- tecting the property from the risks incident to business, but without any intent to eontra^ct debts and avoid them by such conveyance, is not ia fraud of future creditors. Minn. — Smith v. Conkright, 28 Minn. 23, 8 N. W. 876. Miss. — ^Thompson v. Fur, 57 Miss. 478; Hunt v. Knox, 34 Miss. 655. Mo. — Zeigler v. Maddox, 26 Mo. 575; Scudder v. Payton, 65 Mo. App. 314; Pattison v. Letton, 56 Mo. App. 325. Neb. — Racek v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Neb. 669, 87 N. W. 542; Grimes Dry Goods Co. v. Shaffer, 41 Neb. 112, 59 N. W. 741; Houck v. Heinz- man, 37 Neb. 463, 55 N.W. 1062. N. H. — Douoet v. Richardson, 67 Neb. 186, 29 Atl. 635; Stratton v. Putney, 63 N. H. 577, 4 Atl. 876 Putnam v. Osgood, 52 N. H. 148 Coolidge V. Melvin, 42 N. H. 510 Low V. Carter, 21 N. H. 435; Towle V. Hoit, 14 N. H. 61 ; Trask v. Bow- ers, 4 N. H. 309; Parker v. Pattee, 4 N. H. 176; Coburn v. Pickering, 3 N. H. 415, 14 Am. Dec. 375. W. J. — Muchmore v. Budd, 53 N. J. L. 369, 22 Atl. 518, a parol reserva- tion accompanying a bill of sale abso- lute in form, though a badge of fraud, is not conclusive evidence thereof. W. 0.— Carter v. Cocke, 64 N. C. Eeseevations and Teusts foe Geantoe. 435 payment of rent, the same constituting a part of the considera- tion, is fraudulent, although based upon a valuable considera- tion.^ That a grantor in a deed, absolute on its face, by a secret 239; Morrison v. McNeill, 53 N. C. 45; Sturdivant v. Davis, 31 N. C. 365. N. D. — ^Newell v. Wagness, 1 N. D. 62, 44 N. W. 1014. Ohio. — Bowlus V. Shanabarger, 19 Ohio Cir. Ct. 137, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 167. Pa. — ^Thornbiirn v. Thompson, 192 Pa. St. 298, 43 Atl. 992; Bentz v. Rocfcey, 69 Pa. St. 71; Shaffer v. Watkins, 7 Watts & S. 219; McCul- loch V. Hutchinson, 7 Watts, 434, 32 Am. Dec. 776; Passmore v. Eldridge, 12 Serg. & R. 198. R. /.— Lennon v. Parker, 22 R. I. 43, 46 Atl. 44. £f. C, — Winsmith v. Winsmith, 15 S. O. 611. Tcnn.— Hornsby v. City Nat. Bank (Ch. App. 1900), 60 S. W. 160, a parol trust in land in favor of a grantor's wife and children is fraud- ulent as against his creditors. Tea;.— Schultze v. Schultze (Civ. App. 1901), 66 S. W. 56. Ft. — ^McLane v. Johnson, 43 Vt. 48. T7o.— Young v. Willis, 82 Va. 291. Wash.— Adsims v. Dempsey, 35 Wash. 80, 76 Pae. 538. ypis. — Franzke v. Hitchon, 105 Wis. 11, 80 N. W. 931. ^„p_Twyne's Case, 3 Coke, 80a, 1 Smith Lead. Cas. 1. Oa».— Beamish v. Pomeroy, 6 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 586. One tolding money as tte •ecret trustee or depositary of the owner in order to keep the tat- ter's creditors from reaching it ma,y be liable as a garnishee at the suit of a creditor. Feary v. Cummings, 41 Mich. 376, 1 N. W. 946. 81. U. S.— Lukins v. Aird, 73 V. S. 78, 18 L. Ed. 750. Ala. — Deposit Bank v. CafTee, 135 Ala. 208, 33 So. 152. /«.— Bostwiek v. Blake, 145 111. 85, 34 N. E. 38; Tyler v. Tyler, 126 111. 525, 21 N. E. 616, 9 Am. St. Rep. 642; Mitchell v. Sawyer, 115 111. 650, 5 N. E. 109; Moore v. Wood, 100 111. 451. Mass. — Rice v. Cunningham, 116 Mass. 466. ifiiwi. — Thompson v. Bickford, 19 Minn. 17. Neb. — Gillespie v. Cooper, 36 Neb. 775, 55 N. W. 302. N. J. — Scott V. Hartman, 26 N. J. Eq. 89. N. C— Clement v. Cozart, 109 N. C. 173, 13 S. E. 862. Ohio. — Schultz V. Brown, 3 Ohio Cir. Ct. 609, 2 Ohio Cir. Dec. 353. Tear.— Baldwin v. Peet, 22 Tex. 708, 75 Am. Dec. 806. See Stavera v. Stavers, 69 N. H. 158, 45 Atl. 319, where the delivery of a deed to the grantee, with a secret agreement postponing its taking effect until de- fault in payment of a mortgage on the property by the grantor, was held not conclusive evidence of fraud. 82. Lukins v. Aird, 73 U. S. 78, 18 L. Ed. 750; Page v. Francis, 97 Atl. 379, 11 So. 736, where the rents were received for the benefit of the father and mother of the grantor; Sims v. Gaines, 64 Ala. 392; Dean v. Skinner, 42 Iowa, 418; Macomber v. Peck, 39 Iowa, 351; Scott v. Hartman, 26 N. J. Eq. 89. But where there is no secret reservation of the use of the land in part consideration for the conveyance, but an independent con- 436 Fraudulent Convetajn-ces. contemporaneous writing reserved to himself a life estate in the property, is proof of legal, if not of actual, fraud as to creditors of the grantor.*^ The general rule above stated has also been, ap- plied to mortgages or deeds of trust of real estate,** but a deed of trust, to be valid, need not be so certain and definite in its terms as to exclude the possibility of a secret .reservation in favor of the grantor, fraudulent and inconsistent with the avowed purposes of the parties.*' The general rule above stated is also applicable to absolute transfers of personal prop- erty*' and to mortgages of personalty.*' A bill of sale absolute on its face is void as to subsequent creditors where there is a tract or agreement to lease based • upon a new consideration, this rule does not apply. Eddy v. Wearin, 105 Iowa, 387, 75 N. W. 177; Brown v. Bradford, 103 Iowa, 378, 72 N. W. 648 ; Stroff v. SwaflFord, 81 Iowa, 695, 47 N. W. 1023. 83. Donovan v. Dunning, 69 Mo. 436; Brown v. McDonald, 1 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 297. See also Yardley v. Sibbs, 84 Fed. 531. 84. .N. Y. — Westfall v. Jones, 23 Barb. 9. Ga. — Davis v. Anderson, 1 Ga. 176. Mo. — ^Roberts v. Barnes, 127 Mo. 405, 30 S. W. 113, 48 Am. St. Rep. 640. S. G. — ^Winsmith v. Winsmith, 15 S. C. 611. 85. Ballard v. Chewning, 49 W. Va. 508, 39 S. E. 170. 86. U. S. — Blythe v. Thomas, 45 Fed. 784. Ala. — Jordan v. Collins, 107 Ala. 572, 18 So. 137; Sheppard v. Iver- son, 12 Ala. 97. A sale of his en- tire stock of goods by an insolvent debtor to one of his creditors in satis- faction of a debt admitted to be valid is not fraudulent, as against other creditors, when no secret trust is re- served for the benefit of the debtor. Heyer v. Bromberg, 74 Ala. 524. III.— Tyler v. Tyler, 126 111. 525, 21 N. E. 616, 9 Am. St. Rep. 642; Steere v. Bigelow, 39 111. 264. Md. — Franklin v. Claflin, 49 Md. 24. Mo. — First Nat. Bank v. Kansas City Lime Co., 43 Mo. App. 561. N. ff.— Paul v. Crooker, 8 N. H. 288. Pa. — Connelly v. Walker, 45 Pa. St. 449. 87. Ala.— Roien. v. Norton, 128 Ala. 129, 29 So. 367. See also Pugh V. Harwell, 108 Ala. 486, 18 So. 535. Dak. — First Nat. Bank v. Comfort, 4 Dak. 167, 28 S. W. 855. Ind. — New v. Sailors, 114 Ind. 407, 16 N. E. 609, 5 Am. St. Rep. 632; Strut V. Price, 24 Ind. App. 360, 55 N. E. 964, 56 N. E. 857. Neb. — Bacon v. P. Brockman Com- mission Co., 48 Neb. 365, 67 N. W. 304. N. H. — Putnam v. Osgood, 51 N. H. 192, although the agreement is made after the execution of the mortgage. Wash. — Adams v. Dempsey, 29 Wash. 155, 69 Pae. 738. Wis. — Franzke v. Hitchon, IDS Wis. 11, 80 N. W. 931. Keseevations and Trusts foe Geantob. 437 secret trust for the grsimtor, though the object of the bill of sale was to place the aipparent title in the grantee, so as to prevent the grantor, who was a spendthrift, from thereafter obtaining credit on the ground of the ownership of the property covered.*' An assignment of wages to a creditor, who collected the same and turned them over to the assignor, retaining a small part to apply on his claim, is fraudulenit as against attaching creditors, whose claims antedated the assignment.*' The fact that a chattel mortgagee verbally agrees at the time the mortgage is given, that the mortgagor may sell certain of the property covered thereby for his own benefit is held in some jurisdictions not to invalidate the mortgage as to other property to which such agree- ment does' not apply.'" A secret trust for the purpose of de- frauding the grantor's creditors will not be enforced in law or equity.'^ That the interest reserved by the debtor is not of great value is immaterial; it is sufficient if it is a substantial interest in the property conveyed.'^ The rule as stated above applies although the transfer was upon a valuable consideration,'' as a sheriff's sale of property on execution.'* A transfer of goods even to a creditor accompanied by a secret trust tends to delay and defraud creditors and so is within the letter and spirit of the statute of 13 Elizabeth.'^ A secret trust or reservation created 88. Miller v. Furse, 1 Bailey Eq. Davenport v. Foulke, 68 Ind. 382, 34 (S. C.) 187. Am. Rep. 265. Compare Stout v. 89. Lennon v. Parker, 22 R. I. 43, Price, 24 Ind. App. 360, 55 N. E. 964, 46 Atl. 44. But the fact that an 56 N. E. 857. assignor is permitted by his assignee, 91. Gillum v. Kirksey, 29 Ky. L. by orders given for that purpose, to Rep. 422, 93 S. W. 591. draw wages he assigned, which he im- 92. Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. (U. mediately turned over to the assignee, S. ) 78, 18 L. Ed. 750 ; Sparks v. does not render the assignment Mack, 31 Ark. 676; Stout v. Price, fraudulent and void. Dolan' v. 24 Ind. App. 360, SS' N. E. 964, 56 N. Hughes, 20 R. I. 513, 40 Atl. 344, 40 E. 857. Xj. R. a. 735. ^3- Thompson v. Furr, 57 Miss. 478. 90. In re Soudan Mfg. Co., 113 Fed. 94. Bostwick v. Blake, 145 111. 85, 804, 51 C. C. A. 476; Barnet v. Fer- 34 N. E. 38. gus, 51 111. 352, 99 Am. Dec. 547 ; 95. C!onnelly v. Walker, 45 Pa. St. Lockwood v. Harding, 79 Ind. 129; 449. 438 Fbaudulewt Cokvetances. for the grantor may be express, or implied irom extrinsic circum- stances, and may be proven by parol; and, wbere the trust is shown, fraud is an inference of law that the court is bound to pronounce.'* The burden is upon the contesting creditor to es- tablish by oompetent evidence the fact of a secret trust or reser- vation for the benefit of the debtor," and if the declarations of a party can, under any circumstances, be received to raise a trust or create an interest in land in another, they must be clear and explicit, and point out with certainty the subject matter and the extent of the beneficial interest."* § 15. What constitutes a secret reservation or trust. — Where a deed remained for months unrecorded, the grantor con- tinuing to oocupy and exercise acts of ownership on the land, and the grantee made an oral promise to support the grantor, there is evidence of a secret trust, and the conveyance may be avoided." An assignment of securities oni the agreement to pay the assignor a fixed yearly sum for his support, should he de- mand so much, accompanied by a written agreement by the as- signee to surrender back the property to the assignor whenever the latter should demand it, neither of the instruments being recorded, constitutes a secret trust for the benefit of the assignor ; and an unrecorded agreement between the parties, whereby the 96. Rice v. Cunningham, 116 Mass. W. Va. — ^Armstrong v. Bailey, 43 466; Coolidge v. Melvin, 42 N". H. 510. W. Va. 778, 28 S. E. 766. 97. ??. Y. — Grouse v. Frothingham, 98. Grouse v. Frothingham, 97 N. 97 N. Y. 105; Spiegel v. Hays, 5 St. Y. 105, 112. A conveyance by a hus- Rep. 879. band to the wife is not shown to have 17. 8. — Bamberger v. Schoolfleld, been in trust for the husband by hia 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. declaration, long after the convey- Ed. 374. ' ^^^^ ^^s made, that it was made for ^ja. Pugh V. Harwell, 108 Ala. fear the husband's grantor might set 486, 18 So. 535; PoUak v. Searcy, aside the sale on the ground of 84 Ala. 259, 4 So. 137. fraud. Moulton v. Sturgis Nat. Bank /oMHi.-^amison v. Weaver, 87 (Tex. Civ. App. 1901), 65 S. W. Iowa, 72, 53 N. W. 1076. 1114. Mtcfc.— Sutherland v. Danaher, 35 90. Rice v. Cunningham, 116 Mich. 422. Mass. 466. Eeseevations and Tbusts foe Gbantoe. 439 assignor releases the assignee from the paymenit of the annuity on the agreemejit of the latter to maintain the former for life isi a secret trust for the benefit of the assignor.^ A conveyance of realty by a debtor to his wife without any consideration there- for, to be beld for the use and benefit of herself and such debtor," a private reservation to a husband, in a conveyance by him to his wife, of the use of the property and the rents and profits thereof for a term of years,^ constitutes a seci-et trust for the benefit of the debtor. A chattel mortgage on the contents of a store, which covers " such personal property as may hereafter be in said premises or may be substituted for such articles as may be sold in the course of the business," creates a secret trust for the use of the mortgagor.* But a secret trust or reservation is not created by a mortgage given by the maker of a note to his surety thereon, conditioned that the former will pay the note and save the surety harmlees,^ nor by a conveyance in trust for the wife and children of the grantor, and in trust for the grantor for life in case he survive his wife,^ nor by a valid preferential conveyance, although the grantee subsequently conveys the prop- erty included therein to the wife of the debtor.' Where a debtor sold personalty at an agreed price all of which the buyer promised to pay to creditors, the transaction was a sale and not a transfer 1. Tyler v. Tyler, 126 111. 525, 21 4. Spies v. Boyd, 11 N. Y. Leg. N. E. 616, 9 Am. St. Rep. 642. Obs. 54. Z. B/acek v. First Nat. Bank, 62 Transactions held to consti- Neb. 669, 87 N. W. 542. tnte secret trusts.— See Shepherd ,3. Deposit Bank of Frankfort v. v. Iverson, 12 Ala. 97; Second Nat. Caflfer, 135 Ala. 208, 33 So. 152. But Bank v. Yeatman, 53 Md. 443; Kehr a conveyance by a husband to a third v. Sichler, 48 Mo. 96 ; Newell v. Wag- person to aid in paying the husband's ness, 1 N. D. 62, 44 N. W. 1014 ; debts, with an agreement that when Green v. Veder (Tenn. Ch. App. they are paid the lands shall be con- 1900), 57 S. W. 519. veyed to his wife as a home for her 5. Eastman v. Foster, 49 Mass. and the children, is not a secret trust, 19. as regards subsequent creditors of his, 6. Low v. Carter, 21 N. H. 433. merely because he shares the home 7. Bamberger v. Schoolfield, 160 thus secured. Edgerly v. First Nat. U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Ed. Bank, 30 111. App. 425. 374. 44:0 Fbaudulent Conveyances. of goods in trust for the use of the grantor.' But it has been held that a bill of sale, although absolute on its face, is fraudu- lent against the grantor's creditors, if there was a secret agree- ment with the grantee by which the grantor should derive an ultimate benefit out of the property, either to himself individually or in payment of debts other than his debt to the grantee.' A confession of judgment by an insolvent debtor in favor of the executor of an estate in which he is interested as a devisee is void as to existing creditors because upon a secret trust in the debtor's favor." § 16. Absolute conveyance intended as security. — The rule is maintained in some jurisdictions that an absolute conveyance of lands or a conveyance absolute on its face, but in fact in- tended by secret understanding or trust or secret clause of de- feasance, written or verbal, as a security for a debt, either ante- cedent or contemporaneously contracted, when made by a debtor who is insolvent or in embarrassed circumstances, is fraudulent and void as to existing creditors, although there may be no actual fraudulent inten.t." And the same rule is maintained in cer- 8. Thompson v. Newland (Mich), Davis, 85 Ala. 56, 4 So. 140, it is 13 Det. L. N. 320, 108 N. W. 93. fraudulent in law as to existing 9. Ely, etc.. Dry Goods Co. v. creditors; Tryon v. Floumoy, 80 Ala. Wa;lker, 78 Mo. App. 578. Contra. — 321, but as against subsequent cred- Jefferson County Bank v. Hummel, iters a fraudulent intent must be 11 Colo. App. 337, 53 Pac. 286, a shown; Proskauer v. People's Sav. deed to secure a creditor made in Bank, 77 Ala. 257; Sims v. Gaines, good faith before the lien or right of 64 Ala. 392; Hartshorn v. Williams, any other creditor has attached, is 31 Ala. 149; Bryant v. Young, 21 not a conveyance in trust for the use Ala. 264. of the grantor and therefore fraudu- Fla. — Neubert v. Massman, 37 Fla. lent, although the grantee separately 91. agreed to apply the surplus in pay- Minn. — Smith v. Conkwright, 28 ment of other specific debts of the Minn. 23, 8 N. W. 876. grantor. Miss. — Thompson v. Purr, 57 10. Manley v. Larkin, 59 Kan. Minn. 478. 660, 33 Pac. 859. Mo. — ^Rock Island Nat. Bank v. 11. Ala. — McDermott v. Eborn, 90 Powers, 134 Mo. 432, 34 S. W. 869^ Ala. 258, 7 So. 751; Campbell v. 35 S. W. 1132, a duly recorded abso- Reseevations and Teusts foe Gkantoe, 441 tain jurisdictions as to transfers of personal property. ^^ And tlie fact that the property conveyed or transferred is of less value than the debt, or that the debt was for the purchase price lute deed, which was modified by a separate written defeasance, not re- corded, is void as against a creditor of the grantor, as creating a secret trust in favor of such grantor. Com- pare Kobinson v. McCune, 128 Mo. 577, 30 S. W. 156. N. ff.— Stratton v. Putney, 63 N. H. 577, 4 Atl. 876, such secret trust is void against both subsequent and existing creditors; Quimby v. Wil- liams, 67 N. H. 489, 41 Atl. 862, 68 Am. St. Kep. 685; Watkins v. Arms, 64 N. H. 99, 6 Atl. 92; Ladd v. Wig- gins, 35 N. H. 421, 69 Am. Dec. 551 ; Smyth v. Carlisle, 16 N. H. 464; Badger v. Story, 16 N. H. 168; Tifft T. Walker, 10 N. H. 150; Smith v. Lowell, 6 N. H. 67. y. G. — Bernhardt v. Brown, 122 N. C. 587, 29 S. E. 884, 65 Am. St. Kep. 725; GuUey v. Macy, 84 N.C. 434; Holcombe v. Eay, 23 N. C. 340, void as against subsequent as well as prior creditors; Gregory' v. Perkins, 15 N. C. 50. Con.— See Gillies v. How, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 32. Wliere the parties entered into a new contract in writing, a few days after the execution of a conveyance absolute on its face, by which the grantee gave the grantor a right to repurchase the property at the same price, the conveyance will not be rendered fraudulent as to creditors of the grantor therein, on the ground that it is a mortgage. Danner Land, etc., Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 77 Ala. 184. An nnderstanding that the grantor might redeem the prop- erty when his circumstances im- proved will not vitiate a conveyance in other respects unobjectionable, the only effect of such a reservation be- ing to convert an absolute conveyance into a mortgage, or to make an un- conditional a conditional sale. Glenn V. Randall, 2 Md. Ch. 220. 12. Aia.— Steiner v. Scholze, 114 Ala. 88, 21 So. 428. Compare Kil- lough V. Steele, 1 Stew. & P. 162. Cal. — Chenery v. Palmer, 6 Cal. 119, 65 Am. Dec. 493. Compare God- chaux V. Mulford, 26 Cal. 316, 85 Am. Dec. 178, the statute only ap- plies where the debtor places prop- erty in the hands of a trustee having no beneficial interest, to hold solely for the debtor's benefit and enable him to receive and enjoy his income to the prejudice of creditors. III. — ^Highley v. American Exch. Nat. Bank, 185 111. 565, 57 N. E. 436, aff'g 86 111. App. 48; Best v. Fuller & Fuller Co., 185 111. 43, 56 N. E. 1077, aff'g 85 111. App. 500; Beidler V. Crane, 135 111. 92, 25 N. E. 655, 25 Am. St. Eep. 349, assignment of a patent. Mo. — Eevercomb v. McCuUy, 74 Mo. App. 575; Pattison v. Letton, 56 Mo. App. 325; Molaska Mfg. Co. v. Steele, 36 Mo. App. 496. Nei. — William B. Grimes Dry Goods Co. V. Shafi'er, 41 Neb. 112, 59 N. W. 741. N. H.— Parker v. Pattee, 4 N. H. 176. N. C. — Johnson v. Murchison, 60 N. C. 286; King v. Cantrel, 26 N. C. 251; Gaither v. MUmford, 4 N. C. 600. But an absolute bill of sale, ac- 442 Teaudulent Conveyances. of Ike property, does not validate the sale.'' A conveyance of property by an insolvent firm to one of its creditors, absolutely, with the secret agreeonent on the part of the grantee to reconvey to the wives of the grantors on satisfaction of his debt, is fraudu- lent as to creditors, and cannot be upheld as a mortgage." A conveyance of real estate absolute on its face, but made im fact for the purpose of securing a bona fide creditor, cannot be de- clared to be evidence of a fraudulent intent as to other creditors, wheire the object is shown to be one which could be sustained." In many jurisdictions, a contrary rule to that first stated above is held by the courts, and while, since secret trusts attending con- veyances absolute in terms have always been regarded as a badge of fraud since the celebrated case of Twyne, a conveyance, ab- solute in form, of real estate, accompanied by a secret trust, understanding, or agreement, or a secret clause of defeasance, either written or verbal, is viewed with suspicion and held to be a badge or evidence of fraud, it is not conclusive or fraudulent per se." And the same rule is held in certain jurisdictions as companied with a parol agreement 16. U. 8. — Gaffney v. Signaigo, 9 that the vendor might redeem or re- Fed. Cas. No. 5,169, 1 Dill. 158; purchase by repaying the same price, Chickering v. Hatch, 5 Fed. Cas. No. is not void against creditors, where 2,672, 3 Sumn. 474. it is admitted that the sale was not Ark. — ^Dosweli v. Adler, 28 Ark. intended to be a. mortage, but was 82; McCarron v. Cassidy, 18 Ark. 34. bona fide, absolute, and for a fair Cal. — Broughton v. Vasquez, 73 price. Newsom v. Roles, 23 N. C Cal. 325, 11 Pac. 806, 14 Pac. 885. 179. CoJo.— McClure v. Smith, 14 Colo. N. D. — Newell v. Wagness, 1 N. D. 299, 23 Pac. 786, if given in good 62, 44 N. W. 1014. faith it is not constructively frsudu- 13. Pattison v. Letton, 56 Mo. lent; Koss v. Duggan, 5 Colo. 85. App. 325; Molaska Mfg. Co. v. Conn. — ^Appeal of Mead, 46 Conn. Steele, 36 Mo. App. 496; Parker v. 417. Contra. — ^Hough v. Ives, 1 Pattee, 4 N. H. 176 ; Passmore v. El- Root, 492. dridge, 12 Serg. & R. (Pa.) 198. Iowa. — Cathcart v. Grieve, 104 Compare Muchmore v. Budd, 53 N. Iowa, 330, 73 N. W. 835; Brown v. J. L. 369, 22 Atl. 518; Grant v. Bradford, 103 Iowa, 378, 72 N. W. Lewis, 14 Wis. 487, 80 Am. Dec. 785. 648, Fuller v. Griffith, 91 Iowa, 632, 14. Harris v. Buchner, 35 App. 60 N. W. 247; Wright v. MahafiFey, Div. (N. Y.) 594, 55 N. Y. Supp. 172. 76 Iowa, 96, 40 N. W. 112; Keeder 15. N. Y. — ^Rigney v. Tallmadge, v. Murphy, 43 Iowa, 413, a convey- 17 How. Pr. 556. anoe absolute in form to a creditor Besebvatiows and Tbusts foe Gbahtoe. 443 to conveyances of personal property." In some jurisdictions it is held that a conveyance absolute in form, to a creditor of the grantor may, at the instance of other creditors of the grantor, be treated as security simply for moneys advanced, and will be deemed fraudulent and void as to the balance of the considera- tion." An absolute conveyance or transfer of real or personal of the grantor may, at the instance of other creditors of the grantor, be treated as security simply for the moneys advanced. Kan. — First Nat. Bank v. Jaffray, 41 Kan. 694, 21 Pac. 242. La. — Wang v. Finnerty, 32 La. Ann. 94; Bailey v. Chase, 18 La. Ann. 732. Me. — Wyman v. Brown, 50 Me. 139; Stevens v. Hinckley, 43 Me. 440; Gilbert v. Merrill, 12 Me. 74; Reed v. Woodman, 4 Me. 404. Mass. — Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 44 Mass. 332, 34 Am. Dec. 140; Cut- ler V. Dickinson, 25 Mass. 386; Harri- son V. Phillips Academy, 12 Mass. 456. Mioh. — Columbia Bank v. Jacobs, 10 Mich. 349, 81 Am. Dec. 792. Minn. — ^Thompson v. Bickford, 19 Minn. 17. Afiss.— Bank of Mobile v. Tisho- mingo Sav. Inst., 62 Miss. 250. We6.— Kemp v. Small, 32 Neb. 318, 49 N. W. 169. N. J.— Adoue V. Spencer, 62 N. J. Eq. 782, 49 Atl. 10, 90 Am. St. Kep. 484, 56 L. K. A. 817, rev'g 50 N. J. Eq. 231, 46 Atl. 543. Or. — Haseltine v. Espey, 13 Or. 301, 10 Pac. 423. Tenn.—Jonea v. Cullen, 100 Tenn. 1, 42 S. W. 873; Gibbs v. Thompson, 26 Tenn. 179. 7t._5igelow V. Topliff, 25 Vt. 273, 60 Am. Dec. 264; Smith v. Onion, 19 Vt. 427; Gibson v. Seymour, 4 Vt. 518. Wash. — Samuel v. Kittenger, 6 Wash. 261, 33 Pac. 509. Wis. — Rock V. Collins, 99 Wis. 630, 75 N. W. 426, 67 Am. St. Rep. 885; McFarlane v. Louden, 99 Wis. 620, 75 N. W. 394, 67 Am. St. Rep. 883. 17. N. r.— -Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9, 120. Me. — Emmons v. Bradley, 56 Me. 333; Stevens v. Hinckley, 43 Me. 440; Ulmer v. Hills, 8 Me. 326; Reed v. Jewett, 5 Me. 96. Compare Thompson v. Pennell, 67 Me. 159. Md. — ^Earnshaw v. Stewart, 64 Md. 513, 2 Atl. 734. Mass. — Parsons v. TopliflF, 119 Mass. 245; Glover v. Austin, 23 Mass. 209; New England Mar. Ins. Co. V. Chandler, 16 Mass. 275. Miss. — Carey-Halliday Lumber Co. V. Cain, 70 Miss. 628, 13 So. 229. Neb.—Kera-p v. Small, 32 Neb. 318, 49 N. W. 169. N. J. — ^Muchmore v. Budd, 53 N. J. L. 369, 22 Atl. 518. Ft.— Barker v. French, 18 Vt. 460. Va. — Didier v. Patterson, 93 Va. 534, 25 S. E. 661. Wis. — Rock v. Collins, 99 Wis. 630, 75 N. W. 426, 67 Am. St. Rep. 885 ; Grant v. Lewis, 14 Wis. 487, 80 Am. Dec. 785. Eng.— Wood v. Dixie, 7 Q. B. 892, 9 Jur. 796, 53 E. C. L. 892; DarviU V. Terry, 6 H. & N. 807, 30 L. J. Bxch. 355. 18. Keeder v. Murphy, 43 Iowa, 444 Feaudulestt Conveyances. property intended as a mortgage or as security for a debt, if it be given under circumstamices showing an actual fraudulent in- tent on the part of the grantor or transferrer knoiwn to or par- ticipated in by the grantee or transferee, such as concealing the true nature of the transaction and claiming absolute title there- under, or if it contains provisions that will hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or if there is a secret agreement between the parties which will hinder, delay or defraud creditors, is void as against creditors for actual fraud.^' § 17. Absolute sale with reservation of surplus. — A convey- amce of land or a bill of sale or assignment of personalty made by a person indebted at the time to one of his creditors, absolute on its face, but intended to enable the grantee to sell the property and pay the debts of the grantor, rendering the surplus, if any, to the grantor, or accompanied with a private or secret agree- 413; Wang v. Finnerty, 32 La. Ann. 94; Joseph M. Smith Co. v. O'Brien, 57 N. J. Eq. 365, 41 Atl. 492; Bige- low V. TopIiflF, 25 Vt. 273, 60 Am. Dec. 264. 19. Colo. — Innis v. Carpenter, 4 Colo. App. 30, 34 Pac. 1011. III. — Beidler v. Crane, 135 111. 92, 25 N. E. 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 349. Iowa. — Fuller v. Griffith, 91 Iowa, 632, 60 N. W. 247, concealment of true nature of conveyance; Wright v. MahaflFey, 76 Iowa, 96, 40 N. W. 112. Kan. — McCluskey v. Cubbison (App. 1899), 57 Pac. 496, creditors attacking a bill of sale absolute on its face as fraudulent may show by parol evidence that it was intended as a, mortgage and is void by reason of actual fraud. Me. — Wellington v. Fuller, 38 Me. 61, a deed given as security merely, but for which nothing was paid and no security surrendered. Mass. — Hassam v. Barrett, 115 Mass. 256. Mich. — Meigs v. Weller, 90 Mich. 629, 51 N. W. 681, where a creditor took from his debtor absolute deeds and a bill of sale of the latter's prop- erty, giving back an instrument whereby he agreed to reconvey if the debt was paid in one year, and after garnishment proceedings were begun by other creditors against him, con- veyed all of the property to a third person; and where, although there was evidence that the property was worth twice the amount of the debt, he refused to state the value of the property, or what he sold it for. N. J.— White V. Megill (Ch. 1899), 18 Atl. 355. N. 0. — Johnson v. Murchison, 60 N. C. 286, a conveyance of property absolute on its face, and declared to be made in payment of a debt, but the supposed debt was merely an ob- ligation, on the part of the vendor, to indemnify the vendee against an event which had not happened and might never happen. Keservations and Teusts foe Geantoe. 4:45 ment, understanding, or trust that the grantee or assignee shall dispose of the property and pay the debt to himself and account for the surplus, if any, or refund the balance to the grantor or assignor is fraudulent in law and void as to other creditors.^" A deed of trust executed by a debtor in embarrassed circumstances, by which a secret trust is willfully aud knowingly created by the grantor and beneficiary for the purpose of concealing from credi- tors of the grantor a portion of his property, and ultimately to de- prive them of any benefit therefrom, under cover of a conveyance to secure iona fide indebtedness, is fraudulent as against such creditors.^^ If a debtor m'akes a sale of personal property to one of his creditors, with an understanding that out of the proceeds of a sale of the property the creditor shall retain enough to pay his own debt, and then pay certain other creditors, an.d then pay the balance of the proceeds over to the debtor, and this sale is made to prevent other creditors from attaching the property, it is actual fraud, and vitiates the sale as to other creditors.*^ T7f.— Barker v. French, 18 Vt. 469, although a person may take security for a debt by an absolute bill of sale of property, when it was intended only as security, yet if he claim that the purchase was absolute, and thereby seek to protect from cred- itors the property of the vendor, and endeavor to conceal the true nature of the transaction, it is evidence of fraud. ZO. y. Y. — Jackson v. Brush, 20 Johns. 5. j)_ c. — Smith V. Kenny, 1 Mackey, 12. Ida. — Johnson v. Sage, 4 Ida. 758, 44 Pac. 641. S_y. — White V. Graves, 7 J. J. Marsh. 523. Miss. — ^Hunt v. Knox, 34 Miss. 655. Uo. — Scudder v. Payton, 65 Mo. App. 314; Molaska Mfg. Co. v. Steele, 36 Mo. App. 496, even though no surplus was in fact realized or could have been realized by reason- able efforts. 'Neb. — Bacon v. P. Brockmaa Commission Co., 48 Neb. 365, 67 N. W. 304; William B. Grimes Dry Goods Co. v. Shaffer, 41 Neb. 112, 59 N. W. 741; Gillespie v. Cooper, 36 Neb. 775, 55 N. W. 302. N. if.— Parker v. Pattee, 4 N. H. 176. If. i>.— Newell V. Wagness, 1 N. D. 62, 44 N. W. 1014. Pa. — Connelly v. Walker, 45 Pa. St. 449; McCulloch v. Hutchinson, 7 Watts, 434, 32 Am. Dec. 776. 21. Roberts v. Barnes, 127 Mo. 405, 30 S. W. 113, 48 Am. St. Eep. 640. 22. Menton v. Adams, 49 Cal. 620. A similar agreement with a cred- itor's agent would render the trans- 446 Fbaudulent Conveyances. It is held in some cases that an agreement between a creditor accepting property and the debtor, or between the maker of a bill of sale and the transferee, that if more is realized from the property than is sufficient to pay the indebtedness which con- stituted the consideration, the surplus proceeds shall be returned to the debtor, does not constitute such a secret trust as will in- validate the transfer, in the absence of fraudulent intent, but is a circumstance teinding to show that the transfer was made with intent to hinder and defraud creditors.^ In other cases it is held that such an assignment does not of itself render the transfer fraudulent, so long as the property transferred bears a reason- able proportion to the debt provided for.^* § 18. Reservation of right to repurchase. — The law will not permit a debtor in failing circimistances to sell his land and convey it by deed without reservations, and yet seci-etly reserve to himself the equity of redemption for his own use and benefit, although there is a valuable consideration for the transfer, but such a conveyance is fraudulent and void as to his ereditors.^^ A transfer of property, real or personal, by a debtor in failing circumstances, which, although absolute on its face, is accom- panied by a secret agreement or undei-standing that the grantee- shall reoomvey the property to the grantor on repayment of the purchase money with interest,^* or as soon as the grantor's debts," action void, although the creditor 25. Neubert v. Massman, 37 Fla. may not in fact have known of the 91, 19 So. 625. fraudulent intent. Greensleve v. 26. Qa. — Ward v. Lamberth, 31 Blum, 59 Tex. 124. Ga. 150. III. — Brinton v. Gerry, 7 111. App. 23. Sukeforth v. Lord, 87 Gal. ggg^ .^ .^ f^^^^dulent and void as to 399, 25 Pac. 497; St. John v. Camp. „,a;t„„ ^„j subsequent purchasers. 17 Conn. 222; New England Mar. ^_ ff.-Winkley v. Hill, 9 N. H. Ins. Co. V. Chandler, 16 Mass. 275; gj^ g^ ^^ j^ glS, explained and Muchmore v. Budd, 53 N. J. L. 369, modified in Albee v. Webster, 16 N. 22 Atl. 518. H 362. 24. Kahn v. McElrath, 6 Watts Pa. — ^Mead v. Conroe, 113 Pa. St. (Pa.) 151; In re Robertshaw Mfg. 220, 8 Atl. 374, such an agreemetil; Co. 133 Fed. 566. is not conclusive evidence of fraud. Reservations and Tsusts foe Geantob. 447 or the debts due on the property,^ have been paid and disdiarged, is either prima facie or conclusively fraudulent as against credi- tors of the grantor, and will be set aside at the instance of such creditors. But where the testimony is conflicting as to whether an absolute sale or a transfer as security for the moneys ad- vanced was intended, the transaction is valid as against creditors.^ A stipulation in a contract for the sale of lands that the vendor will repurchase at the same price, within a specified time, if the purchaser desires it, does not show a secret trust in his favor, rendering the sale void as against his creditors.'* i§ 19. Employment of debtor. — ^Where a purchase from a debtor in failing circumstances is of a business or a stock of goods in a store and an established trade, the fact that the debtor is employed, at a fair salary, to continue in charge of and man- age the business, after the sale, or to assist in a clerical capacity in the manufacture and sale of the goods in stock and the col- lection of accounts, does not, of itself, prove the transaction fraudulent, but it is evidence to be considered by the jury upon the question of fraudulent intent and as to whether or not a y^is, — Grant v. Lewis, 14 Wis. 487, the time of the transfer was one 80 Am. Dec. 785. which his attorney assured him was Conveyance by grantor -who barred by the statute of limitations, was not indebted. — Where in an it was held that the transfer was not action to set aside a deed as given fraudulent. Eobinson v. McCune, 128 to defraud creditors, it appeared that Mo. 577, 30 S. W. 156. the grantor's title to the premises was g,,, jackson v. Marshall's Adm'r, 5 clouded by a tax sale; that he was jj p. 323, 3 Am. Dec. 695; Vick v. a, non-resident and had no other prop- pjowers, 5 N. C. 321; Weis v. Qui- erty; that the grantee, as considera- ^^^^ ^^^^ jggg^^ ^ g ^ g^^ ^^^ tion for the deed, agreed to pay the ^^^ Carey-Halliday Lumber Co. v. costs of litigation necessary to quiet p^j^^^ ^^ jjjgg ggg^ jg g^ 339, sale the title in himself, and to sell the ^^^ rendered void as to subsequent premises back to the grantor at any attaching creditors, time within six months <5n repayment ^^ ^^^.^ ^ McHatton, 14 La. to him of these costs and expenses, ^^ ^^^ the title to become absolute in the __,.', „ , , _ _ , ,„ grantee if not so repurchased, and J^^f^^^^'' ^- S''^'''^^' ^ ^^'^ f^- it was also shown that the only claim *■) 291. being urged against the grantor at 30. Barr v. Hatch, 3 Ohio, 527. 448 Feaudulent Conveyances. secret trust or benefit was created or resetrved for the debtor." The same rule applies where the debtor was employed by a creditor, to whom he had transferred his business, to sell the entire stock, for a large commission if he could sell the stock for a certain sum.^^ But it has been held that where one of the terms of the sale of his business by an insolvent debtor is that he be retained in the management thereof at a salary, there is a benefit secured to him which renders the transaction fraudulent as- against creditors;'^ but that the rule is otherwise where there was no stipulation that he was to be paid for his services,^* or where the employment was in a subsequent distinct transaction, such as by a corporation subsequently organized by the pur- chaser.^'' A mortgage of a stock of merchandise given to secure a bona fide indebtedness, and which does not exceed its amount, is not made fraudulent as to creditors by the fact that the debtor is left in charge of the property mortgaged, with authority to sell the same and to account to the creditor for the proceeds, less the actual expenses of managing the business and a salajy to the debtor.^" 31. N. T. — Griffin v. Cranston, 23 Notes Cas. 25. Compare Bentz t. N. Y. Super. Ct. 1 ; Nicholson v. Lea- Rockey, 69 Pa. St. 71. vitt, 6 N. Y. Super Ct. 252. 33. Roden v. Norton, 128 Ala. 129, TJ. 8. — ^Bamberger v. Sohoolfield, 29 So. 637; Birmingham Dry Goods 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Co. v. Roden, 110 Ala. 511, 18 So. Ed. 374; In re A. L. Robertshaw Mfg. 135, 55 Am. St. Rep. 35; Stephens T. Co. 133 Fed. 566. Regensteln, 89 Ala. 561, 8 So. 68, 18 Ga.— Gribb v. Bagley, 83 Ga. 105, Am. St. Rep. 156; Fuller, etc., Co. t. 10 S E 104 Gaul, 85 111. App. 500, affd Best v. 7m?.-Wllcoxon V. Annesley, 23 Fuller, etc., Co., 185 111. 43, 56 N. E. Ind. 285. Minn. — ^Wilcox v. Lundberg, 30 1077. 34. Blumenthal v. Magnus, 97 Ala. 530, 13 So. 7. Minn. 93, 14 N. W. 365; Vose v. ^^ Henderson v. Ferryman, 114 Stickney, 19 Minn. 367. ^j^_ g^^^ 22 g^ ^^ Tex.—PeteTB Saddlery, etc., Co. v. gg -^^ jy^^^ Valley Nat. Bank r. Schoelkopf, 71 Tex. 418, 9 S. W. 336; North Star Boot & S. Co., 8 N. D. Van Hook v. Walton, 28 Tex. 59. 432, 79 N. W. 880, citing Brackett 32. In re A. L. Robertshaw Mfg. v. Harvey, 91 N. Y. 215 ; Conkling t. Co., 133 Fed. 566; Davis v. Yoder, Shelley, 28 N. Y. 360, and distin- 173 Pa. St. 138, 33 Atl. 882, 38 Wkly. guishing Newell v. Wagness, 1 N. D. Eeseevations and Trusts foe Gbantok. 449 § 20. Future support of grantor. — ^Where the consideration for a conveyance ia in whole or part ai secret agresiment, under- standing, or trust for th.e future support of the grantor or his family, the conveyance is either prima facie or conclusively frauduleoit and void as to esxisting creditors, and tlie question of the amount reserved to the grantor is immaterial." Such an ar- rangement has been lield to be a continuing fraud, and void against subsequent as well as precedent creditors.'* But where the father of certain minor children conveys tbem land to pay a. debt due by him to their mother, and it is understood and agreed that he sliall look after the land, collect the rents, and apply the same to the sup- port and education of said grantees, thisi does not constitute the reservation of a benefit to the grantor, such as will invalidate tbe conveyance at tbe instance of an existing creditor.'' !N"or does permission by a father to his daughter to live on a farm, which, he had given her and which she reconveyed to him, create a trust 62. That a chattel mortgagee al- lowed the mortgagor to sell the prop- erty and allowed the purchaser to re- tain a small sum. due him. from the mortgagor, which might be a suitable commission to the mortgagor for making the sale, is not such evidence of fraud or collusion as will invali- date the mortgage as against subse- quent attaching creditors. Bank of Atchison County v. Shackelford, 67 Mo. App. 475. ,37. New V. Sailors, 114 Ind. 407, 16 N. E. 609, 5 Am. St. Rep. 632; Stout V. Price, 24 Ind. App. 360, 55 N. E. 964, 56 N. E. 857; Graves v. Blondell, 70 Me. 194; Egery v. Johnson, 70 Me. 258; Sidensparker V. Sidensparker, 52 Me. 481, 83 Am. Dec. 527; Hapgood v. Fisher, 34 Me. 407, 56 Am. Dec. 663; Rollins v. Mooers, 25 Me. 192; Welcome v. Batchelder, 23 Me. 85 ; Rice v. Cun- ningham, 116 Mass. 466; Hunt v. Knox, 34 Miss. 655; Smith v. Smith, 11 N. H. 459. 29 Am. assigiunent of -wages to secure a present indebtedness and future support is not valid as against creditors of the assignor, so as to in- clude money paid over to the assignor out of the wages under an agreement to that effect outside of the assign- ment. Robinson v. McKenna, 21 R. I. 117, 119, 42 Atl. 510, 79 Am. St. Rep. 793, cKsapprovinff Schofield v. McConnell, 119 Mass. 368. 38. Sidensparker v. Sidensparker, 52 Me. 481, 83 Am. Dec. 527. But a voluntary conveyance accompanied by an agreement on the part of the grantee to support the grantor for life may, in the absence of any in- tentional fraud, be valid as to subse- quent creditors, although void as to existing creditors. Bowlus v. Shana- barger, 19 Ohio Cir. Ot. 137, 10 Ohio Cir. Dec. 167. ,39. Enfaula Nat. Bank v. Pruett, 138 Ala. 470, 30 So. 731. 460 Feaudtjlewt Conveyances. for lier benefit, where there was no such agreement between, the parties, and no enforceable right, interest, or privilege was reserved tO' her, and none would have been reserved if the transaction was in writing." Though, at the time a lease to one and his son was surrendered and a lease to his wife and the son made in place thereof, the son assured him that he would be provided for, such agreement for th.& support is too indefinite and uncertain to be treated as part of the consideration for the transaction so asi to make it fraudulent as to his creditors.*^ § 21. Purchase at execution or other sale for benefit of debtor. — Where, at an execution sale, one buys property for the benefit of the judgment debtor and holds it to defraud his cred- itors,*^ or purchases it at the request and with the means of the judgment debtor for his benefit,*' or by a fraudulent combination with the judgment debtor and others, is enabled to purchase the property for less than it is really worth, the benefit of which the judgment debtor is to reap,** or purchases it under a secret under^ standing that the property shall be held in trust for the execution debtor,*^ the transaction is not valid because the judgment was, but is fraudulent and void as to the debtor's creditors. So where the purchaser at a sale of lands by a trustee under a deed of trust is a mere figurehead and nominal purchaser assisting the judgment debtor to defraud his creditors, the sale is void both at law and in equity, and may be attacked by any person damaged by the fraud.*' And a sale by a trustee of an insolvent's stock of goods to a creditor, who pays part in cash, of which a portion is the money of the debtor's wife, is fraudulent as to creditors and void.*' Where a husband, acting for his wife, buys in merchan- 40. First Nat. Bank v. Beasley, 12 44. Stovall v. Farmers', etc.. Bank, Colo. App. 313, 55 Pac. 616. 16 Miss. 305, 47 Am. Dec. 85. 41. McCormick Harvesting Mach. 45 Bostwick v. Blake, 145 111. 85, Co. V. Pouder, 123 Iowa, 17, 98 N. W. 34 jj j; gg 303. 42. Decker v. Decker, 108 N. Y. 128, 15 N. E. 307. 43. Miller v. Fraley, 21 Ark. 22; 47. Levine v. Eouss (Tex. Civ. Clarkson v. White, 38 K7. U. App. 1899), 49 S. W. 1051. 46. State v. McBride, 105 Mo. 265, 15 S. W. 72. Rbsebvations aud Tbusts fob Gbantoe. 451 dise at a foreclosure sale with a view of protecting the mort- gagor/' and wheire there has been a simulated and pretended forei- closure/' the sale is fraudulent and void as to creditors. It has been, held that a trust ex maleficio arises because of the grantor's prior relation to the property, in favor of the grantor in a trust deed, against one who purchases the same under the deed of trust, pursuant to a verbal agreement between the grantor and himself while the sale was pending that he would purchase the property and hold it for the former until he was reimbursed for the purchase price/" ;§, 22. Subsequent disposition of property by debtor in credi- tor's favor. — ^A hona fide' creditor may, by fair contract, pur- chase and receive the effects of his debtor in payment of such debt, even though the knowii effect may be to hinder or defeat other creditors. Such a creditor, after lawfully collecting his debt, either in money or by the purchase of property, may, if he sees fit, devote the proceeds to the debtor, without subjecting him- self to liability to other creditors as a trustee in his own wrong, or may convey the same to the debtor or the debtor's wife or children and the transaction does not show a secret reservation for the grantor, in the absence of proof that the property was sold for less than its value, and the conveyance cannot be set aside as faudulent as against other creditors." This rule is maintained, notwithstanding the fact that the debtor may have expected that such property would be reconveyed to his wife 48. Monarch Rubber Co. v. Bunn, judisial sales, chap. II, §§ 13, 14, 78 Mo. App. 55. supra. 49. Whitney v. Leominster Sav. 51. Bamberger v. Schoolfleld, 160 Bank, 141 Mass. 85, 6 N. E. 551. U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Ed. 50. Richardson v. Champion, 143 374; Young v. Dumas, 39 Ala. 60; Mo. 538, 45 S. W. 280. Solomon v. C. M. Schneider & Co., 56 See also Collusive and fraudulent Neb. 680, 9 Am. & Eng. Corp. Cas. N. legal proceedings, chap. II, § 9, S. 740, 77 N. W. 65; McPherson v. supra; Foreclosure of mortgages and McPherson, 21 S. C. 261. But see deeds of trust, Execution and other Reynolds v. Lansford, 16 Tex. 286, 452 FEATJDUIiEJS'T CONVEYANCES. or children, there being no agreement for such reconveyance.'^ The same rule has been applied where an insolvent, with intent to defraud his creditors, induced his wife's relative to buy his land at an execution sale, and the relative actually and in good faith and in ignorance of the debtor's fraudulent design pur- chased it and had it conveyed to the debtor's wife, who was like- wise innocent of the debtor's attempt to defraud.^ The mere fact that a debtor confessing a judgment for a bona fide debt believes or knows that the creditor intends to settle the principal part of the debt upon the debtor's wife, is not sufficient evidence of fraud as against other creditors.^* § 23. Discharge of secret trust by subsequent agreement. — A conveyance, originally faudulent as against creditors, is not thereby void, but only voidable, and may be purged of fraud by matter ex post facto whereby the fraudulent intent is abandoned and the grant confirmed for adequate consideration.^' Where a holding such a conveyance prima facie fraudulent as to antecedent creditors. 52. Hesse v. Barrett, 41 Or. 202, 68 Pac. 751; MePherson v. McPher- son, 21 S. C. 261. 53. Crawfordsville Bank v. Carter, 89 Ind. 317. Wliere a father, indebted to Ms children on account of a guar- dianship to an amount exceeding a legacy, assigns in good faith such legacy in payment pro tanto of the demand against him, and an indebt- edness for which a judgment was ren- dered did not exist when the assign- ment was made, the assignment will not be set aside as in fraud of cred- itors, though the beneficia,ries of the assignment allowed their father to receive the larger part of the legacy, and he, on signing the lease, after the assignment, on which the judgment was obtained, gave complainant, his landlord, an order on the executors for his interest to secure the rent. Bush V. Downey, 195 111. 82, 62 N. E. 868, aif'g 96 111. App. 503. The sale by a jnnior mortga- gee, subject to the prior mortgage, of the mortgaged property for the amount due him on his mortgage, and the subsequent resale by the pur- chaser to the original mortgagor, which are not shown to have been connected in any manner, are insuffi- cient to show fraud as to the mort- gagor's creditors, although the price received by the mortgagee was some- what less than the actual value of the property. Pugh v. Harwell, 108 Ala. 486, 18 So. 535. 54. Cureton v. Doby, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 411, 73 Am. Dec. 96. 55. Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 44 Mass. 332, 37 Am. Dec. 140; Agri- cultural Bank v. Dorsey, 1 Freem. Ch. (Miss.) 338; Smyth v. Carlisle, 17 N. H. 417. See also Stavers v. Eeseevatioks and Teusts foe Geantoe. 453 debtor -with a view to defraud his creditors conveys goods to another "who receives them under such circumstances of fraud as would have fixed him as trustee, but before the service of process upon him, the purchaser had, by the order of the vendor, bona fide paid or assumed to pay, on account of the goods, debts of the vendor to the full value of the goods, he cannot afterwards be held as trustee of the vendor.^' In the case of a fraudulent conveyance and assignment it is competent for the parties thereto ^to subsequently make a new and independent agreement for a sufficient valuable consideration, whereby the grantee or assignee shall be obligated to hold the property in trust for the grantor or assignor, but such agreement must be open and notorious and made in good faith to establish a trust in the property, otherwise it will be but attempting to create anew a secret trust already con- demned by the statute." "Where a creditor holds a chattel mort- gage upon the property of his debtor which is void as against other creditors on account of an illegal verbal agreement whereby a benefit is reserved to the debtor, but before the rights of such other creditors have become fixed, or any action has been taken by them to disaffirm the mortgage or obtain any lien upon the debtor's property, the debtor voluntary transfers the posses- sion of his property to the creditor as security for the indebted- ness, this latter transfer is not invalidated by the voidable char- acter of the original mortgage/' While a mortgagee cannot en- force a void chattel mortgage against the creditors of the mort- gagor, yet if the mortgagor treats it as void and, before the Stavers, 69 N. H. 158, 45 Atl. 319. after a deed had been set aside as See Purging conveyance of fraud by fraudulent as to creditors, the grantor matter eo) post facto, chap. Ill, § 7, surrendered the notes given there- supra. for, the grantee agreeing to cancel 56. Thomas v. Goodwin, 12 Mass. the deed, this agreement might be en- 140; Hutchins v. Sprague, 4 N. H. forced in equity, as it was not tainted 69, 17 Am. Dec. 439. See also Albee with the fraud of the first transac- V. Webster, 16 N. H. 362. tion. See also Parker v. Tiffany, 52 57. Tyler v. Tyler, 126 111. 525, 21 III. 286. N. E. 616, 9 Am. St. Eep. 642, Songer 58. Hardt v. Deutsch, 30 App. Div. V. Partridge, 107 111. 529, where, (N. Y.) 589, 52 N. Y. Supp. 335. 454 Fbaudulent Conveyancks. creditors obtain a lien, transfers the property to the mortgagee in payment of the debt, the transaction, will be legal although constituting a preference.^' Where a firm sold its stock to the wife of a partner, the business thereafter being carried on for her by her husband, and later the wife and husband sold the property for value to the plaintiff, the joinder of the hus- band in the sale to plaintiff and the delivery of the posses- sion to him destroyed any rights of creditors to subject the prop- erty on the ground that the sale thereof by the firm was fraudu- lent for lack of change of possession and that plaintiff purchased with knowledge thereof.^" 59. Bowdish v. Page, 153 N. Y. 128 N. Y. 1 ; Mandeville v. Avery, 108, 47 N. E. 45 ; Stephens v. Perrine, 124 K. Y. 376. 143 N. Y. 476; Karst v. Kane, 136 60. Mandigo v. Healej, 69 N. H. N. Y. 316; Tremaine v. Mortimer, 94, 45 Atl. 318. Pbepebenoes to Cbeditobs. 455 CHAPTER XI. Peefeeences to Ceeditoes. Section 1. Right to prefer creditor and validity of transaction in general. 2. Statutory provisions. 3. Constitutionality of statutes. 4. What law governs. 5. Nature and form of preference in general. 6. Sale to pay debts to preferred creditors. 7. Failure to apply proceeds to debts. 8. Splitting demand to expedite recovery. 9. Delegation of power to prefer. 10. Nature of property transferred. 11. Nature of debts preferred in general. 12. Debts not due. 13. Contingent debts and liabilites on behalf of debtor. 14. Usurious interest. 15. Attorney's fees. 16. Debts arising out of breach of trust. 17. Secured debts generally. 18. Discharge of mortgage on homestead. 19. Transfer of incumbered property in payment of incumbrance. 20. Transfer of all the debtor's property. 21. Knowledge and intent of parties generally. 22. Participation of preferred creditor in fraudulent intent. 23. Preference not invalidated by mere fraudulent intent. 24. Secrecy and haste. 25. Preference pending suit in general. 26. Intent to defeat judgment, execution or attachment. 27. Agreement to prefer. 28. Transfer partly as preference and partly on other consideration. 29. Where present consideration is exempt. 30. Present consideration to be paid by debtor to other creditors. 31. Other debts assumed by transferee. 32. Creditor's promise to compound felony. 33. Preferences between relatives generally. 34. Preference of husband and wife. Section, 1. Right to prefer creditor and validity of trans- action in general. — The rule is well settled upon abundant au- thority that, in the absence of statutory restrictions, an insolvent debtor has the right to sell and transfer the wholei or any portion 456 Fbaudulent ConvStances. of his property to one or more of his creditors in payment of or to secure his debts, when that is his honest purpose, although the effect of the sale or transfer would be to place his property be- yond the reach of his othesr creditors and render their debts uncol- lectible. A debtor in failing circumstances, or insolvent, may bona fide prefer one creditor or another, by paying his debt or conveying in trust so much of his property as will suffice for such pa.yment, and a conveyance of property by a debtor in pay- ment of a debt, thereby leaving nothing for his other creditors, is valid, provided the debt is hona fide and enforceable, the pay- ment absolute, and, if made in property, not materially in ex- cess of his debt, and no pecuniary advantage is secured, to the debtor. This right of disposition existed at common law as an incident to the right of property, and was as complete and per- fect as the right to acquire and enjoy it. The settled rule is but a restatement of the doctrine of the common law.* Under this 1. N. T. — Dodge v. MeKechnie, 156 N. Y. 514, 51 N. E. 268; Delaney V. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 692, 49 N. E. 65; Tompkins v. Hunter, 149 N. Y. 117, 43 N. E. 532; Galle v. Tode, 148 N. Y. 270, 42 N. E. 673, aff'g 74 Hun, 542, 26 N. Y. Supp. 633; Maass v. Falk, 146 N. Y. 34, 40 N. E. 504; Abegg v. Bishop, 142 N. Y. 286, 36 N. E. 1058; Central Nat. Bank v. Selignmn, 138 N. Y. 435, 34 N. E. ' 196; Talcott v. Harder, 119 N. Y. 536, 23 N. E. 1056; Fuller Electri- cal Co. V. Lewis, 101 N. Y. 674, 5 N. E. 437; Murphy v. Briggs, 89 N. Y. 446; Spaulding v. Strange, 37 N. Y. 135; Seymour v. Wilson, 19 N. Y. 417; Leavitt v. Blatchford, 17 N. Y. 521; Lowther v. Rader, 102 N. Y. Supp. 929; Stackhouse v. Holden, 66 App. Div. 423, 73 N. Y. Supp. 203; HoflFman v. Suaemihl, 15 App. Div. 405, 44 N. Y. Supp. 52; Drury v. Wilson, 4 App. Div. 232, 38 N. Y. Supp. 538; Gomez v. Hagaman, 84 Hun, 148, 32 N. Y. Supp. 453; Lon- don v. Martin, 79 Hun, 229, 29 N. Y. Supp. 396, aff'd 149 N. Y. 586, 44 N. E. 1125; Victor v. Levy, 72 Hun, 263, 25 N. Y. Supp. 644, aff'd 148 N. Y. 739, 42 N. E. 726; Bishop v. Stebbins, 41 Hun, 243; Swift v. Hart, 35 Hun, 128; Jewett v. Noteware, 30 Hun, 194; Hale v. Stewart, 7 Hun, 591; Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Hun, 146; Auburn Exch. Bank v. Fitch, 48 Barb. 344; Brett v. Catlin, 47 Barb. 404; Carpenter v. Muren, 42 Barb. 300; Duuckel v. Failing, 1 Silv. Sup. 543, 5 N. Y. Supp. 504; Sweetser v. Smith, 5 N. Y. Supp. 378, 22 Abb. N. Cas. 319; Citizens' Nat. Bank v. Riddell, 2 N. Y. Supp. 331; Hauslet V. Vilmar, 2 Abb. N. Cas. 222; Laid- law V. Gilmore, 47 How. Pr. 67 ; Water- bury V. Sturtevant, 18 Wend. 353; Wilder v. Winne, 6 Cow. 284; Mur- ray V. Riggs, 15 Johns. 571; Phoenix V. Dey, 5 Johns. 412; Wilkes v. Fer- ris, 5 Johns. 335, 4 Am. Dec. 364; Peefekences to Ceeditoes. 457 doctrine it has been held that the right of a debtor to devote his Williams v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 682; MeMenomy v. Roosevelt, 3 Johns. Ch. 446; Hendricks v. Robinson, 2 Johns. Ch. 283, 17 Johns. 438. U. S. — Bamberger v. Schoolfield, 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Ed. 374; Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Huntley v. Kingman, 152 U. S. 527, 14 Sup. Ct. 688, 38 L. Ed. 540; Chicago Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223, 10 Sup. Ct. 1013, 34 L. Ed. 341 ; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. 426, 8 Sup. Ct. 193, 31 L. Ed. 190; Peoples' Savings Bank v. Bates, 120 U. S. 556, 7 Sup. Ct. 679, 30 L. Ed. 754; Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ct. 1163, 29 L. Ed. 329; Tompkins v. Wheeler, 16 Pet. 106, 10 L. Ed. 903; Clark v. White, 12 Pet. 178, 9 L. Ed. 1046; Magniac v. Thompson, 7 Pet. 348, 8 L. Ed. 709; Marbuiy v. Brooks, 7 Wheat. 556, 5 L. Ed. 522, 11 Wheat. 78, 6 L. Ed. 423; Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. C. A. 107; Kemp v. Na- tional Bank of Republic, 109 Fed. 48, 48 C. C. A. 213; Ontario Bank v. Hurst, 103 Fed. 231, 43 C. C. A. 193; Repauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hard- ware Co., 101 Fed. 948, 42 C. C. A. 106; Voorhees v. Balnton, 83 Fed. 234; Wilson v. Jones, 76 Fed. 484; Randolph v. Allen, 73 Fed. 23, 19 C. C. A. 353; Williams v. Simons, 70 Fed. 40, 16 C. C. A. 628; Strauss v. Abrahams, 32 Fed. 310; Hills v. Stockwell, etc.. Furniture Co., 23 Fed. 432; Kellog v. Richardson, 19 Fed. 70; Smith v. Craft, 12 Fed. 856, 11 Biss. 347, 123 U. S. 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267; Simms v. Morse, 2 Fed. 325, 4 Hughes, 579; Walker V. Adair, 29 Fed. Cas. No. 17,064, 1 Bond, 158. Ate.— Rike v. Ryan (1906), 41 So. 959; First Nat. Bank v. Acme White Lead, etc., Co., 123 Ala. 344, 26 So. 354; Inman v. Schloss, 122 Ala. 461, 25 So. 739; Davidson v. Kahn, 116 Ala. 427, 22 So. 539; Goetter v. Norman, 107 Ala. 585, 19 So. 56; Bray v. Ely, 105 Ala. 553, 17 So. 180; Goetter v. Smith, 104 Ala. 481, 16 So. 534; Schloss v. MoGuire, 102 Ala. 626, 15 So. 275; Fargason v. Hall, 99 Ala. 209, 13 So. 302; Daw- son V. Flash, 97 Ala. 539, 12 So. 67; Lathrop-Hatten Lumber Co. v. Besse- mer Sav. Bank, 96 Ala. 350, 11 So. 418; Pollock v. Meyer, 96 Ala. 172, 11 So. 385; Ellison v. Moses, 95 Ala. 221, 11 So. 347; First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 93 Ala. 97, 9 So. 548; Harris V. Powell, 93 Ala. 69, 9 So. 541 ; Chip- man V. Stern, 89 Ala. 207, 7 So. 409 ; Mobile Sav. Bank v. McDonnell, 87 Ala. 736, 6 So. 703; Carter v. Cole- man, 84 Ala. 257, 4 So. 151; Wood V. Moore, 84 Ala. 253, 3 So. 912; Jefferson Coimty Sav. Bank v. Eborn, 84 Ala. 529, 4 So. 389; Levy v. Wil- liams, 79 Ala. 171; Moog v. Farley, 79 Ala. 246; Hodges v. Coleman, 76 Ala. 103; Sgealy v. Edwards, 75 Ala. 411; Heyer v. Bromberg, 74 Ala. 524; Chamberlain v. Dorrance, 69 Ala. 40; Warren v. Jones, 68 Ala. 449; Turner v. McFee, 61 Ala. 468; Perry Ins., etc., Co. v. Foster, 58 Ala. 502, 29 Am. Rep. 779; Crawford v. Kirk- sey, 55 Ala. 282, 28 Am. Kep. 704; Young V. Dumas, 39 Ala. 60; Bor- land V. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104; Stover v. Herrington, 7 Ala. 142, 41 Am. Dec. 86; Williams v. Jones, 2 Ala. 314. Ark. — Gilkerson-Sloss Commission Co. V. Games, 56 Ark. 414, 19 S. W. 1061; Goodbar v. Locke, 56 Ark. 314, 10 S. W. 924; Sparks v. Mack, 31 458 Feaudulent Conveyances. whole estate to the claims of one or more creditors results from Ark. 666; Doswell v. Adler, 28 Ark. 82; Cox V. Fraley, 26 Ark. 20. Oo«.— Merced Bank v. Ivett, 127 Cal. 134, 59 Pac. 393; Bonney v. Til- ley, 109 Cal. 346, 42 Pac. 439; Priest V. Brown, 100 Cal. 626, 35 Pac. 323; Dyer v. Bradley, 89 Cal. 557, 26 Pac. 1103; Saunderson v. Broadwell, 82 Cal. 132, 23 Pac. 36; Dean v. Grimes, 72 Cal. 442, 14 Pac. 178; Ross v. Sedgwick, 69 Cal. 247, 10 Pac. 400; Wood v. Franks, 67 Cal. 32, 7 Pac. 50; Walden v. Mur- dock, 23 Cal. 540, 83 Am. Dec. 135; Wheaton v. Neville, 19 Cal. 41 ; Ran- dall V. Buffington, 10 Cal. 491; Dana V. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269. Colo. — Sutton V. Dana, 15 Colo. 98, 25 Pac. 90; Campbell v. Colorado Coal, etc., Co., 9 Colo. 60, 10 Pac. 248; Burr v. Clement, 9 Colo. 1, 7 Pac. 633. Compare Schideler v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 106, 57 Pac. 864. Conn. — Warner Glove Co. v. Jen- nings, 58 Conn. 74, 19 Atl. 239; Smith V. Skeary, 47 Conn. 47; Klrtland v. Snow, 20 Conn. 23. Del. — Slessinger v. Topkis, 1 Marv. 140, 40 Atl. 717; Stockley v. Horsey, 4 Houst. 603; Wharton v. Clements, 3 Del. Ch. 209. D. C. — Barnard v. Life Ina. Co., 4 Mackey, 63; Clark v. Krauae, 2 Mackey, 559. Fla. — McKeown v. Coagler, 18 Fla. 866; Holbrook v. Allen, 4 Fla. 87. Go. — Simma v. Tidwell, 98 Ga. 686, 25 S. E. 555; Comer v. Allen, 72 Ga. 1; Carter v. Neal, 24 Ga. 346, 71 Am. Dec. 136; Savannah Bank v. Planters' Bank, 22 Ga. 466; Laven- der V. Thomas, 18 Ga. 668; Mo- Whorter v. Wright, 5 Ga. 555; Cameron v. Scudder, 1 Ga. 204; Davis V. Anderson, 7 Ga. 176; East- man V. McAIpin, 1 Ga. 157. /i!J.— Fabian v. Traeger, 215 111. 220, 74 N. E. 131, aff'g 117 111. App. 176; Murray Nelson Co. v. Leiter, 190 111. 414, 60 N. E. 851, 83 Am. St. Rep. 142, aft'g 93 111. App. 176; Wil- liams v. Andrew, 185 111. 98, 56N.E. 1041, af'g 84 111. App. 289; Dueber Watch Case Mfg. Co. v. Young, 155 111. 226, 40 N. E. 582, ajfg 54 111. App. 383; Young v. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. 372; Glover v. Lee, 140 111. 102, 29 N. E. 680; Hulse v. Mershon, 125 111. 52, 17 N. E. 50; Wood v. Clark, 121 111. 359, 12 N. E. 271, aff'g 21 111. App. 464; Schroeder v. Walsh, 120 111. 403, 11 N. E. 70; Chicoga, etc., R. Co. V. Watson, 113 111. 195; Welsch V. Werschem, 92 111. 115; Francis v. Rankin, 84 111. 169; Morris v. Till- son, 81 111. 607; Hessing v. McClos- key, 37 111. 341; Funk v. Staats, 24 111. 633; Cooper v. McClun, 16 111. 435; Cross v. Bryant, 3 111. 36; German-American Nat. Bank v. Hoff- man, 120 111. App. 363; Eickstaedt v. Moses, 105 111. App. 634; Spalding V. Heideman, 96 111. App. 405; Cooke v. Peter, 93 111. App. 1; Wickler v. People, 68 HI. App. 282; Taylor v. Smith, 68 111. App. 109; Oakford v. Dunlap, 63 111. App. 498; Locke v. Duncan, 47 111. App. 110; Stain- brook V. Duncan, 45 111. App. 344; Sweet V. Scherber, 42 111. App. 237; Weir V. Dustin, 28 111. App. 605; Chicago Stamping Co. v. Hanchett, 25 111. App. 198; Holbrook v. First Nat. Bank, 10 111. App. 140; Storey V. Agnew, 2 111. App. 353. Ind. — Owens v. Gascho, 154 Ind. 225, 56 N. E. 224; Levering v. Bimel, Pbefeeences to Ceeditoks. 459 that absolute ownetrship which every man claims over that which 146 Ind. 545, 45 N. E. 775; Eook- land Co. v. Summerville, 139 Ind. 695, 39 N. E. 307; Thomas v. John- son, 137 Ind. 244, 36 N. E. 893; Dice V. Irvin, 110 Ind. 561, 11 N. E. 488 O'Donald v. Constant, 82 Ind. 212 O'Connor v. Coats, 79 Ind. 596 Wilcoxon V. Annesley, 23 Ind. 285 Wynne v. Glidewell, 17 Ind. 446 Jones V. Gott, 10 Ind. 240; Stewart V. English, 6 Ind. 176; Anderson v. Smith, 5 Blackf. 395. 7owo.— Sly V. Bell (1906), 108 N. "W. 227; Atkinson v. McNider (1905) 105 N. W. 504; Thompson v. Zuck mayer (1903), 94 N. W. 476; Mere- dith V. Schaap (1901), 85 N. W, 628; First Nat. Bank v. Garretson, 107 Iowa, 196, 77 N. W. 856; Cath cart V. Grieve, 104 Iowa, 330, 73 N, W. 835; Johnson v. Johnson, 101 Iowa, 405, 70 N. W. 598; Stroff v. Swafford, 81 Iowa, 695, 47 N. W. 1023; Loomis v. Stewart, 75 Iowa, 387, 39 N. W. 660; Southern White Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Iowa, 399, 33 N. W. 657, 35 N. W. 494; Aulman v. Aulman, 71 Iowa, 124, 3 N. W. 240, 60 Am. Eep. 783 ; Garrett v. Burling- ton Plow Co., 70 Iowa, 597, 29 N. W. 395, 59 Am. Eep. 461; Farwell v. Howard, 26 Iowa, 381; Davis v. Gib- bon, 24 Iowa, 257; Lampson v. Arnold, 19 Iowa, 479; Hutchinson v. Watkins, 17 Iowa, 475; Buell v. Buckingham, 16 Iowa, 284, 85 Am. Dec. 516; Johnson v. McGrew, 11 Iowa, 151, 77 Am. Dec. 137; Cowles V. Eicketts, 1 Iowa, 582. XoTC.— Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co. v. Carson, 59 Kan. 295, 52 Pae. 880; Hasie v. Connor, 53 Kan. 713, 37 Pae. 128; Schram v. Taylor, 51 Kan. 547, 33 Pae. 315; Lewis v. Hughes, 49 Kan. 23, 30 Pae. 177; First Nat. Bank v. Eidenour, 46 Kan. 707, 718, 27 Pae. 150, 26 Am. St. Eep. 167; Bliss v. Couch, 46 Kan. 400, 26 Pae. 706; Voorhis T. Michaelis, 45 Kan. 255, 25 Pae. 592; Tootle V. Coldwell, 30 Kan. 125, 1 Pae. 329; Eandall v. Shaw, 28 Kan. 419; Bishop V. Jones, 28 Kan. 680; Arn V. Hoersman, 26 Kan. 413; Campbell v. Warner, 22 Kan. 604; Avery v. Eastes, 18 Kan. 505; Cuendet v. Lahmer, 16 Kan. 527; Pettyjohn v. Newhart, 7 Kan. App. 64, 51 Pao. 969. Ky. — Whitehead v. Woodruff, 74 Ky. 209; Short v. Tinsley, 58 Ky. 397, 71 Am. Dec. 482; Kennaird v. Adams, 50 Ky. 102; Worland v. Kimberlin, 45 ICy. 608, 44 Am. Dec. 785; Eeinhard v. Commonwealth Bank, 45 Ky. 252; Young v. Stal- lings, 44 Ky. 307; Marshall v. Hutchison, 44 Ky. 298; Ford v. Williams, 42 Ky. 550 ; Bergen v. Far- mers', etc.. Bank, 8 Ky. L. Eep. 613; Commonwealth v. Campbell, 7 Ky. L. Eep. 746; Beard v. Eunyan, 6 Ky. L. Eep. 514. ha. — ^United States v. United States Bank, 8 Eob. 262. Me. — ^Hanscom v. Buffum, 66 Me. 246; Ferguson v. Spear, 65 Me. 277; French v. Motley, 63 Me. 326; Hart- shorn V. Fames, 31 Me. 93. Md. — Thompson v. Williams (1905), 60 Atl. 26; Baltimore City Com. Bank v. Kearns (1905), 59 Atl. 1010; Stockbridge v. Franklin Bank, 86 Md. 189, 37 Atl. 645; Nicholson V. Schmucker, 81 Md. 459, 32 Atl. 182; Totten v. Brady, 54 Md. 170; Eich V. Levy, 16 Md. 74; Glenn v. Grover, 3 Md. 212; Wheeler r. 460 Feaudulent Conveyances. is his ovm,^ and that if the right of giving preferences should be stone, 4 Gill, 38; Cole v. Albers, 1 Gill, 412; State v. State Bank, 6 Gill & J. 205, 26 Am. Dec. 561; Hickley V. Farmers', etc.. Bank, 5 Gill & J. 377; Anderson v. Tydings, 3 Md. Ch. 167, 8 Md. 427, 63 Am. Dee. 708; Powles v. Dilley, 2 Md. Ch. 119, 9 Gill, 222; Stewart v. Union Bank, 2 Md. Ch. 58, 7 Gill, 439; Malcolm v. Hall, 1 Md. Ch. 172. Mass. — Traders' Nat. Bank v. Steere, 165 Mass. 387, 43 N. E. 189; Sawyer v. Levy, 162 Mass. 190, 38 N. E. 365; Train v. Kendall, 137 Mass. 366; First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 133 Mass. 26; Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Tavener, 130 Mass. 407; Giddings v. Sears, 115 Mass. 505; Banfield v. Whipple, 96 Mass. 13; Burt V. Perkins, 75 Mass. 317; Green v. Tanner, 49 Mass. 411; New England Mar. Ins. Co. v. Chandler, 16 Mass. 275; Harrison v. Phillips Academy, 12 Mass. 456; Thomas v. Goodwin, 12 Mass. 140; Widgery v. Haskell, 5 Mass. 144, 4 Am. Dec. 41; Hatch V. Smith, 5 Mass. 42. Mioh. — Geer v. Traders' Bank, 132 Mich. 215, 93 N. W. 437; Michigan Trust Co. V. Comstock, 130 Mich. 572, 90 N. W. 331; Scripps v. Craw- ford, 123 Mich. 173, 81 N. W. 1098; Belding Sav. Bank v. Moore, 118 Mich. 150, 76 N. W. 368; Beckman v. Noble, 115 Mich. 523, 73 N. W. 803; Ferris v. McQueen, 94 Mich. 367, 54 N. W. 164; Warner v. Littlefield, 89 Mich. 329, 50 N. W. 721 ; Sheldon v. Mann. 85 Mich. 265, 48 N. W. 573; Dalton V. Stiles, 74 Mich. 726, 42 N. W. 169; Eureka Iron, etc.. Works v. Bresnahan, 66 Mich. 489, 33 N. W. 834; Whitfield v. Stiles, 57 Mich. 410, 24 N. W. 119; Jordan v. White, 38 Mich. 253; Hill v. Bowman, 35 Mich. 191; People v. Bristol, 35 Mich. 28; How V. Camp, Walk. 427. Minn. — ^Maekellar v. Pillsbury, 48 Minn. 396, 51 N. W. 222; Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 29, 21 N. W. 840; Smith V. Deidriek, 30 Minn. 60, 14 N. W. 262; Vose v. Stickney, 19 Minn. 367. Miss. — ^Harris v. Sledge (1897), 21 So. 783 ; Holberg v. Jaffray, 64 Miss. 746, 2 So. 168 ; Hyman v. Stadler, 63 Miss. 362; Richardson v. Marqueze, 59 Miss. 80, 42 Am. Rep. 353; Eld- ridge V. Phillipson, 58 Miss. 270; Savage v. Dowd, 54 Miss. 728; Sum- mers V. Roos, 42 Miss. 749, 2 Am. Rep. 653; Stanton v. Green, 34 Miss. 576; Herrick v. Henderson, Walk. 485. Mo. — Wood V. Porter, 179 Mo. 56, 77 S. W. 762; Wall v. Beedy, 161 Mo. 625, 61 S. W. 864; Crothers v. Busch, 153 Mo. 606, 55 S. W. 149; Bangs Milling Co. v. Burns, 152 Mo. 350, 53 S. W. 923; Kingman v. Cor- nell-Tebbetts Mach., etc., Co., 150 Mo. 282, 51 S. W. 727; Alberger v. Na- tional Bank of Commerce, 123 Mo. 313, 27 S. W. 657; Jaflfrey v. Mathews, 120 Mo. 317, 25 S. W. 187; Alberger v. White, 117 Mo. 347, 23 S. W. 92; Schroeder v. Bobbitt, 108 Mo. 289, 18 S. W. 1093; Sexton v. Anderson, 95 Mo. 373, 8 S. W. 564; Forrester v. Moore, 77 Mo. 651 ; Shel- ley V. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74, 39 Am. Rep. 481 ; Henderson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 534; Kuykendall v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 416, 57 Am. Dec. 212; Murray V. Cason, 15 Mo. 378; Bell v. Thomp- son, 3 Mo. 84; Scott Hardware Co. V. Riddle, 84 Mo. App. 275; Sam- mons V. O'Neill, 60 Mo. App. 530; Peefekences to Ckeditoes. 461 denied, while a man retains his property in his own hands, he Smith V. National R., etc., Exposition Assoc, 47 Mo. App. 462 ; W. W. Ken- dall Boot, etc., Co. V. Bain, 46 Mo. App. 581; Beering v. Collins, 38 Mo. App. 80; State v. Excelsior Distil- ling Co., 20 Mo. App. 21; Gaff v. Stern, 12 Mo. App. 115. Mont. — Teitig v. Boesman, 12 Mont. 404, 31 Pac. 371. Neh. — Blair State Bank v. Bunn, ,61 Neb. 464, 85 N. W. 527; Bennett V. McDonald, 59 Neb. 234, 80 N. W. 826; Tackaberry v. Gilmore, 57 Neb. 450, 78 N. W. 32; Smith v. Bowen, 51 Neb. 245, 70 N. W. 949; Grand Island Banking Co. v. Costello, 45 Neb. 119, 63 N. W. 376; Robinson No- tion Co. V. Foots, 42 Neb. 156, 60 N. W. 316; Hunt v. Huffman, 41 Neb. 244, 59 N. W. 889; Meyer v. Union Bag, etc., Co., 41 Neb. 67, 59 N. W. 696; John V. Farwell Co. v. Wright, 38 Neb. 445, 56 N. W. 984; Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb. 816, 56 N. W. 390; Kilpatriek-Koch Dry Goods Co. v. McPheely, 37 Neb. 800, 56 N. W. 389; Kavanaugh v. Oberfelder, 37 Neb. 647, 56 N. W. 316; Costello v. Cham- berlain, 36 Neb. 45, 53 N. W. 1034; Brown v. Williams, 34 Neb. 376, 51 N. W. 851; Davis v. Scott, 27 Neb. 642, 43 N. W. 407; Elwood v. May, 24 Neb. 373, 38 N. W. 793; Rothell v. Grimes, 22 Neb. 526, 35 N. W. 392. N. H. — Osgood V. Thorne, 63 N. H. 375; Buffum v. Green, 5 N. H. 71, 20 Am. Dee. 562. 2^. J. — ^Tillou V. Britton, 9 N. J. L. 120; Thompson v. Williamson, 67 N. J. Eq. 212, 58 Atl. 602; Green v. McCrane, 55 N. J. Eq. 436, 37 Atl. 318; Low V. Wortman, 44 N. J. Eq. 193, 7 Atl. 654, 14 Atl. 586; Uhl v. Beatty (Ch. 1885), 3 Atl. 524 j Essex V. Lindsley, 41 N. J. Eq. 189, 3 Atl. 391; Metropolis Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13; Coley v. Coley, 14 N. J. Eq. 350; Jones v. Naughright, 10 N. J. Eq. 298; Garr V. Hill, 9 N. J. Eq. 210. N. O. — Guggenheimer v. Brook- field, 90 N. C. 232; Cheek v. Davis, 26 N. C. 284; Hafner v. Irwin, 23 N. C. 490; Sellers v. Bryan, 17 N. C. 358. N. D. — Loekren v. Rustan, 9 N. D. 43, 81 N. W. 60; Cutter v. Pollock, 4 N. D. 205, 59 N. W. 1062, 50 Am. St. Rep. 644, 25 L. R. A. 377. Ohio. — Stevenson v. Agry, 7 Ohio, 247; Barr v. Hatch, 3 Ohio, 527; Sack Y. Hemann, 6 Ohio Dec. 1104, 10 Am. h. Rec. 483; Grote v. Meyer, 6 Ohio Dec. 1025, 9 Am. L. Rec. 623; Hauel v. Mintzer, 1 Handy, 375. Okla. — Brittain v. Burnham, 9 Okla. 522, 60 Pac. 241; JaflFray v. Wolfe, 1 Okla. 312, 33 Pac. 945. Or. — Hesse v. Barrett, 41 Or. 202, 68 Pac. 751; Ladd v. Johnson, 32 Or. 195, 49 Pac. 756; Sabin v. Wilkins, 31 Or. 450, 48 Pac. 42S, 37 L. R. A. 465; Inman v. Sprague, 30 Or. 321, 47 Pac. 826; Marquam v. Sengf elder, 24 Or. 2, 32 Pac. 676; Kruse v. Prin- dle, 8 Or. 158. Pa. — Snayberger v. Fahl, 195 Pa. St. 336, 45 Atl. 1065, 78 Am. St. Rep. 818; Candee's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093; Penn Plate Glass Cb. V. Jones, 189 Pa. St. 290, 42 Atl. 189; Braden v. O'Neill, 183 Pa. St. 462, 38 Atl. 1023, 63 Am. St. Rep. 761; Werner v. Zierfuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737; Kitchen v. McClos- key, 150 Pa. St. 376, 24 Atl. 688, 30 462 FBAtJDULENT CoNVETANCES. would SO far lose the dominioiri over hisi own tliat he could not pay Am. St. Rep. 811; Lake Shore Bank- ing Co. V. Fuller, 110 Pa. St. 156, 1 Atl. 731; Walker v. Marine Nat. Bank, 98 Pa. St. 574; Bentz v. Roekey, 69 Pa. St. 71, 77; Keen v. Kleekner, 42 Pa. St. 529; York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Dec. 494; Uhler v. Maul- fair, 23 Pa. St. 481; Oovanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dee. 57 ; Worman v. Wolfersberger, 19 Pa. St. 59; Davis v. Charles, 8 Pa. St. 82; Blakley's Appeal, 7 Pa. St. 449; Russell's Appeal, 2 Walk. 363; Wilt T. Franklin, 1 Binn. 502, 2 Am. Dec. 474; In re Weldon's Estate, 31 Pa. Super. Ct. 47; Meyers v. Meyers, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 603; Harman v. Reese, 1 Browne, 11; Hammett v. Harrison, 1 Phila. 349. R. /.— Coates v. Wilson, 20 R. I. 106, 37 Atl. 537; Elliott v. Benedict, 13 R. I. 463. 8. C— McElwee v. Kennedy, 56 S. C. 154, 34 S. E. 86 ; Sloane v. Hunter, 56 S. C. 385, 34 S. E. 658, 879, 761 Am. St. Rep. 551; Perkins v. Doug- lass, 52 S. C. 129, 29 S. E. 400; Magovern v. Richard, 27 S. C. 272, 3 S. E. 340; MePherson v. McPherson, 21 S. C. 261 ; Thorpe v. Thorpe, 12 S. C. 154; Smith v. Henry, 1 Hill, 16; Cureton v. Doby, 10 Rich. Eq. 411, 73 Am. Dec. 96 ; Bird v. Aitken, Rice Eq. 73; Maples v. Maples, Rice Eq. 300. B. D.— Church v. Foley, 10 S. D. 74, 71 N. W. 759; Jewett v. Downs, 6 S. D. 319, 60 N. W. 76; Sandwich Mfg. Co. V. Max, 5 S. D. 125, 58 N. W. 14, 24 L. R. A. 524. Term. — Nelson v. Kinney, 93 Tenn. 428, 25 S. W. 100; Bennet v. Union Bank, 24 Tenn. 612; Warren v. Hin- son (Ch. App. 1899), 52 S. W. 498; McGrew v. Hancock (Ch. App. 1899), 52 S. W. 500; Feder v. Erwin (Ch. App. 1896), 38 S. W. 446, 36 L. R. A. 335. Tex. — Wallis v. Schneider, 79 Tex. 479, 15 S. W. 492; Owens v. Clark, 78 Tex. 547, 15 S. W. 101; Black v. Vaughan, 70 Tex. 47, 7 S. W. 604; Oppenheimer v. Halff, 68 Tex. 409, 4 S. W. 562; Scott V. McDaniel, 67 Tex. 315, 3 S. W. 291; Smith v. Whit- field, 67 Tex. 124, 2 S. W. 822; Ed- wards V. Dickson, 66 Tex. 613, 2 S. W. 718; Ellis v. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532; Lewy v. Fischl, 65 Tex. 311; Greenleve v. Blum, 59 Tex. 124; Igle- hart V. Willis, 58 Tex. 306; Frazer V. Thatcher, 49 Tex. 26; Thornton v. Tandy, 39 Tex. 544; Moore v. Robin- son (Civ. App. 1903), 75 S. W. 890; Bowie V. Hedriek (Civ. App. 1896), 35 S. W. 317; Scarborough v. Hilliard (Civ. App. 1894), 28 S. W. 231; Mar- tin-Brown Co. V. Siebe, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 232, 26 S. W. 327; Reynolds v. Weinman (Civ. App. 1894), 25 S. W. 33; Butler v. Sanger, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 411, 23 S. W. 487; California Bank v. Marshall, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 704, 23 S. W. 246; Loeb v. Leon, 2 Tex. Unrep. Cas. 445; Williams v. Perry, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 209; Numsen v. Ellis, 3 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 134; Gamble v. Talbot, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 729; Thompson v. Hervey, 2 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 506. Vtah. — Henderson v. Adams, 15 Utah, 30, 48 Pac. 398. Ft.— Marsh v. Davis, 24 Vt. 363; Morse v. Slason, 13 Vt. 296; Lyon v. Rood, 12 Vt. 233. Va. — Johnson v. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, 48 S. E. 497; Barton v. Brent, 87 Pkefeeences to Ceeditoes. 463 anybody, because whoever be paid would receive a preference.' The tests of the validity of a conveyaince are, therefore, said to turn not upon the right of a creditor to prefer, nor on the failure of the nonpreferred creditor to secure, his claim, but upon the honesty of the parties to the transaction in simply giving and receiving a preferemce, and the absence of any intent to secure a benefit for the debtor or to hinder or delay his other creditors.* Va. 385, 13 S. E. 29; Paul v. Baugh, 85 Va. 955, 9 S. E. 329; Lucas v. Clafflin, 76 Va. 269; Williams v. Lord, 75 Va. 390; MeCuUough v. Sommer- ville, 8 Leigh, 415 ; Skipwirth v. Cun- ningham, 8 Leigh, 271, 31 Am. Dec. 642. Wash. — Vietor v. Glover, 17 Wash. 37, 48 Pac. 788, 40 L. K. A. 297; Langert v. David, 14 Wash. 389, 44 Pac. 875; West Coast Grocery Co. v. Stinson, 13 Wash. 255, 43 Pac. 35; Samuel v. Kittenger, 6 Wash. 261, 33 Pac. 509; Turner v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 2 Wash. 192, 26 Pac. 256. W. Va. — Frank v. Zeigler, 46 W. Va. 614, 33 S. E. 761; Harden v. Wagner, 22 W. Va. 356. Wis. — ^Kickbusch v. Corwith, 108 Wis. 634, 85 N. W. 148; Haring v. Hamilton, 107 Wis. 112, 82 N. W. 698; Erdall v. Atwood, 79 Wis. 1, 47 N. W. 1124; Stevens v. Breen, 75 Wis. 595, 44 N. W. 645; Greene, etc., Co. V. Remington, 72 Wis. 648, 39 N. W. 767, 40 N. W. 643; Ingram v. Osborn, 70 Wis. 184, 35 N. W. 304; Landauer v. Vietor, 69 Wis. 434, 34 N. W. 229; Carter v. Eewey, 62 Wis. 552, 22 N. W. 129; Allen v. Ken- nedy, 49 Wis. 549, 5 N. W. 906; Gage V. Ohesebro, 49 Wis. 486, 5 N. W. 881. Con.— J)aglish v. McCarthy, 19 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 578; Atty.-Gen. V. Harmer, 16 Grant Ch. (U. 0.) 533; McMaster v. Clare, 7 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 550; Ashley v. Brown, 17 Ont. App. 500; Gurofski v. Harris, 27 Ont. 201, 23 Ont. App. 717; White V. Stevens, 7 U. C. Q. B. 340. Eng. — Maskelyne v. Smith (1902), 2 K. B. 158, 71 L. J. K. B. 476, 86 L. T. Rep. N. S. 832, 9 Manaon, 139; Alton v. Harrison, L. R. 4 Ch. 622, 38 L. J. Ch. 669, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 282, 17 Wkly. Rep. 1034; Middleton v. Pollock, 2 Ch. Div. 104, 45 L. J. Ch. 293; Wood v. Dixie, 7 Q. B. 892, 9 Jur. 796, 53 E. C. L. 892; Caillaud v. Extwick, 2 Anstr. 381, 5 T. R. 420; Goss v. Neale, 5 Moore C. P. 19, 16 E. C. L. 87; Pickstock v. Lyster, 3 M. & S. 371, 16 Rev. Rep. 300; Holbird v. Anderson, 5 T. R. 235; Meux V. Howell, 4 East, 1. 2. Reed v. Mclntyre, 98 U. S. 510; Mayer v. Hellman, 91 U. S. 500; Brashear v. West, 7 Pet. (U. S.) 608; Campbell v. Colorado Coal, etc., Co., 9 Colo. 65, 10 Pac. 248. 3. Tillou V. Britton, 9 N. J. L. 120. See also Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 209; Dalton v. Stiles, 74 Mich. 726, 42 N. W. 169; Braden v. O'Neil, 183 Pa. St. 462, 38 Atl. 1023, 63 Am. St. Rep. 761; Covan-hovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 57, for reasons of the rule set forth in the text. 4. Green v. McCrane, 55 N. J. Eq. 436, 37 Atl. 318. 464 Featjdulent Conveyances. The inquiry should be whether the act done was a bona fide transaction or a mere trick or contrivance to defeat creditors.* The statutes of 13 Elizabeth and other general statutes avoiding fraudulent conveyances in behalf of creditors and subsequent purchasers do not apply to amy conveyance made bona fide for valuable consideration, and do not prevent a debtor in failing circumstances from preferring on© class of creditors to another,' and such a preference, although its effect will be to deprive other creditors of the means of satisfying their claims and defeat their entire claim, does not of itself " hinder, delay, or defraud creditors " within the meaning of those statutes,'' since other creditors alleged to have been defrauded thereby have no legal right to priority f and such preference is n'ot fraudulent either in law or in fact.' A creditor has a right to seek and obtain from his debtor a preference for or payment of his debt to the ex- clusion of all other creditors, without any imputation of fraud upon either party,^" and he may take payment or security for his demand, though others are thereby deprived of all means of obtaining satisfaction of their own equally meritorious claims.-'* 5. Stewart v. English, 6 Ind. 176; Grocery Co. v. Stinson, 13 Wash. Attorney-Gteneral v. Harman, 16 255, 43 Pac. 35. Grant Ch. (U. C.) 533. The payment of a snm of 6. Skipwith's Ex'r y. Cunning- '""""'y *° P'"*""" » conveyance ham, 8 Leigh (Va.), 271, 31 Am. °f P">Perty, by a debtor to a cred- _ „ itor by way of preference, does not render the transaction fraudulent as 7. See cases generally cited in first to the other creditors, since it does note to this section. not withdraw anything from such 8. Johnson v. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, creditors to which they could he en- 48 S. E. 497. titled, but increases the remaining assets of the debtor. Bangs Milling 9. Uhler v. Maulfair, 23 Pa. St. 481. Co. V. Burns, supra. 11. Wheaton v. Neville, 19 Cal. 10. Mabhett v. White, 12 N. Y. 41; Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269; 442; Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. Williams v. Andrews, 185 111. 98, 56 145, 52 C. C. A. 107; Bangs Milling N. E. 1041, affg 84 111. App. 289; Co. V. Burns, 152 Mo. 350, 53 S. W. Gray v. St. John, 35 111. 222 ; Storey 923; Appeal of Candee, 193 Pa. St. v. Agnew, 2 111. App. 353; Ellis v. 644, 43 Atl. 1093; West Coast Valentine, 65 Tex. 532. Pbefeeences to Ceeditoes. 465 The preference may be by a judgment, a mortgage, a deed, a transfer of securities or choses in action, the sale of personal property, or the payment of money or otherwise.^ Where a debtor exercises the right of preference honestly, his acts, whether the preference be created by sale or pledge, are unimpeachable." Courts of equity as well as courts of law recognize the right, of a debtor to give a preference to one creditor over another," although preferences by insolvent debtors are not favored in courts of equity.^^ In the absence of any fraudulent intent, the motive which prompts the debtor to make the preference is not material. He may make it because he is under a legal, equitable, or moral obligation to do so, or he may do it from mere caprice or fancy and the law will uphold it, if made in good faith and in pay- ment of an honest debt.^* An agreement or promise by a debtor 12. Wilder v. Winnie, 6 Cow. (N. Y.) 284; Smith v. Craft, 12 Fed. 856, 11 Biss. (U. S.) 340. 13. Essex County v. Lindsley, 41 N. J. Eq. 189, 3 Atl. 391; York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Dec. 494. 14. N. Y. — Jackson v. Cornell, 1 Sandf. Ch. 438; Williams v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 682; Nicholl v. Mum- ford, 4 Johns. Ch. 522; McNenomy v. Roosevelt, 3 Johns. Ch. 446; Hende- licks V. Walden, 17 Johns. 438; Hendricks v. Robinson, 2 Johns. Ch. 283; Murry v. Riggs, 15 Johns. 571, rev'g 2 Johns. Ch. 565. Ga. — Lavender v. Thomas, 18 Ga. 668. Md. — Crawford v. Austin, 34 Md. 49. Miss. — ^Agricultural Bank v. Dor- sey, Freem. 338. 2^. J. — Green v. McCrane, 55 N. J. Eq. 436, 37 Atl. 318. OMo. — Hauel v. Mintzer, 1 Handy, 375, 12 Ohio Dec. 191. See also other cases cited in first note to this 30 section. 15. Williams v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. (N. Y.) 682; Woonsocket Rub- ber Co. V. Falley, 30 Fed. 808. 16. N. r.— National Park Bank v. Whitmore, 104 N. Y. 297, 10 N. E. 524; Grover v. Wakeman, 11 Wend. 187, 25 Am. Dec. 624. V. 8. — Marbury v. Brooks, 7 Wheat. 556, 5 L. Ed. 522, 11 Wheat. 78, 6 L. Ed. 423; Smith v. Craft, 12 Fed. 856, 11 Biss. 340, 17 Fed. 705, 123 U. S. 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267. 4io.— Bray v. Ely, 105 Ala. 553, 17 So. 180; Bates v. Van Diver, 102 Ala. 249, 14 So. 631; Kilgore v. Stoner (1892), 12 So. 60, preference to debtor's wife; First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 93 Ala. 97, 2 So. 548. III.— Wickler v. People, 68 111. App. 282. Ky. — ^Young v. Stallings, 5 B. Mon. 307. Md. — Crawford v. Austin, 34 Md. 49, preferences are no doubt always made from secret motives or induce- 466 Feaudulekt Conveyances. for a future preference in case of insolvency, or to make a prefer- ential assignment in favor of a particular creditor in case it be- comes necessary to protect him, is not in law a fraud upon other creditors, nor is it conclusive evidence of fraud." That a con- veyance in honest payment of a real debt is brought about by the action of other creditors in pressing their claims will not render it fraudulent,^* nor will the fact that the creditor preferred had not demanded payment.*^ A conveyance to a creditor for a fair price in satisfaction of a just debt will not be set aside on the mere conjecture that the purchaser may afford to the debtor fu- ture assistance, or because the debtor knows or expects that the purchaser will make some provision for the debtor's family.^" Since the law allows a debtor to prefer creditors, any conveyance by a debtor which has the effect of transferring property to one or more creditors at a fair valuation in payment of a debt or debts conceded to be just and honest is not fraudulent as against other creditors.^^ ments operating upon the mind of the grantor, but equity does not in- quire into them, if the debts are pre- ferred in good faith, and all the prop- erty of the grantor, without reserva- tion, is dedicated to the use and benefit of creditors. N. D. — Lockren v. Rustan, 9 N. D. 43, 81 N. W. 60. Ohio. — Barr v. Hatch, 3 Ohio, 527, •where the motive of the debtor was to prevent sacrifice of his property. S. C— -Thorpe v. Thorpe, 12 S. C. 154; Cureton v. Doby, 10 Rich. Eq. 411, 73 Am. Dec. 96. Tenn. — Jones v. CuUen, 100 Tenn. 1, 42 S. W. 873. Tex. — Greenleve v. Blum, 59 Tex. 124. Can. — ^Attorney-General v. Harmer, 16 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 533; McMas- ter V. Clare, 7 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 550. Eng. — Wood v. Dixie, 7 Q. B. 892, 9 Jur. 796, 53 E. C. L. 892. 17. National Park Bank v. Whit- more, 104 AT Y. 297, 10 N. E. 524; Smith V. Craft, 17 Fed. 705. See also Haydock v. Coope, 53 N. Y. 68; Spaulding v. Strang, 37 N. Y. 135, 38 N. Y. 1; Walker v. Adair, 1 Bond (U. S.), 158; Anderson v. Lachs, 59 Mass. 111. 18. McAlister v. Honea, 71 Miss. 256, 14 So. 264. 19. McFadden v. Ross, 126 Ind. 341, 26 N. E. 76. 20. Young V. Stallings, 44 Ky. 307; Hesse v. Barrett, 41 Or. 202, 68 Pac. 751; McPherson v. McPher- son, 21 S. C. 261; Cureton v. Doby, 10 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 411, 73 Am. Dec. 96. 21. Hooker v. Sutcliff, 71 Miss. 792, 15 So. 140, the fact that a cred- itor secured by mortgage waives his Peefebences to Cbeditoes. 467 § 2. Statutory provisions. — In several states the common law right of a debtor to prefer creditors is recognized and affirmed by the statutes.^^ But provisions limiting and restricting the right to give preferences are contained in the federal bankruptcy act/^ the insolvency laws of various states/* the statutes relating to assignments for the benefit of creditors/^ and other statutes de- signed to enforce just and equitable distribution of a debtor's property to his creditors.^^ In cases not within these statutes lien upon specific property in favor of a creditor whose claim is as meritorious as that of any other creditor will not render such mortgage fraudulent; First Nat. Bank v. North, 2 S. D. 480, 51 N. W. 96, an agreement that a debtor shall execute a chattel mortgage upon his entire stock of goods, but reserving the right to withdraw a certain amount of such goods to be turned over to another creditor in payment of a just claim, is not fraudulent as against other creditors, nor is the chattel mortgage executed and de- livered under such agreement; Ten- nant, etc., Shoe Co. v. Partridge, 82 Tex. 329, 18 S. W. 310, a creditor who holds a note due his insolvent debtor as security for his debt, and who surrenders it at the debtor's re- quest to another hona fide creditor of the debtor, does not thereby commit a fraud on other creditors that will per se render void a subsequent turn- ing over of property by the debtor to him in payment of his debts, if the note was not surrendered in contem- plation of the property being turned over to him; Martin-Brown Co. v. Siebe, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 232, 26 S. W. 327, the fact that the insolvent debtor was induced by his counsel to prefer a creditor also represented by such counsel, instead of another first named, in order that such other cred- itor should be forced to purchase the property, does not invalidate such preference. 22. Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. 626, 35 Pac. 323, Cal. Code Civ. Proc., § 3433; Brittain v. Burnham, 9 Okla. 522, 60 Pac. 241, St. 1893, § 2660; First Nat. Bank v. North, 2 S. D. 480, 51 N. W. 96, Comp. Laws, § 4653; Frees v. Barker, 81 Tex. 216, 16 S. W. 900, 13 L. R. A. 340, Tex. Eev. St. art. 2365. 23. Bankr. Act, 1898, § 60a. 24. See Statutes of the several states. 25. See Statutes. 26. In Ohio imder a statute pro- viding that transfers by a debtor with intent to hinder, delay, or de- fraud creditors shall be declared void at the suit of any creditor, the intent to prefer is made constructively fraudulent, rendering the transfer voidable, and it is not necessary, in order to set aside a transfer, that actual fraud or intent to defraud be shown. Barber v. Coit, 144 Fed. 381. In Louisiana all preferences are prohibited except payments in money, under the provisions of the Civil Code. Johnson v. Marx Levy & Bro., 109 La. 1036, 34 So. 68; Petetin v. His Creditors, 51 La. Ann. 1660, 26 So. 471; Minge v. Barbre, 51 468 Feaudttlent Conveyances. preferences are valid as stated in the last section.^' For example, a failing debtor may prefer any of his creditors, by a bill of sale, confession of judgment, or otherwise, to the extent of his entire property, where the statute limiting the amount of preference only applies to general assignments for the benefit of creditors and does not prohibit the debtor from exercising his general com- La. Ann. 1285, 26 So. 180, the prop- erty of the debtor is the common pledge of his creditors, and any ar- rangement, whether through the ma- chinery of the courts, or otherwise, whereby the debtor unites with one creditor to give such creditor an ad- vantage over others, is In violation of the prohibitions of the law, and will not be permitted to stand; Ap- pleby v. Lehman, 51 La. Ann. 473, 25 So. 132; Xigues v. Eivas, the pay- ments of just debts in money are valid, although the debtor is insol- vent and the fact is known to the creditor. Compare Sentell v. Hewitt, 49 La. Ann. 1021, 22 So. 242. A man may lawfully surrender to his creditors all property he has, and, unless the vendor of particular goods has preserved his privilege, the pro- ceeds of the goods will be distributed among his creditors; and he may give his wife, whom the law prefers to all other creditors, such goods in satisfaction of her lawful claim against him for paraphernal property received and alienated by him, so that she may acquire a perfect title thereto, unless it is encumbered with a vendor's privilege. Compton v. Dietlein & Jacobs (1906), 42 So. 964. In Nebraska n, creditor may se- cure his own debt by taking ade- quate security, but cannot cover up all of his debtor's property so that other creditors cannot reach it, where such property greatly exceeds the amount of his claim; but he must limit his security to a sufficient amount to satisfy his claims. Brown V. Work, 1 Neb. L. J. 437, 47 N. W. 192; Russell v. Lau, 1 Neb. L. J. 442, 47 N. W. 193; Morse v. Stein- rod, 29 Neb. 108, 1 Neb. L. J. 300, 46 N. W. 922. In Nortli Carolina preferences were prohibited by the statute of 1895, which was held to apply only to conveyances made to secure pre- existing debts, and not debts created when the conveyance was executed. Farthing v. Carrington, 116 N. C. 315, 22 S. E. 9. This statute was repealed in 1897. See also McKay v. Gilliam, 65 N. C. 130. In Canada the statutes have been construed in a nvunber of cases. Stephens v. McArthur, 19 Can. Sup. Ct. 446; Molson Bank v. Halter, 18 Can. Sup. Ct. 88; Long v. Hancock, 12 Can. Sup. Ct. 532; Toronto Bank v. McDougall, 15 U. C. C. P. 475; Ferrie v. Cleghorn, 19 U. C. Q. B. 241. 27. Habeggar v. Kipp, 96 Minn. 456, 105 N. W. 489; First State Bank v. Sibley County Bank, 96 Minn. 456, 105 N. W. 485. See also cases cited in first note to last pre- ceding section. Peefeeences to Cbeditoes. 469 mon law right of preference.^ But a statute declaring invalid any preference given by an insolvent, applies as well to a transfer of specific property for particular debts as to a general assign- ment for the benefit of creditors.^* In some states preferences given in contemplation of insolvency are declared by statute to inure to the benefit of all the creditors and provision is made for enforcing the rights of creditors under the statute.'* But these statutes have been held not to render conveyances fraudulent or void as against creditors on the ground that they are preferential, except in proceedings under the act and where they are not at- tacked conveyances making preferences are valid as at common law.'* §' 3. Constitutionality of statutes. — The right of a debtor, when solvent, to transfer property is within the constitutional protection of property rights, and is violated by a statute declar- ing that every transfer of property to prefer creditors, or which " would have that effect," shall be void, without limiting it to cases of insolvency, and such a statute is, therefore, _ unconsti- tutional.'^ § 4. What law governs. — The validity of a transfer of real estate made by a debtor to his creditors by way of preference is 28. Gomez v. Hagaman, 84 Hun 31. Eedd v. Redd, 23 Ky. L. Rep. (N. Y.), 148, 32 N. Y. Supp. 453; 2379, 67 S. W. 367; Hoover v. Wharton V. Clements, 3 Del. Ch. 209; Hawks, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 190, 51 S. W. Young V. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. 606; Atkins v. Hoeberlin, 19 Ky. L. E. 187, 35 N. B. 372; Schroeder v. Rep. 1547, 43 S. W. 711; Rosenberg Walsh,' 120 111. 403, 11 N. E. 70; v. Smith, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 341, 40 S. Berry v. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 29, 21 W. 243; Penniman v. Cole, 49 Mass. N. W. 840; Eldridge v. Phillipson, 496; Dyson v. St. Paul Nat. Bank, 58 Miss. 270; Jaflfray v. Mathews, 74 Minn. 439, 77 N. W. 236, 73 Am. 120 Mo. 317. 25 S. W. 187; Kava- St. Rep. 358; Berry v. O'Conner, 33 naueh v Oberfelder, 37 Neb. 647, 56 Minn. 20, 21 N. W. 840; Bartles v. jj. ^ 3^g Dodd, 56 W. Va. 383, 49 S. E. 414. 29 Wolf V McGergin, 37 W. Va. 32. Third Nat. Bank v. Divine 552 16 S. E. 797. Grocery Co., 97 Tenn. 603, 37 S. W. SO See statutes of the several 390, 34 L. R. A. 445; Stratton v. states; Ex parte Jordan, 50 Mass. Morris, 89 Tenn. 497, 15 S. W. 87, 292. 12 L. R. A. 70. 470 Fkaudulent Conveyances. governed and determined by the law of the state or jurisdiction, where the property conveyed is situated and not by that of the jurisdiction where the contract was made or the transfer exe- cuted/^ But the legality of a transfer of personal property by a debtor to his creditor as a preference is to be determined by the law of the place where the contract was made, and not by the law of the place where the goods were received by the creditor, when nothing remains for the creditor to do but receive the goods on their arrival and apply them on his claim.'* The transfer of property by a debtor cannot be set aside as fraudulent because it was contrary to the United States bankrupt act, and void, under that act, by reason of a preference thereby given to one creditor over others, where such preference was valid under the law of the state at the time.'^ A preference given by an insolvent non-resident debtor to a bona fide creditor cannot be avoided by an attaching creditor, as such debtor is not controlled by the insolvent laws.'* § 5. Nature and form of preference in general. — In the ab- sence of a bankrupt law, a debtor is not deprived of the absolute control of his unincumbered property by mere insolvency. His . debts are only personal obligations and so long as he acts in good faith and in a manner not prohibited by law he may deal with it as he sees fit.'^ As an insolvent debtor may prefer one creditor to another, or to the exclusion of all others, his purpose to do so is lawful, and the means employed by him to carry it into effect, or the particular form of the transaction by which it is accom- plished, are not material so far as the rights of other creditors are concerned, imless they are such as are expressly prohibited by 3,3. Brown v. Early, 63 Ky. 369; 35. Smith v. Deidrick, 30 Minn. Chipman v. Peabody, 159 Mass. 420, 60, 14 N. W. 262; Park v. Bamber- 34 N. E. 563, 38 Am. St. Rep. 437; ger, 52 Miss. 565. Brannon v. Brannon, 2 Disn. (Ohio), 224. ,34. Koster v. Merritt, 32 Conn. 246; Kahn v. Fischbein, 55 Minn. 37. Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. 509, 57 N. W. 154. Y. 692, 704, 49 N. B. 65. 36. Sawyer v. Levy, 162 Mass. 190, 38 N. E. 365. Pbefekences to Ceeditoes. 471 statute.'* Under the rules and principles stated in the preceding sections of this chapter, a valid preference by an insolvent debtor may be made to one or more creditors by the conveyance by deed or other instrument of transfer of real or personal property, either directly to the creditor in payment and satisfaction of his debt or claim,'' or to a third person for the benefit of such credi- tor or creditors,^" or to a trustee for the benefit of the creditors 38. N. T. — ^Delaney v. Valentine, supra; Wilder v. Winne, 6 Cow. 284. U. S. — Riee v. Adler-Goldman Com- mission Co., 71 Fed. 151, 18 C. C. A. 15. • Gal. — ^Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. €26, 35 Pae. 323. III. — Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wat- son, 113 111. 195. Md. — Anderson v. Tydings, 3 Md. Ch. 167, 8 Md. 427, 63 Am. Dec. 708. N. J. — Metropolis Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13. Pa. — ^York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Dec. 494; Uhler V. Maulpair, 23 Pa. St. 481; Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 57. Wash. — ^Troy v. Morse, 22 Wash. 280, 60 Pac. 648; Vietor v. Glover, 17 Wash. 37, 48 Pac. 788, 40 L. R. A. 297. 39. If. T. — Obermeyer v. Jung, 51 App. Div. 247, 64 N. Y. Supp. 959; Drury v. Wilson, 4 App. Div. 232, 38 K. Y. Supp. 538. U. S. — Bamberger v. Schoolfleld, 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ot. 225, 40 L. Ed. 374; Smith v. Craft, 12 Fed. 856, 11 Biss. 340, appeal dismissed, 123 U. S. 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267. Ala.— Cook V. Thornton, 109 Ala. 523, 20 So. 14; Bray v. Ely, 105 Ala. 553, 17 So. 180; Goetter v. Smith, 104 Ala. 481, 16 So. 534; Schloss v. MoGuire, 102 Ala. 626, 15 So. 275; Bates V. Vandiver, 102 Ala. 249, 14 So. 631; Fargason v. Hall, 99 Ala. 209, 13 So. 302; Pollock v. Meyer, 96 Ala. 172, 11 So. 385; Ellison v. Moses, 95 Ala. 221, 11 So. 347. III.— OakfoTd V. Dunlap, 63 111. App. 498. Ind. — ^Thomas v. Johnson, 137 Ind. 244, 36 N. E. 893. Kan. — Schram v. Taylor, 51 Kan. 547, 33 Pao. 315. K]/. — ^Young v. Stallings, 44 Ky. 307. Md. — Commonwealth Bank v. Kearns, 100 Md. 202, 59 Atl. 1010; Thompson v. Williams, 100 Md. 195, 60 Atl. 26. Mo. — ^Kuykendall v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 416, 57 Am. Dec. 212. Pa. — Snayberger v. Fahl, 195 Pa. St. 336, 45 Atl. 1065, 78 Am. Dec. 818; Clemens v. Davis, 7 Pa. St. 263. Tesc. — Greenleve v. Blum, 59 Tex. 124. F*.— Lyon v. Rood, 12 Vt. 233. Tbat a debtor sold his stock of goods -nlthoiit inventory and -witlioat inspection by the ven- dee, in payment of a pre-existing debt, does not render the sale fraud- ulent as to other creditors. Cocke v. Carrington Shoe Co. (Miss. 1895), 18 So. 683. 40. Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 692, 49 N. E. 65, rev'g 11 App. Div. (N. Y.) 631, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1123, and distinguishinff Sutherland v. 472 Feaudulent Convetances. to be preferred, unless the deed of trust falls within the prohibi* tion of the assignment laws or is tainted with fraud ;" by mortgage of the real e^ate or personal property of the debtor or both,^ Bradner, 116 N. Y. 410, 22 N. E. 554; Collomb V. Caldwell, 16 N. Y. 486; Barney v. Griffin, 2 N. Y. 365; Good- rich V. Downs, 6 Hill (N. Y.), 438, a transfer by a debtor whose property is insufficient to pay his debts in full, of a portion of his property to a third person to secure a part of his credi- tors, is not within the Statute of Per- sonal Uses, when it contains no pro- vision for returning any surplus, and if made in good faith, for the purpose of giving lawful preferences -in the payment of honest debts, and so not . fraudulent in fact, it is not fraudu- lent in law, but is valid as against other creditors; Morse v. Slason, 13 Vt. 296, an insolvent debtor may pre- fer some one of his creditors by a deed of land, duly executed and de- livered to a third person in trust, to be delivered to the grantee at the de- cease of the grantor, unless he shall otherwise direct during his lifetime. 41. V. 8. — ^Union Bank v. Kansas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223, 10 Sup. Ct. 1013, 34 L. Ed. 341, overruling Mar- tin V. Hausman, 14 Fed. 160, and cases following it; Bean v. Patterson, 122 U. S. 496, 7 Sup. a. 1298, 30 L. Ed. 1126; Ontario Bank v. Hurst, 103 Fed. 231, 43 C. C. A. 193. Ala. — Stetson v. Miller, 36 Ala. 642; Miller v. Stetson, 32 Ala. 161; Evans v. Lamar, 21 Ala. 333. Ark. — Dews v. Cornish, 20 Ark. 332. <7oZ.— Heath v. Wilson, 139 Cal. 362, 73 Pae. 182. Mass. — New England Mar. Ins. Co. V. Chandler, 16 Mass. 275; Stevens v. Bell, 6 Mass. 339; Henshaw v. Sum- ner, 23 Pick. 446. Mich. — Geer v. Traders' Bank, 132 Mich. 215, 93 N. W. 437. Miss. — Baldwin v. Flash, 58 Miss. 593. Mo. — Wood V. Porter, 179 Mo. 56, 77 S. W. 762, deed of trust of debtor's equity of redemption; Crothers v. Busch, 153 Mo. 606, 55 S. W. 149; Jaffrey v. Mathews, 120 Mo. 317, 25 S. W. 187; Crow v. Beardsley, 6S Mo. 435; Bell v. Thompson, 3 Mo. 84. N. J. — ^National Bank of Metropo- lis V. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13. Tenn. — Fidelity, etc., Co. v. O'Brien (Ch. App. 1896), 38 S. W. 417. Tex. — Johnson v. Robinson, 68 Tex. 399, 4 S. W. 625; Iglehart v. Willis,. 58 Tex. 306; Martin-Brown Co. v. Siebe, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 232, 26 S. W. 327; Pessels v. Schwab Clothing Co. (Civ. App. 1894), 25 S. W. 814; But- ler V. Sanger, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 411, 2a S. W. 487. Eng. — ^Alton v. Harrison, L. E. 4 Ch. 622, 38 L. J. Ch. 669, 21 L. T. Rep. N. S. 282, 17 Wkly. Rep. 1034. Under the Georgia statnte a conveyance by an insolvent debtor in; trust for a part of his creditors was void as to the creditors excluded. Norton v. Cobb, 20 Ga. 44; Brown v. Lee, 7 Ga. 267; Ezekiel v. Dixon, 3 Ga. 146. 42. N. Y. — Delaney v. Valentine, 154 N. Y. 692, 49 N. E. 65; Carpenter V. Muren, 42 Barb. 300. See also New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 69 App. Dlv. 153, 74 N. Y. Supp. 692, aff'd 174 N. Y. 544, 67 N. E. 1086; Manchester v. Tibbetts, 4 N. Y. Supp. 23. Pbefebences to Ckeditoes. 473 unless the mortgage by its terms attempts to prevent access by the V. S.— Davis V. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Huiskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310. 7 Sup. Ct. 899, 30 L. Ed. 791; Foster v. McAIester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. 0. A. 107. Ala. — ^MeWilliams v. Rodgers, 56 Ala. 87. Arlc. — Marquese v. Felsenthal, 58 Ark. 293, 24 S. W. 493; Huflf v. Eoane, 22 Ark. 184; Cox v. Fraley, 26 Ark. 20. Col.— Wood V. Franks, 67 Cal. 32, 7 Pac. 50. (hi. — ^Hollingsworth, v. Johns, 92 Ga. 428, 17 S. E. 621; Solomon v. Sparks, 27 Ga. 385; Lavender v. Thomas, 18 Ga. 668; Davis v. Ander- son, 1 Ga. 176. III. — Union Nat. Bank v. State Nat. Bank, 168 111. 256, 48 N. E. 169, aff'g 68 III. App. 431; Weber v. Mick, 131 III. 520, 23 N. E. 646; Kahn v. Kohn, 35 111. App. 437. Ind. — ^Ayers v. Adams, 82 Ind. 109. loica. — Cathoart v. Grieve, 104 Iowa, 330, 73 N. W. 835; Southern White Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Iowa, 390, 33 N. W. 657, 35 N. W. 494; Farwell v. Howard, 26 Iowa, 381; Fromme v. Jones, 13 Iowa, 474. Kan. — Matthewson v. Caldwell, 59 Kan. 126, 52 Pac. 104; Connor v. Hardwiok, 53 Kan. 60, 35 Pac. 777; First Nat. Bank v. Naill, 52 Kan. 211, 34 Pac. 797; Standard Implement Co. V. Parlin, etc., Co., 51 Kan. 632, 33 Pac. 362; First Nat. Bank v. Ride- nour, 46 Kan. 707, 27 Pac. 150, 26 Am. St. Rep. 167; Randall v. Shaw, 28 Kan. 419. Ky. — ^Brewer v. Cosby, 71 Ky. 388; Kennaird v. Adams, 50 Ky. 102; Robinson v. Collier, 50 Ky. 332, 52 Am. Dec. 572. Mass. — Henshaw v. Sumner, 40 Mass. 446; Harrison v. Phillips Acad- emy, 12 Mass. 456. Mich. — Ferris v. McQueen, 94 Mich. 367, 54 N. W. 164; Warner v. Little- fleld, 89 Mich. 329, 50 N. W. 721; Whitfield V. Stiles, 57 Mich. 410, 24 N. W. 119; Adams v. Niemann, 46 Mich. 135, 8 N. W. 719. Miss. — Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749, 2 Am. Rep. 653. Mo. — Sohroeder v. Bobbitt, 108 Mo. 289, 18 S. W. 1093; Colbern v. Robin- son, 80 Mo. 541; Donk Bros. Coal, etc., Co. V. Stevens, 74 Mo. App. 39. 2fe6.-— Grand Island Banking Co. v. Costello, 45 Neb. 119, 63 N. W. 376; Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. v. McPheely, 37 Neb. 800, 56 N. W. 389; First Nat. Bank v. Lowrey, 36 Neb. 290, 54 N. W. 568; Davis v. Scott, 27 Neb. 642, 43 N. W. 407; Grimes r. Farrington, 19 Neb. 44, 26 N. W. 618. y. J. — Green v. McCrane, 55 N. J. Eq. 436, 37 Atl. 318; Metropolis Nat. Bank v. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13; Jones V. Naughright, 10 N. J. Eq. 298. y. /).— Cutter V. Pollack, 4 N. D. 205, 59 N. W. 1062, 50 Am. St. Rep. 644, 25 L. R. A. 377. Ohio. — ^Kemp v. Walker, 16 Ohio, 118. Okla. — Jaffray v. Wolf, 1 Okla. 312, 35 Pac. 945. Pa. — Lindle v. Neville, 13 Serg. & R. 227. S. C. — Bomar v. Means, 53 S. C. 232, 31 S. E. 234; McGee v. Wells, 52 S. C. 472, 30 S. E. 602; Central, etc., R. Co. V. Claghorn, Speers Eq. 545. 8. C— Jones v. Meyer, 7 S. D. 152, 63 N. W. 773. Term. — Phillips v. Cunningham 474 rEAUDULENT CONVEYANCES. unsecured creditors to the equity of redemption ;*' by a confession of judgment;" by allowing a judgment to be taken by default;** (Ch. App. 1899), 58 S. W. 463; Mc- Grew V. Hancock (Ch. App. 1899), 52 S. W. 500. Tew. — Compton v. Marshall, 88 Tex. 50, 27 S. W. 121, 28 S. W. 518, 29 S. W. 1059; Martin-Brown Co. v. Siebe, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 232, 26 S. W. 327. Ft.— McGregor v. Chase, 37 Vt. 225. Wash. — Turner v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 2 Wash. 192, 26 Pac. 256. Wis.— Kickbusch v. Corwith, 108 Wis. 634, 85 N. W. 148; Stevens v. Breen, 75 Wis. 595, 44 N. W. 645; Chicago CoflBn Co. v. Maxwell, 70 Wis. 282, 35 N. W. 733. See Berry V. O'Connor, 33 Minn. 29, 21 N. W. 840, as to effect of insolvent law. 43. Chafee v. Blatchford, 6 Mackey (D. C), 459. 44. A', r.— Galle v. Todd, 148 N. Y. 270, 42 N. E. 673, aff'g 74 Hun, 542, 26 N. Y. Supp. 633; Columbus Watch Co. V. Hodenpyl, 135 N. Y. 430, 32 N. E. 239, aff'g 61 Hun, 557, 16 N. Y. Supp. 337 ; Robinson v. Haw- ley, 45 App. Div. 287, 61 N. Y. Supp. 138; Kothchild v. Mannesovitch, 29 App. Div. 580, 51 N. Y. Supp. 253; London v. Martin, 79 Hun, 229, 29 N. Y. Supp. 396, aff'd 149 N. Y. 586, 44 N. E. 1125; Childs v. Latham, 60 Hun, 578, 14 N. Y. Supp. 507; Stein V. Levy, 55 Hun, 381, 8 N. Y. Supp. 505; Beards v. Wheeler, 11 Hun, 539; Williams v. Brown, 4 Johns. Ch. 682. TJ. 8. — Rice v. Adler-Goldman Com- mission Co., 71 Fed. 151, 18 C. C. A. 15. Ala. — Warren v. Hunt, 114 Ala. 506, 21 So. 939. Compare First Nat. Bank v. Acme White Lead, etc., Co., 123 Ala. 344, 26 So. 354. Oal. — ^Meeker v. Harris, 19 Cal. 278, 79 Am. Dec. 215. Del. — Slessinger v. Topkis, 1 Marr. 140, 40 Atl. 717. III. — Havens, etc., Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 162 111. 35, 44 N. E. 384; Young V. Clapp, 147 111. 176, 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. 372; Chicago Stamp- ing Co. V. Hanchett, 25 111. App. 198. Md. — Citizens' F., etc., Ins. Co. t. Wallis, 23 Md. 173. Miss. — ^Holberg v. Jaffray, 64 Miss. 746, 2 So. 168. 3fo.— Hard v. Foster, 98 Mo. 297, 11 S. W. 760. N. J. — Goodwin v. Hamill, 26 N. J. Eq. 24. Ohio. — Hauel v. Mintzer, 1 Handy, 375, 12 Ohio Dec. 191. Po.— Appeal of Candee, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093; Braden v. O'Neil, 183 Pa. St. 462, 38 Atl. 1023, 63 Am. St. Rep. 761; Werner v. Zier- fuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737; Lake Shore Banking Co. v. Fuller, 110 Pa. St. 156, 1 Atl. 731; Walker t. Marine Nat. Bank, 98 Pa. St. 574; Keen v. Kleckner, 42 Pa. St. 529; Guy V. Mcllree, 26 Pa. St. 92; Wor- man v. Wolfersberger, 19 Pa. St. 59; Davis V. Charles, 8 Pa. St. 82; Ap- peal of Blakley, 7 Pa. St. 449; Greenwalt v. Austin, 1 Grant, 169; Haldeman v. Michael, 6 Watts & S. 128, 40 Am. Deo. 546; Heiney v. An- derson, 9 Lane. Bar, 12; Wetmore t. Wisner, 2 Luz. Leg. Obs. 204. 8. C— Sloan v. Hunter, 56 S. C. 385, 34 S. E. 658, 76 Am. St. Rep. 551; Weinges v. Cash, 15 S. C. 44; Bevins v. Dunham, 1 Speers, 39; Cureton v. Doby, 10 Rich. Eq. 411, 73 Am. Dec. 96 ; Bird v. Aitken, Rice Eq. 73 ; Hill V. Rogers, Rice Eq. 7. Pbefeeences to Ceeditoes. 475 by consenting to an order in a creditors' suit requiring the debtor to transfer property to the receiver;*^ or by having a policy of life insurance on his life made payable to one or more creditors.*' A conveyance absolute in terms but intended by the parties to operate as a mortgage is not, as a rule, necessarily fraudulent as to the grantor's creditors, but may be given effect as a mortgage.*' The fraudulent intent of the debtor cannot be imputed to the creditor who consents to confession of judgment in his favor, nor does such consent create the relation of principal and agent be- tween the parties.*' Fraud cannot be inferred from the fact that a single judgment by confession includes the separate claims of several creditors, the object being to place them on a footing of equality. Indeed the practice is rather to be commended, in- asmuch as it gives the judgment creditors equal rights and pre- vents a race of diligence which might occur if separate judgments were given.^ Where a partner desiring to prefer a creditor of the firm, the other partner being unwilling to do so, assists the creditor in suing out an attachment against the firm, his act Va. — Johnson v. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, debtor. Pierce v. Partridge, 44 Mass. 48 S. E. 497. 44. Eng.—MeMX v. Howell, 4 East, 1; 46. Young v. Clapp, 147 111. 176, Holdbird v. Anderson, 5 T. R. 235. 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. B. 372. 45. Kothchild v. Mannesovitch, 29 47. Dunckel v. Failing, 52 Hun (N". App. Div. (N. Y.) 580, 51 N. Y. Supp. Y.), 615, 5 N. Y. Supp. 504. 253, a judgment by default which 48. Doswell v. Adler, 28 Ark. 82; gives preference to a certain credi- Catheart v. Grieve, 104 Iowa, 330, 73 tor, though irregularly rendered, is N. W. 835; Harrison v. Phillips not to be deemed on that account Academy, 12 Mass. 456. Compare alone a fraudulent one; Appeal of Fuller v. GrifiBth, 91 Iowa, 632, 60 N. Morgan, 20 Pa. St. 152; Worman v. W. 247; Ellis v. Musselman, 61 Neb. Wolfers'berger, 19 Pa. St. 59. 262, 85 N. W. 75. See also Absolute Oontro.— Wright v. Fergus Falls conveyance as security, chap. VI, § Nat. Bank, 48 Minn. 120, 50 N. W. 15, supra; Secret reservations of jQoQ trusts, chap. X, § 14, supra. Where a debtor submits to a de- 49. Hard v. Foster, 98 Mo. 297, fault, and judgment is taken by the 11 S. W. 760. See Preference not in- creditor for the whole claim in suit, validated by mere fraudulent intent though such claim has been partly ! 23, infra. satisfied, the judgment is void in toto 50. Harris v. Alcock, 10 Gill & J. against attaching creditors of the (Md.) 226, 32 Am. Dec. 158. 476 Feaudulent Conveyances. does not necessarily render the suit a collusive one as against other firm creditors." A valid preference may be effected by the debtor's organizing a corporation, transferring his property to the company, and having stock issued to pay or secure certain, of his creditors.^^ § 6. Sale to pay debts to preferred creditors. — An insolvent or failing debtor, who has the right to prefer certain creditors, is not required, in the exercise of that right, to convey his property directly to such creditors, but he may sell and transfer his prop- erty at a fair valuation to a responsible third person, and pay the proceeds to certain creditors to the exclusion of others,^' al- though the purchaser knows of the insolvency of the debtor and 51. Hyman v. Stadler, 63 Miss. 362. See also Collusive attachment, chap. 11, § 15, supra. 52. Fisher v. Campbell, 101 Fed. 156, 41 C. C. A. 256; Scripps v. Crawford, 123 Mich. 173, 81 N. W. 1098; Troy v. Morse, 22 Wash. 280, 60 Pac. 648. Compare Colorado Trading, etc., Co. v. Acres Conmiis- sion Co., 18 Colo. App. 253, 70 Pae. 954. See also Organization of cor- poration, chap. II, § 16, supra. 53. AT. Y.— Ruhl V. Phillips, 48 N. Y. 125, 8 Am. Rep. 522; Bedell v. Chase, 34 N. Y. 386. V. S. — Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299, 18 L. Ed. 786. Ala. — Fargason v. Hall, 99 Ala. 209, 13 So. 302. Cal. — Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. 626, 35 Pac. 323. Compare Mamlock V. White, 20 Cal. 598. III. — ^Holbrook v. First Nat. Bank, 10 111. App. 140. Ind. — Wilcoxon v. Annesley, 23 Ind. 285, where a creditor bought the debtor's goods and paid his own debt and debts of other preferred credi- tors; Anderson v. Smith, 5 Bladcf. 395. Kan. — Bishop v. Jones, 28 Kan. 680. Pa. — ^York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Dec. 494. ye».— Ellis V. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532. Vt. — Gregory v. Harrington, 33 Vt. 241. But under statutes pTobibit- ing preferences by a. debtor when insolvent or contemplating insolvency, a sale to pay preferred creditors is unlawful. King v. Moody, 79 Ky. 63; and the preferred creditor must bring in the money so received to be distributed ratably in payment pro tanto of the debts due to him and the creditors at whose instance the trans- action is set aside. Powers-Taylor Drug Co. V. Faulconer, 52 W. Va. 581, 44 S. B. 204; Wolf v. MeGugin, 37 W. Va. 552, 16 S. E. 797. The rem- edy of a creditor who sufiFers by such preferential act is to institute a suit to have it treated as an assign- ment for the benefit of all the credi- tors. Hoover v. Hawks, 21 Ky. L> Kep. 190, 51 S. W. 606. Peefekences to (Jeeditoes. 477 of his intent to make a preference/* and although the sale is made on credit, the vendor taking the purchaser's notes,^^ unless the purchaser knows of the vendor's fraudulent intent to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors.^' An insolvent or failing debtor may sell his property to a third person in consideration that the purchaser pay certain debts owing by the debtor to certain speci- fied creditors in the absence of any fraudulent intent.^' Thus, deeds executed by one who was largely indebted as endorser of notes of a corporation in which he was a stockholder, conveying property to his children, for a consideration which was not inade- quate, and which was fully paid by taking up such of the obliga- tions upon which the father was endorser as he directed, are 54. N. r.— Euhl V. Phillips, 48 N. Y. 125, 8 Am. Kep. 522. U. S.— Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. 299, 18 L. Ed. 786. Cal. — Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. 626, 35 Pac. 323. Pa. — York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Deo. 494. Tex. — Ellis V. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532. Vt. — Gregory v. Harrington, 33 Vt. 241. 55. Ruhl V. Phillips, 48 N. Y. 125, 8 Am. Eep. 522; Bedell v. Chase, 34 N. Y. 386; Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall, (U. S.) 299, 18 L. Ed. 786; Priest V. Brown, 100 Cal. 626, 35 Pac. 323; Gregory v. Harrington, 33 Vt. 241. 56. Ruhl V. Philips, 48 N. Y. 125, 8 Am. Eep. 522. 57. U. 8. — Blackmore v. Parkes, 81 Fed. 899, 26 C. C. A. 670. Ind. — Wilcoxon v. Annesley, 23 Ind. 285; Anderson v. Smith, 5 Blackf. 395. Ky. — Rosenberg v. Smith, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 341, 40 S. W. 243, such a sale is valid iinless attacked under the statute. Or.— Hesse v. Barrett, 41 Or. 202, 68 Pac. 751. Pa.— Uhler v. Manlfair, 23 Pa. St. 481. Tex. — ^Ellis V. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532. Wis. — Greene, etc., Co. v. Reming- ton, 72 Wis. 648, 39 S. W. 767, 40 N. W. 643; Ingram v. Osborn, 70 Wis. 184, 35 N. W. 304. Assnmptioa of debts by grantee. — When an insolvent mer- cantile firm sells its stock of mer- chandise to a disinterested party, such purchaser may, as a part of the purchase money, make a note pay- able directly to a, bank that holds the note of said firm for a bona fide pre-existing debt, and substitute such note for the note of said firm held by the bank, under Code, chap. 74, § 2, as amended by Acts 1895, chap. 4, making preferential trans- fers by an insolvent fraudulent as to creditors, but providing that nothing in said section shall affect any trans- fer of any " evidence of debt in pay- ment of or as collateral security for the payment of a lona fide debt," whether made at the time such debt 478 Fbaudulent Conveyances. not fraudulent as to other creditors of the grantor, where prefer- ences were permitted by the laws of the state.^* § 7. Failure to apply proceeds to debts. — A purchaser of prop- erty from an insolvent debtor, who believed at the time that the purchase money notes were to be used in a valid preference of certain creditors, is not bound to see that they are in fact so applied and is not guilty of any fraud because they are not ap- plied in payment of such creditors, or are subsequently used for a fraudulent or invalid purpose, and the sale cannot be impeached by reason of such facts.^' But if the property is bought by the purchaser partly with a view of aiding the debtor in preferring certain creditors, preferences of creditors being allowed by the lex loci, the purchaser is in equity responsible to the unpreferred creditors for so much of the purchase price as was applied by the debtor to his own use and not to the payment of creditors.®' §' 8. Splitting demand to expedite recovery. — The parties to a large demand may, by agreement, divide it, and several con- fessions of judgment by the debtor, before a justice, for the parts, are lawful.*^ It is lawful for a debtor, owing a large debt, to divide it into smaller sums, in order to enable his creditor to sue immediately before a magistrate and in that manner obtain judgments more speedily than his other creditors could, and thus give such creditor a preference. A transaction by a debtor is not fraudulent for merely baffling one creditor in order to pay an- other.«2 is contracted or in payment of a pre- to application of proceeds, chap. existing debt. Merchant & Co. v. XIII, § 16, infra. Whitescarver, 47 W. Va. 361, 34 S. 60. Clements v. Moore, 6 Wall. E. 813. See also Armstrong v. Oil (U. S.) 299, 18 L. Ed. 786. Well Supply Co., 47 W. Va. 455, 35 61. Cornell v. Cook, 7 Cow. (N. S. E. 967. Y.) 310. 58. Corwine v. Thompson Nat. 62. Andrews v. Kaufmans, 60 Ga. Bank, 105 Fed. 196, 44 C. C. A. 442. 669; Alexander v. Young, 23 Ga. 59. Priest v. Brown, 100 Cal. 626, 616; Bank of Savannah v. Planters' 35 Pac. 323. See also Gist v. Bar- Bank, 22 Ga. 466; Lavender v. row, 42 Ark. 521. See Duty to see Thomas, 18 Ga. 668; Newdigate v. Peefeeences to Ceeditoes. 479 § 9. Delegation of power to prefer. — The delegation of the debtor's power of preference in an instrument conveying property for the benefit of creditors renders the instrument void as to his creditors, since the right to give preference to creditors is a personal privilege of the debtor which cannot be delegated by him to another to be exercised at the latter's discretion. °' If preferences are to be given, the relative interest of the creditors in the assigned property must be fixed by the assignment itself. A clause giving assignees power to give preferences in their dis- cretion avoids the assignment for it might be used to coerce credi- tors into compromising.'* §' 10. Nature of property transferred. — ^The nature of the property transferred by a debtor to a creditor by way of preference to pay or secure the debt is immaterial.^^ A debtor may pay a creditor his just debt in land at a fair valuation,'^ by the assign- ment of a judgment,*'' or a contract,'^ by the assignment of wages Jacobs, 9 Dana (Ky.) 17. But see Beach v. Atkinson, 87 Ga. 288, 13 S. E. 591, collusion between a non- resident debtor and a creditor by which the former enables the latter to obtain judgments in advance of the time in which another creditor who has previously commenced pro- ceedings can obtain judgment, for the purpose of defeating the latter's rights, will invalidate the judg- ments so obtained. 63. Harvey v. Mix, 24 Conn. 406; Wagoner v. Cooley, 17 111. 239; Seger v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 635, 18 S. W. 33; Hargardine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. V. Camahan, 79 Mo. App. 219. Compare Dubose v. Dubose, 7 Ala. 235, 42 Am. Dec. 588, a discre- tion given to a trustee, for whose indemnity the trust is created, to pay first either of two debts, for which he is liable as surety, warrants no in- ference of fraudulent intention. 64. Strong v. Skinner, 4 Barb.(N'. Y.) 546; Boardman v. Halliday, 10 Paige (N. Y.), 223; Barnum v. Hempstead, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 568. 65. See cases cited in first note to first section of this chapter. 66. Thomas v. Johnson, 137 Ind. 244, 36 N. B. 893; Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 57. 67. Langert v. David, 14 Wash. 389, 44 Pac. 875, an attorney although knowing of a judgment against his client, may secure him- self for service rendered and money advanced by taking an assignment of a judgment against a third person, which he procures in the client's favor, and it is immaterial that to do so he is obliged to purchase the entire judgment, crediting thereon the amount of his claim. 68. Ingram v. Osborn, 70 Wis. 184, 35 N. W. 304. 480 Feaudulent Conveyances. or salary/' or by the transfer of a promissory note," or other personal property. A failing debtor may use property bought on credit of one to pay another.'^ The doctrine that the capital of a corporation is a trust fund for the payment of its debts can- not be so extended as to subject such capital appropriated in pay- ment of a claim for the construction of a plant for the company to a trust in favor of the contractors on account of supplies fur- nished the latter for the plant. And a creditor of the contractor to construct the plant of the corporation, on account of supplies furnished for the plant, is not entitled to subrogation under an agreement to which it is not a party, by vs^hich the contractor while he is insolvent in effect turns over the bonds and capital stock of the corporation, which had been turned over to him imder his contract, to persons who advanced the money which enabled him to perform his contract.'^ § 11. Nature of debts preferred in general. — The debt pre- ferred must be a valid and subsisting demand of the creditor against the debtor capable of being enforced by action ; otherwise the preference is a mere gift which may be set aside by other creditors.'* Where an insolvent debtor executes a chattel mort- gage to secure an antecedent debt of his wife the conveyance is fraudulent.'^ Any transfer of the assets of a corporation not made in the usual course of business and for value will be set aside in equity at the suit of creditors.'^ But aiiy legal indebted- ness of the debtor or any legal liability incurred by a third per- son on his behalf may become the subject of a preference." A 69. Hax V. Acme Cement Plaster consideration — cases cited in note 97, Co., 82 Mo. App. 447. chap. VIII, § 18. 70. Marsh v. Davis, 24 Vt. 363. 74. Lippitt v. Gilmartin, 37 App. 71. O'Donald v. Constant, 82 Ind. Div. (N. Y.) 411, 55 N. Y. Supp. 212 ; Baldwin v. Flash, 58 Miss. 593. 1042. Compare Krippendorf v. Hyde, 28 75. Banton v. Smith, 113 111. Fed. 788. 481. 72. McNeal Pipe & F. Co. v. Bui- 76. See cases cited in the foUow- loek, 174 Pa. 93, 34 Atl. 594. ing notes: Sloan v. Hunter, 56 S. C. 73. See Pre-existing liability as 385, 34 S. E. 658, 76 Am. St. Kep. Prefeeences to Ceeditoes. 481 sale by a debtor to his creditor in payment of an account is not invalid because a portion of the account was for charges for tobacco and liquors, although the debtor may have used them lavishly." §; 12. Debts not due,— An insolvent debtor may prefer a creditor by paying or securing his debt, though the debt is not due.'* The law does not forbid a debtor to pay and a creditor to receive a debt before it is due, provided the creditor's purpose is to receive his own debt and not to defeat or delay another.'" Where there are two debts owing to the same creditor, one already due and payable and the other payable at a distant date, the creditor may take from his debtor security for the payment of both with- out inference or imputation of fraud, although the debtor is in failing circumstances.*" An attorney may always demand and receive a reasonable compensation before rendering services, and the payment will be valid, even in the case of one contemplating bankruptcy.** 551, a debt contracted for the pur- chase of slaves was not invalidated by the abolition of slavery. 77. Iley v. Niswanger, 1 McCord Eq. (S. C.) 518. 78. V. /Sf.— Smith v. Craft, 12 Fed. 856, 11 Biss. 340, appeal dismissed, 123 U. S. 436, 8 Sup. Ct. 196, 31 L. Ed. 267. Ga. — Alexander v. Young, 23 Ga. 616. /Zi.— Cipher v. McPall, 69 111. App. 228. Mo. — State v. Excelsior Distilling Co., 20 Mo. App. 21. Ohio. — Hauel v. Mintzer, 1 Handy, 375, 12 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 191, an accommodation endorser who has assumed the payment of the notes not yet due, and thereby made himself absolutely liable for their 31 payment, may in good faith take a mortgage or other security from the debtor to indemnify him from ulti- mate loss. Pa. — Commonwealth v. Smith, 1 Brewst. 347. Term. — ^McGrew v. Hancock (Ch. App. 1899), 52 8. W. 500. Tex. — Frees v. Baker, 81 Tex. 216, 16 S. W. 900, 13 L. R. A. 340; Mayer v. Templeton (Civ. App. 1899), 53 S. W. 68, rent; Butler v. Sanger, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 411, 23 S. W. 487. 79. MoBlwee v. Kennedy, 56 S. C. 154, 34 S. E. 86. 80. Carpenter v. Muren, 42 Barb. (N. Y.) 300. 81. Lyon v. Marshall, 11 Barb. (N. Y.) 241; Reed v. Mellor, 5 Mo. App. 567. 482 Feaudulent Cokveyanoes. § 13. Contingent debts and liabilities on behalf of debtor. — A contingent liability on behalf of a debtor, as well as an existing indebtedness, is a good and valid consideration for a preferential transfer of property by a debtor to a creditor.*' A confession of judgment by a debtor to secure a contingent liability is not a fraud in law, and whether it is fraud in fact depends upon the attendant circumstances.^ The endorser of commercial paper has full power, with the consent of the person discounting the paper, to use it as a debt due him, and to protect his endorsement by obtaining a conveyance from the debtor to the amount of such paper.** A bill of sale, executed to secure the vendee from his liability as endorser of a promissory note made for the accommo- dation of the vendor, is not fraudulent and void as against credi- tors under the statute of frauds.*' A debtor may secure a surety who is liable for him, in preference to paying other creditors, if he does so in good faith and without any design to conceal his property from his creditors.** The liability of an acceptor of a 82. Curtis v. Fox, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093. 83. Braden v. O'Neil, 183 Pa. St. 462, 38 Atl. 1023, 63 Am. St. Eep. 761. 84. Bamberger v. Schoolfield, 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Ed. 374. See also cases cited in last two preceding notes. 85. Weller v. Wayland, 17 Johns. (K. Y.) 102. See also Hauel v. Mintzer, 1 Handy (Ohio), 375. 86. U. B. — Leggett v. Humphreys, 62 U. S. 66, 16 L. Ed. 50. Ala. — Coker v. Shropshire, 59 Ala. 542; Hopkins v. Scott, 20 Ala. 179, a deed of trust by a defaulting guar- dian to indemnify his sureties; Pen- nington V. Woodall, 17 Ala. 685. Del. — ^Tunnell v. Jefferson, 5 Harr. 206. Go. — Alexander t. Young, 23 Ga. 616. /«.— Wood V. Clark, 121 111. 359, 12 N. E. 271, off'ff 21 m. App. 464; Frank v. Welsh, 89 111. 38; Cipher v. McFall, 69 111. App. 228. Ind. — Owens v. Gascho, 154 Ind. 225, 56 N. E. 224. ^y.— Beatty v. Dudley, 80 Ky. 381. Mass. — Stevens v. Bell, 6 Mass. 339. Uioh. — ^Adams v. Niemann, 46 Mich. 135, 8 N. W. 719. ifo.— Albert v. Besel, 88 Mo. 150. ff. J. — Essex County v. Lindsley, 41 N. J. Eq. 189, 3 Atl. 391. Ohio. — Hauel v. Mintzner, 1 Handy, 375. Tex. — Frees v. Baker, 81 Tex. 216, 16 S. W. 900, 13 L. R. A. 340; But- ler V. Sanger, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 411, 23 S. W. 487. Vt. — Spaulding v. Austin, 2 Vt. 566. Peefebencbs to Ceeditoes. 483 bill of exchange,*'' or of bail,*' may be the subject of a valid prefer- ence by a debtor. But merely nominal liability, as that of the sureties on a debtor's oflBcial bond as executor, is insufficient to support a preference.'* § 14. Usurious interest. — An agreement for usurious interest in the inception of a debt otherwise bona fide with no view to its ulterior use for a fraudulent purpose, will not render a trans- fer of the debtor's property in payment thereof assailable by another creditor,** nor will the validity of a conveyance of prop- erty by a debtor to a creditor to prefer a debt be affected by the fact that one of the items of the debt consists of usurious interest which the creditor was compelled to pay to a third person for the purpose of replacing money which the debtor had borrowed and failed to return." But if there is no previous agreement as to the rate of interest, and usurious interest is allowed for the pur- pose of swelling the debt to an amount not materially less than the value of the property, the transaction should be pronounced fraudulent as to creditors.'^ § 15. Attorney's fees. — A transfer of property by a debtor to his attorney, in payment of services rendered, is not invalid asi against a judgment creditor, against whose claim the attorney had defended the debtor.'' Attorney's fees which by lawful stipulation are made a part of the debts, in a mortgage given for the benefit of certain creditors, are properly awarded where the contingen-^ But see Sanford v. Wheeler, 13 88. Davis v. Charles, 8 Pa. St. 82. Conn. 165, 33 Am. Dec. 389, where a 89. Crawford v. Kirksey, 50 Ala. mortgage given hoth lor an existing 590, 55 Ala. 282, 28 Am. Eep. 704. debt and to indemnify the mortgagee 90. Harris v. Russell, 93 Ala. 59, against his liability as surety pur- 9 So. 541. ports on its face to be given solely 91. Pennington v. Woodall, 17 for the existing debt, it cannot as Ala. 685. against creditors be supported fur- 92. Harris v. Russell, 95 Ala. 59, ther than to secure the amount 9 So. 541 ; Lehman v. Greenhut, 88 actually due. Ala. 478, 7 So. 299. 87. Perry Ins., etc., Co. v. Foster, 93. Barker t. Archer, 49 App. 68 Ala. 502, 29 Am. Rep. 779. Div- (N. Y.) 80, 63 N. Y. Supp. 298. 484 Fbaudulent Conveyances. cies, upon which they were to become a part of the demand, have occurred.** The fees of an attorney for services for advice given and for preparing and drafting a preferential deed of trust or other conveyance, for advising the trustee as to his duties, and for defending any attacks that may be made on the conveyance, may be included in a preference.'^ The inclusion of attorney's fees in judgment notes given by an insolvent is fraudulent and void as to other creditors not preferred, but only vitiates the notes pro tanto, and equity will follow the fund realized thereon as fees for the benefit of other judgment creditors.'* § 16. Debts arising out of breach of trust. — Where an in- solvent debtor has misapplied money placed in his hands as a trustee and afterwards replaces the money from his own funds," or gives security to the beneficiaries to protect the payment of the same,'' the transaction is not fraudulent as to creditors. A note and mortgage executed by a guardian to his ward for money or" property of the latter which the former had appropriated and for which he was personally responsible is not invalid as against his creditors for want of consideration because the money was secured by the guardian's bond.'* But where a debtor, acting as trustee for his minor children, has exercised the discretion im- posed on him by the trust, and supported them out of the trust fund, he will not be permitted to restore the sum so expended to the trust estate on a plea that it is his personal duty to support 94. Martin-Brown Co. v. Siebe, 6 292; Bauer Grocer Co. v. McKee Tex. Civ. App. 232, 26 S. W. 327. Shoe Co., 87 111. App. 434; Farmers', 95. Mayer v. Templeton (Tex. etc.. Bank v. Spear, 49 111. App. 509. Civ. App. 1899), 53 S. W. 68; Ham- g^ j^^^^^^ ^ gpj^^^^ g3 jj ^ 261. ilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Lastinger (Tex. Civ. App. 1894), 26 S. W. 924; Butler V. Sanger, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 98. McLaughlin v. Carter, 13 Tex. 411 23 S. W. 487. Civ. App. 694, 37 S. W. 666; Middle- 96. Young v. Clapp, 147 111. 176, to" ▼• Pollock, 2 Ch. D. 104, 45 L. J. 32 N. E. 187, 35 N. E. 372; Hulae v. Ch. 293. Mershon, 125 111. 52, 17 N. E. 50, 99. Jennings v. Jennings, 104 Oal. af'g Mershon v. Hulse, 25 111. App. 150, 37 Pac. 794. Pbefeeences to Ceeditobs. 485 his children, when by so doing he will evade the payment of his honest debts.^ § 17. Secured debts generally.— The payment of a debt for which the creditor holds security cannot be held fraudulent, as by the discharge of the debt the security will be released and will become liable to the claims of other creditors.^ The giving of additional security for the payment of a claim otherwise se- cured is held by some authorities not to be fraudulent,* while others hold that the taking of additional security by one who is otherwise abundantly secured is in itself evidence of fraud, as the creditor will not be permitted to heap security on security unnecessarily to the injury of other creditors.* The burden of up- holding such a transaction is on the creditor.^ But the fact that a creditor accepts additional security and releases to the debtor the collateral he has been holding does not invalidate the con- veyance, as against unsecured creditors, in the absence of proof of fraud, or that the collateral surrendered was negotiable and so not to be reached by creditors.* § 18. Discharge of mortgage on homestead.— An insolvent or failing debtor has a right to pay by way of preference a debt secured by a mortgage on his homestead, and the fact that he can afterwards hold the premises clear of all claims of creditors does not affect that right.' Whpre a debtor in failing circum- 1. National Valley Bank v. Han- 5. Tx)mbard v. Dows, 66 Iowa, cock, 100 Va. 101, 40 S. E. 611, 93 243, 23 N. W. 649. Am St Eep. 933, 57 L. R. A. 728. 6. Compton v. Marshall, 88 Tex. 2 Lucas V. Claflin, 76 Va. 269. 50, 27 S. W. 121, 28 S. W. 518, 29 3. Plummer v. Green, 49 Neb. 316, S. W. 1059, 25 S. W. 441; McGregor 68 N. W. 500; Padgitt v. Porter v. Chase, 37 Vt. 225; Bradley v. Got- (Tex.civ.App. 1894), 26 S. W. 429; zian & Co., 12 Wash. 71, 40 Pac. West Coast Grocery Co. v. Stinson, 623. 13 Wash. 255, 43 Pac. 35. T- Randall v. Buffington, 10 Cal. 4. Lombard v. Dows, 66 Iowa, 243, 491 ; Bradley v. Gotzian & Co., 12 23 N. W. 649; Crapster v. Williams, Wash. 71, 40 Pac. 623. See Purchase 21 Kan. 109; Jaflfray v. Wolf, 4 of homestead and payment of liens, Okla. 303, 47 Pac. 496. chap. IV, § 45, supra. 486 Featjdulent Conveyances. stances sold to a creditor, already secured by a mortgage on the debtor's homestead, his stock of goods and fixtures, the balance above the debt to be paid to trustees for the benefit of creditors in consideration of his releasing the mortgage on the homestead, it was not a fraudulent conveyance.' § 19. Transfer of encumbered property in payment of en- cumbrance. — A transfer of mortgaged property to the mortgage creditor in settlement of a debt much larger in amount than the fair value of the mortgaged property,' or virhere the fair value of the property is not greater than the debt," is not fraudulent as against the debtor's other creditors," since it is not a convey- ance to the exclusion or prejudice of the other creditors.*^ And • the substitution of other property, on v^hich there was no specific lien in favor of other creditors, in lieu of a part of the mortgaged chattels, will not render the transaction invalid, if the substi- tuted property was received by the mortgagee at a fair valua- tion.^^ § 20. Transfer of all the debtor's property.— The statute in New York prevents an insolvent debtor, by a general assignment, from devoting more than one-third in value of his estate to the payment of preferred creditors. But he may accomplish that result and practically prefer his creditors to as great an extent as his property permits, by omitting to make a general assignment, and instead, giving mortgages and bills of sale or confessing judgments to the more highly favored creditors, in an amount sufficient to exhaust his entire estate. The statute only con- demns such preferences when made in a general assignment." 8. Flask V. Tindall, 39 Ark. 571. the mortgagee had no knowledge that 9. Campodonico v. Oregon Imp. the mortgagor had debts due to Co., 87 Cal. 566, 25 Pac. 763; Jack- others than himself. son V. Miller, 32 La. Ann. 432. 12. Johnson v. Riley, 41 W. Va. 10. Wiggins V. Tumlin, 96 Ga. 140, 23 S. E. 698. 753, 23 S. E. 75. 13. Smith v. Hardy, 36 Wis. 417. 11. Morse v. Velzy, 123 Mich. 532, 14. Manning v. Beck, 129 N. Y. 1, 82 N. W. 225, under a finding that 29 N. E. 90, 14 L. R. A. 198 ; London Peefebences to Cbeditobs. 487 But such other means of transfer to preferred creditors cannot be used and employed as a shield so as to hold off all other creditors, while practically returning the property to the possession, and subjecting it to the control of the debtor.'* As a general rule a transfer of all the debtor's property to pay or secure a valid debt is not fraudulent as to other creditors if the value of the property does not materially exceed the amount of the indebted- ness for which it is given in payment or security, and there is no reservation of any trust or benefit for the debtor beyond that which the law, in the absence of contract, would allow him." Under the statute in some states a preferential transfer of sub- V. Martin, 79 Hun, 229, 29 N. Y. Supp. 396, aff'd 149 N. Y. 586, 44 N. E. 1125; Victor v. Levy, 72 Hun, 263. 25 N. Y. Supp. 644, aff'd 148 N. Y. 739, 42 N. E. 726; Auburn Exch. Bank v. Fitch, 48 Barb. 344. 15. Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 226, 4 N. E. 531; Stimson v. Wrig- ley, 86 N. Y. 332: Victor v. Levy, supra; Abegg v. Schwab, 9 N. Y. Supp. 681. 16. 'N. T. — See cases cited in note 14, this section. 17. S.— Stewart v. Dunham, 115 U. S. 61, 5 Sup. Ot. 1163, 29 L. Ed. 329; Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. C. A. 107; Repauno Chemical Co. V. Victor Hardware Co., 101 Fed. 948, 42 C. C. A. 106. Ala. — Russell v. Davis, 133 Ala. 647, 31 So. 514, 91 Am. St. Rep. 56. though a failing debtor, prior to the enactment of Code 1896, § 2158. which requires general assignments by debtors to be for the benefit of all creditors, had a right to prefer a creditor to the extent of conveying his entire estate, such conveyance was invalid if not absolute, or if any benefit was reserved to the grantor, or if the property conveyed was ma- terially in excess of the debt, or if the debt or a portion thereof was ficti- tious, or if cash was received as a part consideration for the convey- ance; Cook v. Thornton, 109 Ala. 523, 20 So. 14; Chipman v. Stern, 89 Ala. 207, 7 So. 409; Carter v. Coleman, 84 Ala. 256, 4 So. 151; Hodges v. Coleman, 76 Ala. 107; Chamberlain V. Dorrance, 69 Ala. 40. Cal.— In re Muller, 118 Cal. 432, 50 Pac. 660; Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269. Del. — Stockley v. Horsey, 4 Houst. 603. Oa. — ^McWhorter v. Wright, 5 Ga. 555. lotca. — Southern White Lead Co. v. Haas, 73 Iowa, 399, 33 N. W. 657, 35 N. W. 494; Aulman v. Aulman, 71 Iowa, 124, 32 N. W. 240, 60 Am. St. Rep. 783; Gage v. Parry, 69 Iowa, 605, 29 N. W. 822; Farwell v. How- ard, 26 Iowa, 381; Johnson v. Mc- Grew, 11 Iowa, 151, 77 Am. Dec. 137; Cowles V. Rieketts, 1 towa, 582. Kan. — Schram v. Taylor, 51 Kan. 547, 33 Pac. 315; First Nat. Bank v. Ridenour, 46 Kan. 707, 27 Pac. 150, 26 Am. St. Rep. 167. Mass. — Stephens v. Bell, 6 Mass. 339. ifo. — Jaffrey v. Mathews, 120 Mo. 488 Feaudulent Conveyances. stantially all the debtor's property inures to the benefit of all his creditors," while in others the statute does not prevent a debtor from pledging property for the security of part of his creditors only." An agreement by a debtor who is insolvent, and known to be insolvent by a certain creditor, not to make a general assign- ment, lest it might invalidate, as an unlawful preference, a trans- fer of the debtor's entire property to the said creditor, shows a fraudulent intent, and renders void the transfer as to other credi- tors, though made in payment of a bona fide indebtedness." § 21. Knowledge and intent of parties generally. — A convey- ance or transfer of property by .a debtor to a creditor to pay or secure only his own debt is valid, and a creditor may take pay- ment or security for his demand, although others are thereby de- prived of all means of obtaining satisfaction of their equally meritorious claims.^" In the absence of a statute making it in- valid, to render such a preferential transfer invalid, it must have been made with the actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud other 317, 25 S. W. 187 ; Crow v. Bardsley, Can. — Brown v. Sweet, 7 Ont. App. 68 Mo. 435 ; Murry v. Cason, 15 Mo. 725. 378. Eng. — ^Alton v. Harrison, h. R. 4, Oh. ye6.— Blair State Bank v. Bunn, 622, 38 L. J. Ch..669, 21 L. T. Rep. N. 61 Neb. 464, 85 N. W. 527; Bennett S. 282, 17 Wkly. Rep. 1034; Ex parte T. McDonald, 59 Neb. 234, 80 N. W. Games, 12 Ch. D. 314, 40 L. T. Rep. 826. N. S. 789, 27 Wkly. Rep. 744. Okla. — Jaffray v. Wolfe, 1 Okla. 17. Baxley v. Simmons, 132 Ala. 312, 33 Pac. 945. 117, 31 So. 76. See Statutes of the R. I. — Elliott V. Benedict, 13 R. I. several States. 463. 18. JaflFrey v. Mathews, 120 Mo. S. O.— McElwee v. Kennedy, 56 8. 317, 25 S. W. 187; Crow v. Beards- C. 154, 34 S. E. 86. ley, 68 Mo. 435; Union Bank v. Kan- Tenn. — McGrew v. Hancock (Ch. sas City Bank, 136 U. S. 223, 10 Sup. App. 1899), 52 S. W. 500; Fidelity, Ct. 1013, 34 L. Ed. 341, overruling etc., Co. V. O'Brien (Ch. App. 1896), Martin v. Hausman 14 Fed. 160, and 38 S. W. 417. cases following it. Wash. — Turner v. Iowa Nat. Bank, 19. Tompkins v. Hunter, 65 Hun 2 Wash. 192, 26 Pac. 256. (N. Y.), 441, 20 N. Y. Supp. 355. Wis. — Gage v. Chesebro, 49 Wis. 20. Wheaton v. Neville, 19 Cal. 46; 486. 5 N. W. 881. Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269. Pbefeeences to Ceeditoes. 489 creditors,^* with the actual design to prevent the application of the whole or a part of the debtor's property to the payment of his debts.^ The intent to satisfy or secure one creditor at the expense of others is not enough.'^' Where there is an actual debt or lia- bility to be discharged or secured a bona fide preference is valid, although such preference hinders, delays, or defeats other credi- tors, and fraud is not to be imputed nor any inference of a fraud- ulent intent to be drawn from the fact that the debtor desired to and did prefer the creditor, or that the creditor sought to and did obtain a preference to the exclusion of other creditors, or from the fact that it tends to hinder, delay, or defeat creditors. It is not enough that the effect of a conveyance is to delay credi- tors. It must be executed with such an intent and purpose.^ Where a sale of property by a debtor is made professedly for the purpose of preferring certain creditors, it is presumed to be 21. U. 8. — ^Hiuskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., 121 U. S. 310, 7 Sup. Ct. 899, 30 L. Ed. 971; Drury v. Cross, 74 U. S. 299, 19 L. Ed. 40; Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. C. A. 107. Cal. — ^Dana v. Stanford, 10 Cal. 269. Del. — Stockley v. Horsey, 4 Houst. 603. /ZZ.— Ewing V. Eunkle, 20 111. 448, to render a conveyance void under our statute of frauds and perjuries, both parties must intend to practice a fraud. y. J. — Green v. McCrane, 55 N. J. Eq. 436, 37 Atl. 318. N. C— Hafner v. Irwin, 23 N. 0. 490. Po.— Candee's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093; Werner v. Zier- fuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737; Jaroslawski v. Simon, 3 Brewst. 37. 22. Alabama L. Ins., etc., Co. v. Pettway, 24 Ala. 544; Roberts v. Burr, 135 Cal. 156, 67 Pac. 46, the fraud contemplated is an actual fraud of which intent is a necessary element; Wheaton v. Neville, 19 Cal. 46; Lucas v. Clafflin, 76 Va. 269. 23. Lucas v. ClafBin, 76 Va. 269. 24. N. r.— Bishop v. Stebbins, 41 Hun, 243; Auburn Exch. Bank v. Fitch, 48 Barb. 344. U. S. — Davis V. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Tompkins v. Wheeler, 41 U. S. 106, 10 L. Ed. 903; Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. C. A. 204; Re- pauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hard- ware Co., 101 Fed. 948, 42 C. C. A. 106. Ala. — ^Warren v. Hunt, 114 Ala. 506, 21 So. 939. Cal. — Randall v. Buffington, 10 Cal. 491. Go.— Carter v. Neal, 24 Ga. 346, 71 Am. Dec. 136. /ZJ.— Nelson v. Leiter, 190 III. 414, 60 N. E. 851, 83 Am. St. Rep. 142, aff'g 93 111. App. 176; Wood v. Wark, 121 111. 359, 12 N. E. 271, affg 21 111. App. 464. 490 FBAUDULEIfT CONVEYANCES. fair and honest.^" Where a debtor has in good faith transferred property to a preferred creditor in payment of an antecedent debt, without reserving to himself any trust or benefit, or exer- cising any intention to defraud creditors, the fact that he was in- solvent at the time and that the effect of the conveyance is to leave the debtor without property to pay his other debts or to GO diminish his assets as to actually obstruct or defeat other credi- tors in the collection of their claims, does not make the convey- ance fraudulent. This is only the necessary effect of giving a preference.^ The criterion in determining fraud is not the Kif. — Eennaird v. Adams, 50 Ky. 102. Me. — Gardner Nat. Bank v. Hagar, 65 Me. 359. Md.— Rich. V. Levy, 16 Md. 74. Mich. — Ferris v. McQueen, 94 Mich. 367, 54 N. W. 164. Mo.— Bell V. Thompson, 3 Mo. 84; Barring v. Collins, 38 Mo. App. 80. Neb. — Dempster Mill Mfg. Co. v. First Nat. Bank, 49 Neb. 321, 68 N. W. 477; J. T. Robinson Notion Co. V. Foot, 42 Neb. 156, 60 N. W. 316; John V. Farwell Co. v. Wright, 38 Neb. 445, 56 N. W. 984; Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb. 816, 56 N. W. 390. N. H. — Osgood V. Thome, 63 N. H. 375. Jf. J.—VW. V. Beatty (Ch.), 3 Atl. 524. Ohio. — Sack v. Hemann, 6 Ohio Dec. 1104, 10 Am. Law Ree. 483. Pa. — Candee's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093; Werner v. Zierfuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737; York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Dec. 494; Uhler v. Maul- fair, 23 Pa. St. 481; Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 57; Davis v. Charles, 8 Pa. St. 82; Meyers v. Meyers, 24 Pa. Super. Ct. 603; Peck v. Spruka, 6 Lack. Leg. N. 132. Term. — McGrew v. Hancock (Ch. App. 1899), 58 S. W. 500. Tea.— Owens v. Clark, 78 Tex. 547, 15 S. W. 101; Ellis v. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532; Lewy v. Fisohl, 65 Tex. 311; Greenleve v. Blum, 59 Tex. 124; Iglehart v. Willis, 58 Tex. 306. Fo.— Lucas V. Clafflin, 76 Va. 269. Wash. — ^West Coast Grocery Cb. t. Stinson, 13 Wash. 255, 43 Pac. 35. Wis. — Haben v. Harshaw, 49 Wis. 379, 5 N. W. 872. Eng. — ^Middleton v. Pollock, 2 Ch. D. 104, 45 L. J. Ch. 293. Contra. — La. — De Blanc v. Martin, 2 Rob. 38; Taylor v. Knox, 2 La. 16; Misotiere's Syndecs ▼. Coignard, 3 Mart. (O. S.) 561. 25. Wood' V. Clark, 121 111. 359, 12 N. E. 271, af'g 21 111. App. 464. 26. U. 8. — Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. C. A. 107. Ala. — Crawford v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 282, 28 Am. Rep. 704. Cal. — Dana v. Stanfords, 10 Cal. 269. Ind. — ^Levering v. Bimel, 146 Ind. 545, 45 N. E. 775. Iowa. — Southern White Lead Co. t. Haas, 73 Iowa, 399, 33 N. W. 657, 38 N. W. 494. • Mich.— ^Geer v. Trader's Bank, 132 Mich. 215, 93 N. W. 437. Pbefekences to Cseditoks. 491 effect of the preference but the intent with which it was made." A debtor has a right to prefer one creditor to another and to so dispose of his property that one creditor will receive his pay in full and another will receive nothing.^ For a debtor to dispose of his property so as to prevent one creditor from reaching it is not void on the principles governing conveyances in fraud of creditors, if the property is wholly and unreservedly appropriated to the demands of another creditor.^ A person in failing cir- cumstances may prefer a creditor by conveying to him a part or all of his property, to the exclusion of other creditors, pro- vided it is done in good faith,'" and where a debtor gives a preference to one or more of his creditors, to the exclusion of others, such disposition of his effects is not impeachable on the groimd of fraud, even though it embraces all his property, and by the exhaustion of all the property of the debtor to pay the honest debt of the preferred creditor absolutely prevents the other creditors from collecting any part of their claims.'^ A preference Mo. — Gaff V. Stern, 12 Mo. App. 115. Neh. — ^Blair State Bank v. Bunn, 61 Neb. 464, 85 N. W. 527; Jones v. Loree, 37 Neb. 816, 56 N. W. 390. N. J. — ^National Bank of Metropo- lis V. Sprague, 20 N. J. Eq. 13. Pa. — Werner v. Zierfuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737; Lake Shore Banking Co. v. Fuller, 110 Pa. St. 156, 1 Atl. 731; Bentz v. Rocky, 69 Pa. St. 71; York County Bank v. Car- ter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Dec. 494. 8. O. — Thorpe v. Thorpe, 12 S. C. 154; Maples v. Maples, Rice Eq. 300. Tex. — Edwards v. Dickson, 66 Tex. 613, 2 S. W. 718; Ellis v. Valen- tine, 65 Tex. 532; Lewy v. Fischl, 65 Tex. 311; Iglehart v. Willis, 58 Tex. 306; Noyes v. Sanger, 8 Tex. Civ. App. 388, 27 S. W. 1022. Vo.— Lucas T. Clafflin, 76 Va. 269. W. Va. — Harden v. Wagner, 22 W. Vft. 356. Wis. — Stevens v. Breen, 75 Wis. 595, 44 N. W. 645. 27. Werner v. Zierfuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737. 28. Schroeder v. Walsh, 16 111. App. 590, afTd 120 HI. 403, 11 N. E. 70. 29. Hauselt v. Vilmar, 2 Abb. N. C. (N. Y.) 222. 30. Thorton v. Tandy, 39 Tex. 544. 31. N. r.— Auburn Exch. Bank t. Fitch, 48 Barb. 344. U. 8. — Foster v. McAlester, supra; Repauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hardware Co., supra. Gal. — Dana v. Stanfords, 10 Oal. 269. Kan. — Schram v. Taylor, 51 Kan. 547, 33 Pac. 315; First Nat. Bank t. Ridenour, 46 Kan. 707, 27 Pac. 150, 26 Am. St. Rep. 167. Veh. — Blair Stare Bank v. Bunn, 61 Neb. 464, 85 N. W. 527. 492 Feaudulent Conveyances. by an insolvent debtor of a valid debt and the acceptance thereof by a creditor in satisfaction of his claim is not rendered fraudu- lent, so as to enable other creditors to avoid the conveyance, al- though the creditor knows of the debtor's insolvency and both par- ties know that the effect of such preference will be to deprive the other creditors of the power of satisfying their claims, or to delay or defeat collection thereof.'" Since the debtor when he exercises Wis. — Gage v. Chesebro, 49 Wis. , 486, 5 N. W. 881. 32. N. y.— New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 69 App. Div. (N. Y.) 153, 74 N. Y. Supp. 692, aff'd 174 N. Y. 544, 67 N. E. 1086; Beards v. Wheeler, 11 Hun, 539; Auburn Exch. Bank v. Fitch, 48 Barb. 344. U. 8. — Bamberger v. Sehoolfield, 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Ed. 374; Hinskamp v. Moline Wagon Co., supra; McCartney v. Earle, 115 Fed. 462; 53 C. C. A. 392, aff'g 112 Fed. 372; Wilson v. Jones, 76 Fed. 484; Repauno Chemical Co. v. Vic- tor Hardware Co., supra. Ala. — Cook V. Thornton, 109 Ala. 523, 20 So. 14; Bray v. Ely, 105 Ala. 553, 17 So. 180; Goetter v. Smith, 104 Ala. 481, 16 So. 534; Bates v. Vandiver, 102 Ala. 249, 14 So. 631; Pollock V. Meyer, 96 Ala. 172, 11 So. 385; First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 93 Ala. 97, 9 So. 548; Chamberlain v. Dorrance, 69 Ala. 40; Crawford v. Kirksey, supra. CoJ.— Wheaton v. Neville, 19 Cal. 41; Dana v. Stanfords, 10 Cal. 269. III.— Nelson v. Leiter, 190 111. 414, 60 N. E. 851. Ind. — Dice v. Irwin, 110 Ind. 561, 11 N. E. 488. Jowa. — Aulman v. Aulman, 71 Iowa, 124, 32 N. W. 240, 60 Am. Hep. 783. And see Johnson v. McGrew, 11 Iowa, 151, 77 Am. Dec. 137; Cowles V. Ricketts, 1 Iowa, 582. Mass. — Giddings v. Sears, 115 Mass. 505; Banfield v. Whipple, 96 Mass. 13. Mich. — Webber v. Webber, 109 Mich. 147, 66 N. W. 960; Ferris v. McQueen, 94 Mich. 367, 54 N. W. 164; Sheldon v. Mann, 85 Mich. 265, 48 N. W. 573. Mo. — Crothers v. Bnsch, 153 Mo. 606, 55 S. W. 149, where a debtor transferred her property to a trustee, to secure and prefer one of her cred- itors, and to hinder others in the collection of their claims, and the trustee and the preferred creditor knew of such purpose, and that such would be the eflfect of the transfer, but acted only to secure the prefer- ence, the transfer was not void as to the other creditors. Ohio. — Walker v. Walker, 6 Ohio S. & C. PI. Dec. 355, 4 Ohio N. P. 324. Or. — Marquam v. Sengfelder, 24 Or. 2, 32 Pac. 676. Pa. — Penn Plate Glass Co. v. Jones, 189 Pa. St. 290, 42 Atl. 189; Werner v. Zierfuss, supra; Uhler v. Maulfair, 23 Pa. St. 48; Covanhovan V. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 57. S. C. — McElwee v. Kennedy, 56 S. C. 154, 34 S. E. 86. Tenn. — McGrew v. Hancock, supra; Pbefeeences to Ceeditoes. 493 the right to prefer one of his creditors must be conscious that his act of preference will hinder and delay, and possibly defeat, the collection of other demands against him, it may always be said his intention is to hinder and delay the unpreferred credi- tors, but he cannot be deprived of his right of preference on that ground. The test to be applied is simply whether the debtor, in exercising that right or privilege, acts in good faith, with the intent to pay, or secure the payment of a just indebtedness against him.^ Fraud is not to be imputed to an honest creditor, who is preferred by a failing debtor as against another creditor, who had been promised payment by the debtor out the proceeds of the same property assigned to the former to secure him,'* even though he had knowledge of this f act.'^ § 22. P.articipation of preferred creditor in fraudulent intent. — ^A failing debtor has a right to protect certain of his creditors in preference to others ; and even though the debtor is actuated by an intent to hinder, delay, and defraud other creditors, one creditor has the right to accept payment of his claim in full, or security by a confession of judgment therefor, so long as this is done with- out knowledge on his part of the fraudulent intent of the debtor, or participation therein.^* And the fact that the creditor has Johnson v. Goldston (Ch. App. 1899), 34. MoKeown v. Coogler, 18 Fla. 52 S. W. 474; Feder v. Erwin (Ch. 866. App. 1896), 38 S. W. 446, 36 L. R. 35. Langert v. David, 14 Wash. A. 335. 389, 44 Pac. 875. See Belding Sav- Tea!.— Smith v. Whitfield, 67 Tex. ings Bank v. Moore, 118 Mich. 150, 124, 2 S. W. 822; Lewy v. Fischl, 76 N. W. 368, where a mortgge to a supra; Greenleve v. Blum, supra; creditor was left for delivery with a Iglehart v. Willia, supra. third person, to be delivered when Va. — Johnson v. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, directed by the mortgagor, and be- 48 S. E. 497. fore delivery deUtor conveyed the "Wis. Gage v. Chesebro, 49 Wis. same premises to another creditor, 486, 5 N. W. 881. See also Ingram the deed was held not to be fraudu- V. Osborn, 70 Wis. 184, 35 N. W. lent. 304. 36. Galle v. Tode, 148 N. Y. 270, 33. Nelson v. Leiter, 190 111. 414, 42 N. B. 673; Manning v. Beck, 129 60 N. E. 851-, 83 Am. St. Kep. 142, N. Y. 1, 29 N. E. 90, 14 L. E. A. aff'g 93 111. App. 176. 198; Starin v. Kelly, 88 N. Y. 421. 494 Feaudtjlent Conveyances. knowledge that the purpose of the debtor is to defeat other credi- tors does not invalidate the preference, if the pre-existing debt is the sole consideration and the value of the property trans- ferred is not materially in excess of the debt, provided the credi- tor does not actually participate in the fraud." Knov^rledge on the part of the creditor, however, of the debtor's fraudulent purpose, is held to be equivalent to participation in the fraud where the pre-existing debt is only part of the consideration.^* Where the creditor does not participate in the fraudulent intent of his debtor, but takes the property as security for the sole purpose of satis- fying or securing an honest debt, it has been held that his knowl- edge of the fraudulent intent of the debtor is immaterial.^ § 23. Preference not invalidated by mere fraudulent intent. — A conveyance of property to an existing creditor in satisfaction of his debt, which was an adequate consideration, and with an expressed purpose of keeping it from being subjected to another creditor's claim, is not in itself fraudulent.** A preferential con- veyance of property to or a judgment obtained by a creditor in payment of or as security for an actual and honest debt, not greater in value or amount than is reasonably suflScient for that purpose, and which has no other effect between the parties than to pay or secure such debt, no interest or benefit being reserved for the debtor, is not void as against other creditors, although the intention of the debtor and the effect of the conveyance or judgment is to hinder and delay other creditors, and the preferred creditor knows that it will have that effect and that the debtor 37. Dudley v. Danforth, 61 N. Y. 626; Hasie v. Connor, 53 Kan. 713, 226. See also Participation in 37 Pac. 128; Carr v. Briggs, 156 fraudulent intent where debt is sole Mass. 78, 30 N. E. 470; Banfield v. consideration, chap. XIII, § 9, infra. Whipple, 96 Mass. 13; State v. 38. Levi v. Hamilton, 68 App. Mason, 112 Mo. 374, 20 S. W. 629, 34 Div. (N. Y.) 277, 74 N. Y. Supp. 159. Am. St. Eep. 390; Sexton v. Ander- See also Participation in fraudulent son, 95 Mo. 373, 8 S. W. 564. intent where debt is only part of 40. Wilson v. Berger, 5 St. Rep. consideration, chap. XIII, § 10, infra. (N. Y.) 822; Clements v. Davis, 7 30. Dudley v. Danforth, 61 N. Y. Pa. St. 263. Peefeeences to Ceeditoes. 495 lias the intent that it shall have that effect, and he obtains such judgment or conveyance to aid such intent as well as to protect himself. The act of preference being a lawful act and the end accomplished lawful, there is nothing from which fraudulent motives can be inferred, and any fraudulent motives the parties may actually have or whatsoever be the motives of the parties are immaterial.*^ The law condemns motives and intents, only 41. y. y.— Auburn Exch. Bank v. Fitch, 48 Barb. 344; Brett v. Catlin, 47 Barb. 404; Wilson v. Berger, 5 St. Rep. 822. And see Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Hun, 146, a 6o»«i fide creditor ■who takes a transfer of property to secure his debt, and reduces it into his pos- session, is not affected by an undis- closed intent on the part of the debtor to hinder and delay other creditors, of which he had no notice. J7. 8. — Bamberger v. Schoolfield, 160 U. S. 149, 16 Sup. Ct. 225, 40 L. Ed. 374. Ala. — Beddow v. Sheppard, 118 Ala. 474, 23 So. 662; Pollock v. Meyer, 96 Ala. 172, 11 So. 385; El- lison V. Moses, 95 Ala. 221, 11 So. 347; First Nat. Bank v. Smith, 93 Ala. 97, 9 So. 548 ; Harris v. Russell, 93 Ala. 59, 9 So. 541; Chipman v. Stern, 89 Ala. 207, 7 So. 409; Carter Coleman, 84 Ala. 256, 4 So. 151; Levy V. Williams, 79 Ala. 171; Hodges V. Coleman, 76 Ala. 103. And see Dawson v. Flash, 97 Ala. 539, 12 So. 67, a conveyance by an insolvent debtor in payment of an antecedent indebtedness honestly due and not materially less than the value of the property conveyed, without reserving any interest or benefit, is valid, al- though it was made without solicita- tion and was accepted as a payment only to the extent of the amount realized from the property. III. — ^Holbrook v. First Nat. Bank, 10 111. App. 140. Pa. — Snayberger v. Fahl, 195 Pa, St. 336, 45 Atl. 1065, 78 Am. St. Rep. 818; Werner v. Zierfuss, 162 Pa. St. 360, 29 Atl. 737; Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Deo. 67; Peck v. Sprucks, 6 Lack. Leg. N. 132. But see Bunn v. Ahl, 29 Pa. St. 387, 72 Am. Dec. 639, where a debtor confessed judgment for an amount honestly due, for the purpose of forc- ing his other creditors into a com- promise of their claims, it is void- able by such creditors, even though not used for that purpose. The giv- ing and receiving judgment is some- thing more than a fraudulent inten- tion; it is something done in pur- suance of the intention, and it is voidable by any person in a, position to question it. Tex. — Ellis V. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532; Texas Drug Co. v. Baker, 20 Tex. Civ. App. 684, 50 S. W. 157; Scarborough v. Billiard (Civ. App. 1894), 28 S. W. 231; Reynolds v. Wienman (Civ. App. 1894), 25 S. W. 33. Can. — McMaster v. Clare, 7 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 550. And see Attorney- General V. Harmer, 16 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 633. Eng. — See Wood v. Dixie, 7 Q. B. 892, 9 Jur. 796, 63 E. C. L. 892. 496 Feaudulent Conveyances. when they are carried into, allied to, or accompanied by, an act which is itself illegal. If the end accomplished be lawful, it is im- material what may have prompted it, provided the intent itself inflict no personal or pecuniary wrong, and does not aggravate the result. A mere intent accompanied by no illegal act will not give a ground of action.^" It has been held that where a preferential sale or conveyance of property by an insolvent debtor to one or more of his creditors is attacked by other creditors as fraudulent the only questions for consideration are: (1) The existence, bona fides and amount of the purchasing creditors' claims ; (2) whether the sale or conveyance was in absolute paymtent and satisfaction of the debts at a fair valuation of the property; and (3) whether any benefit or interest was reserved or inured to the debtor,*' and that if these questions are determined in favor of the preference the facts absolutely rebut all inferences that might be drawn from attendant badges of fraud, and impart validity to the con- veyance as an allowable preference of the particular creditor.** And in an action of replevin by the grantee of a bill of sale given as security for a precedent debt, against the sheriff hold- ing an attachment at the suit of a creditor of the common debtor, it has been held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover on showing : (1) that there was a valid subsisting indebtedness; (2) that the property was transferred to secure it; and (3) that it was reduced to possession, and that the burden is on the attaching creditor to show notice of fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor if he relies on that.*' There are authorities which hold that a transfer 42. Wilson v. Berger, 5 St. Eep. the debt. Wade v. Odle, 21 Tex. Civ. (N. y.) 822; Carter v. Coleman, 84 App. 656, 54 S. W. 786. Ala. 556, 3 So. 151. See also Ellis v. 43. Fargerson v. Hall, 99 Ala. Valentine, 65 Tex. 532. Ala. 209, 13 So. 302; Harris v. Rus- The fact that the instrnmonit ggll, 93 Ala. 59, 9 So. 541 ; Carter v. of transfer contains provikions Cohen, 84 Ala. 256, 4 So. 151; Hesse that would otherwise tend to hinder y_ Barrett, 41 Or. 202, 68 Pac. 751. or delay unsecured creditors in col- , , -rr j /-< 1 pto a 1. ^ , . , 44. Hodges v. Coleman, 76 Ala. lecting their claims 13 immaterial " where the value of the property con- veyed to pay or secure a preferred 45. Archer v. O'Brien, 7 Hun (N. creditor does not equal the amount of Y.) 146. Peefebences to Ceeditoes. 497 of property given by an insolvent debtor to pay or secure a valid debt actually owing by the debtor, in order to be valid, must be made in good faith and with no purpose of defrauding those who are not preferred, and that, if made and accepted with the intent to hinder, delay, or defeat other creditors of the debtor, it is fraudulent and void as against such other creditors." The fact of the payment of a valuable consideration upon the transfer of the property is not, it is held, as a proposition of law, inconsis- tent with the existence of an intent to defraud, and in the applica- tion of this principle, it is held, no distinction can be made be- tween the consideration furnished by an existing debt and a pres- ent consideration, or one arising in any other manner. Hence proof that the conveyance or transfer was made to pay or secure a debt actually owing by the debtor does not, as a matter of law, disprove the existence of a fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor sufficient to enable a creditor to set it aside.*'' But it is also held that a mere intent to hinder or prevent another credi- tor from reaching the property is not enough to vitiate a trans- fer in satisfaction of other actual indebtedness to a creditor to whom the debtor desires to give a preference ; that there must be something shown more than a preference given to and accepted by a creditor with the intent to defeat another,*' as, for example, an intent to enable the debtor to continue in possession and retain 46. N. T. — ^Billings v. Russell, Mass. — Crowinshield v. Kittridge, 101 N. Y. 226, 4 N. E. 531, rev'g 31 48 Mass. 520. Hun, 65; New York Ice Co. v. Mo. — Crow v. Beardsley, 68 Mo. Cousins, 23 App. Dlv. 560, 48 N. Y. 435; Scott Hardware Co. v. Riddle, Supp. 799; Howe v. Sommers, 22 84 Mo. App. 275; Ross v. Ashton, 73 App. Div. 417, 48 N. Y. Supp. Mo. App. 254. 162. 47. Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. Go.— Bigby v. Warnock, 115 Ga. 226, 4 N. E. 531. 385, 41 S. E. 622, 57 L. R. A. 754; 48. Wilson v. Berger, 5 N. Y. St. Monroe Mercantile Co. v. Arnold, Rep. 822, citing Auburn Exch. Bank 108 Ga. 449, 34 S. E. 176; Conley v. v. Fitch, 48 Barb. 344; Waterbury v. Buck, 100 Ga. 187, 28 S. E. 97; Sturtevant, 18 Wend. 353, and dis- Phinizy v. Clark, 62 Ga. 623. anguishing Billings v. Russell, 101 /„d.— Wyune v. Glidewell, 17 Ind. N. Y. 226, 4 N. E. 531; Billings v. 446. Billings, 31 Hun, 65. See also caaea ^y. — Ward V. Trotter, 19 Ky. 1. cited in note 46, supra. 32 498 Fbaudulent Conveyances. the use and benefit of the property.^' It may be said as a general rule that to impeach the payment or securing of an actual debt there should be evidence tending to show either: (1) some other advantage or benefit to the debtor beyond the discharge of his obligation; or (2) some other benefit to the creditor, beyond mere payment of his debt; or (3) some injury to the other credi- tors beyond mere postponement to the debt preferred.^" § 24. Secrecy and haste. — In the absence of a bankrupt or insolvent law, a debtor may lawfully pay one creditor to the exclusion of others, and the fact that the preference is accom- plished quickly or secretly, in order to prevent interference, is immaterial.^^ One may be hasty in paying an honest debt and 49. Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 226. 50. Snayberger v. Fahl, 195 Pa. St. 336, 45 Atl. 1065, 78 Am. St. Eep. 818; Werner v. Zierfuss, 162 Pa. St. SCO, 29 Atl. 737; Dalley's Estate, 13 Pa. Super. Ct. 506. See also Ke- pauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hard- ware Co., 101 Fed. 948, 42 C. C. A. 106. 51. N. Y. — ^Thompson v. Fuller, 8 N. Y. Supp. 62, 5 Silv. Sup. 41. U. 8. — Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. C. A. 107, instructions which convey to a jury the impres- sion that secrecy or haste in a trans- action by which a debtor secures one of his creditors, or the fact that the giving of such security operates to hinder and delay other creditors, are badges of fraud which place the burden on a secured creditor to sus- tain the validity of his security, are misleading and erroneous without a full explanation of the legal right of a bona fide creditor to obtain secur- ity for his debts to the exclusion of others, if done in good faith; and such instructions are not warranted in any case unless there is other evi- dence tending to impeach the good faith of the transaction, since such facts are entirely consistent with the exercise by the creditor of his legal rights; Repauno Chemical Co. v. Victor Hardware Co., 101 Fed. 948, 42 C. C. A. 106; Rice v. Adler- Goldman Commission Co., 71 Fed. 151, 18 C. C. A. 15. Ala. — Carter v. Coleman, 84 Ala. 256, 4 So. 151, so long as the law allows a failing debtor to prefer some of his creditors at the expense of others, it permits, if it does not invite, a race of diligence, and no presumption of fraud arises from haste in the transaction; Hodges v. Coleman, 76 Ala. 103. See also War- ren V. Hunt, 114 Ala. 506, 21 So. 939. Miss. — Holberg v. Jaffray, 64 Miss. 746, 2 So. 168. Po.— Candee's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 044, 43 Atl. 1093. Tenn. — Reeves v. John, 95 Tenn. 434, 32 S. W. 312. Pbefeeences to Cbbditobs. 4:99 lie is not bound to explain what he is doing. The great question is, was the debt an honest one, and was there an honest transac- tion intended to pay it.^^ That a creditor seeking to induce the debtor to convey to him goods for his protection attempts to keep the other creditors from finding out his purpose will not render the sale fraudulent.^' But it has been held that a preference, to be valid, must not be secret, but must be open and fair, without any other object than the act on its face imports.^* That a debtor keeps secret and fails to disclose to his other creditors the fact of his indebtedness to the preferred creditor, or the fact that he has entered into an agreement to prefer such creditor, does not consti- tute a fraud on the other creditors.'* But a secret arrangement by a debtor, who compounds with his creditors, to pay one more than he does the others, is a fraud upon the others, and a mortgage given to carry out such an arrangement is void.^* § 25. Preference pending suit in general. — A preferential conveyance by a debtor of property at a fair value, in payment of a bona fide debt, is not rendered fraudulent and void by the fact that it was made during the pendency of an action by an- other creditor against the debtor." In the absence of fraud, a judgment by confession for a just and legal debt will not be set 52. Thompson v. Fuller, 8 N. Y. 57. N. T.— Waterbury v. Sturtc- Supp. 62, 5 Silv. Sup. 41. vant, 18 Wend. 353. 53. Rice v. Wood, 61 Ark. 442, 33 V. S.— Davis v. Schwartz, 155 U. S. S. W. 636, 31 L. R. A. 609. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 289; 54. McNeal, etc., Co. v. Plows, 83 Vansickle v. Wells, 105 Fed. 25. 111. App. 186; Hancock v. Horan, 15 Ala. — Crawford v. Kirksey, 50 Ala. Tex. 507; Edrington v. Rogers, 15 590; Stetson v. Miller, 36 Ala. 642; Tex. 188. Williams v. Jones, 2 Ala. 314. 55. Robinson v. Hawley, 45 App. Ind.—Dice v. Irvin, 110 Ind. 561, Div. (N. Y.) 287, 61 N. Y. Supp. 11 N. B. 488. 138; Smith v. Munroe, 1 App. Div. Kan. — Randall v. Shaw, 28 Kan. 419. (N. Y.) 77, 37 N. Y. Supp. 62; Mc- Ky. — ^Kennaird v. Adams, 11 B. Elwee V. Kennedy, 56 S. C. 154, 34 Mon. 102. S. E. 86. Minn. — Ferguson v. Kumler, 11 56. Harvey v. Hunt, 119 Mass. Minn. 104. 279- Feldman t. Gamble, 26 N. J. Eq. Miss.— Tfonoglme v. Shull, 85 Miss. 494' 404, 37 So. 817. 500 FeATTDULENT CoNVEYAlfCES. aside simply because it was given by the defendant after obtain- ing from plaintiff an extention of time to answer in an action then pending.^ But where such extention was obtained by promis- ing to pay plaintiff's claim, and that in the meantime there should be no change in the defendant's property, and that no judgment should be entered against him and that plaintiff should not in any way be prejudiced by the delay, a judgment so confessed is fraudulent and void as to the plaintiff.^* The fact that when a preference is made by an insolvent debtor there are bankruptcy proceedings pending against him and that the transfer is in viola- tiontion of the federal bankruptcy act is not material and does not affect the validity of the conveyance in a jurisdiction which permits a preference to be given.** §' 26. Intent to defeat judgment, execution, or attachment. — A transfer of property at a fair value, in payment of a bona fide debt, is not fraudulent under the statute as against an execution subsequently issued by a judgment creditor,'' and when taken by a creditor for the purpose of protecting himself and not with intent, on his part at least, of defeating the lien of a judgment to be entered on a verdict secured against the debtor, of which he had knowledge, is not fraudulent.*^ Conveyances in good faith Mo.— KuykendaJl v. McDonald, 15 58. Wood v. Mitchell, 17 N. Y. Mo. 416, 57 Am. Dec. 212. Supp. 782, afg 14 N. Y. Supp. 7, 26 N. J. — Doremus v. Daniela (Ch. Abb. N. Cas. 129. 1890), 20 Atl. 147; Goodwin v. Ha- 59. H. B. Claflin Co. v. Arnheim, mill, 26 N. J. Eq. 24. 87 Hun (N. Y.) 236, 33 N. Y. Supp. OUo.—Ba.TT V. Hatch, 3 Ohio, 527. 1037, 1 N. Y. Annot. 391. Pa.— Snayberger v. Fahl, 195 Pa. 60. Talcott v. Harder, 119 N. Y. St. 336, 45 Atl. 1065, 78 Am. St. R. 818. 536, 23 N. E. 1056. 8. C. — ^Weinges v. Cash, 15 S. O. 61. Wilder v. Winne, 6 Cow. (N. 44; Bevins v. Dunham, 1 Speers, 39. Y.) 284; Ludlow v. Hurd, 19 Johns. Utah. — Henderson v. Adams (N. Y.) 218; Weller v. Wayland, 17 (1897), 48 Pac. 398. Johns. (N. Y.) 102. Va.— Lucas v. Clafflin, 76 Va. 269; 62. Hall v. Arnold, 15 Barb. (K. Williams v. Lord, 75 Va. 390. Y.) 599; Waterbury v. Sturtevant, See also Transfers in anticipation 18 Wend. (N. Y.) 353. Compare of or pending suit, chap. VI, § 7, Stoddard v. Butler, 20 Wend. (N. supra. Y.) 607. Peefeeences to Ckeditobs. 501 to pay or secure a valid debt by way of preference are not ren- dered fraudulent by the fact that they were executed under in- stant apprehension of attachment suits or were made and accepted with the intent to defeat judgments or executions against the debtor and thus prevent other creditors from collecting their claims.*' A conveyance from a debtor to a creditor is not in- valid because the debtor made it with the intention of delaying other creditors, although the creditor taking the conveyance knows this, if he took it with the honest purpose of securing his debt. If, however, his purpose was not honest, or if he participated in a fraudulent purpose of the debtor, the rule is otherwise." A conveyance by a debtor on the eve of judgments being obtained against him is a badge of fraud only and does not necessarily ren- der the conveyance inoperative.'^ Circiunstances may be admitted to explain and justify such a transfer, and when it appears that the transfer was of property for a full and fair price to a credi- tor, in payment of a just and valid debt, and that the debt is thereby discharged, any presumption of fraud arising from the pendency of the suit is removed.** But a preference secured by a creditor over other creditors by obtaining payment of his debt by suit commenced or judgment secured by collusion with the in- solvent debtor, whereby other creditors of the debtor are hindered, 63. TJ. 8. — ^Davis v. Schwartz, 155 Tex. — Moore v. Robinson (Civ. U. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. App. 1903), 75 S. W. 890; Frazer v. 289. Thatcher, 49 Tex. 26. OoZ.— Walden v. Murdock, 23 Cal. Fo.— Lucas v. Clafflin, 76 Va. 269. 540, 83 Am. Dec. 135; Wheaton v. Ca»i.-Guxofski v. Harris, 27 Ont. Neville, 19 Cal. 41. 201, af'd 23 Ont. App. 717; White jp-Za.— Gassett v. Wilson, 3 Fla. 235. ^ Stevens, 7 U C. Q. B 340 /2J.— Funk V. Staats, 24 111. 633. J?„^._Alton v. Harrison, L. R 4 7n Grew, 11 Iowa, 151, 77 Am. Dee. 137. Vaughan, 70 Tex. 47, 7 S. W. 604; JIfo.— Cahn v. Groves, 46 Mo. App. Seligson v. Brown, 61 Tex. 180; 263. Greenleve v. Blum, 59 Tex. 124. -,. T T> J in -rri- oo-i "^^^ Marshall v. Hutchinson, 44 Vt. — ^Lyon v. Rood, 12 Vt. 233. „ ' . „ ^ Ky. 298. WasA.-Langert v. David, 14 Wash. ^ g^.^^^^ ^ Edwards, 94 Ala. 389, 44 Pac. 875. 447, 10 So. 219; Elser v. Graber, 69^ In Texas, though a failing debtor Tex. 222, 6 S. W. 560. may prefer a creditor, he cannot But see Langert v. David, 14 Wash. transfer his property to such creditor, 389, 44 Pac. 875. receiving a partial money considera- 81. Seger v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 635,. tion therefor, and so cut off the 18 S. W. 33. Peefekences to Ckeditobs. 505 this purpose make a cash payment to the debtor of the difference between the debt and the value of the property, yet the transaction must not be for the purpose of conferring a benefit upon the debtor, and the cash payment made must be necessary in order to effectuate the transfer or the collection of the debt.'^ § 29. Where present consideration is exempt. — ^Where a debtor sells his property at a fair value and receives payment partly in the discharge of an antecedent debt and partly for a present consideration, either in money or notes of the purchaser, if the present consideration, together with the remaining prop- erty of the debtor, do not exceed in value the amoimt of the exemp- tion to which he is entitled, the effect of the transaction is to make an authorized preference among the seller's creditors, and secure to him a sum of money which is not liable to his other debts; and the fact that the money or notes were taken in part payment of the purchase does not render the transaction fraudulent, since, as the money or notes were included in the exemption, the change was merely in the form of the property exempted, and did not therefore involve any prejudice to the rights of creditors.*' The debtor in such case must be shown to be a resident of the state and thus entitled to the exemption.'* § 30. Present consideration to be paid by debtor to other creditors. — ^A sale by an insolvent debtor of his property at a fair valuation partly in absolute payment of a bona fide debt, no benefit being reserved to himself, and partly for a present con- sideration, is not rendered fraudulent by the fact that it was stipulated that the present consideration should be applied on the debts of another hona fide creditor, and that it was so ap- 82. Sly V. Bell (Iowa, 1906), 108 some of the property, consisting of N. W. 227, where a transaction was cattle, horses and farm implements, held voidable at the suit of the cred- from the sale. itors, inasmuch as the cash payment 83. Fargerson v. Hall, 99 Ala. 209. was unnecessary because the differ- 14 So. 302; Brinson v. Edwards, 94 ence covered by the cash payment Ala. 447, 10 So. 219. could have been avoided by omitting 84. Brinson v. Edwards, supra. 506 rEATTDULENT CONVEYANCES. plied.'' Such a stipulation is not objectionable as being a reser- vation of a benefit to the debtor.*" §' 31. Other debts assumed by transferee. — A bona fide prefer- ential sale or transfer of property by an insolvent or failing debtor to a creditor, in consideration of the cancellation of a debt due by the debtor to the creditor, or to secure the payment of such a debt, is valid, as against the unpreferred creditors, although the vendee or grantee also agrees, as part of the consideration or as further consideration, to pay, or assumes the payment of, debts owing by the debtor to certain other creditors, or to pay a certain sum on such debts as the debtor may direct." The rule applies although the conveyance is of all the debtor's property,** and al- 85. Fargerson v. Hall, 99 Ala. 209, 13 So. 302; Carter v. Coleman, 84 Ala. 256, 4 So. 151 ; Mbog v. Farley, 79 Ala. 246, when it ia not shown that the grantee had knowledge of the grantor's insolvency; Rankin v. Vandiver, 78 Ala. 562. 86. Rankin v. Vandiver, 78 Ala. 662. See Reservation of power to direct application of surplus pro- ceeds, chap. X, § 9, supra. 87. N. T.— Hlne v. Bowe, 114 N. Y. 350, 21 N. E. 733, aff'g 46 Hun, 196; Carpenter v. Muren, 42 Barb. 300, mortgage. U. S.— Randolph v. Allen, 73 Fed. 23, 19 C. C. A. 353. Ala.— Goettei v. Smith, 104 Ala. 481, 16 So. 534; Dixon v. Higgins, 82 Ala. 284, 2 So. 289. Cal. — Saunderson v. Broadwell, 82 Cal. 132, 23 Pa. 36. CTonn.^Koster v. Merritt, 82 Conn. 246, such a sale is not void as pre- ferring creditors, if, under the laws of the State where the sale is made Buch preferences are not invalid. 7J!.— Ewing v. Runkle, 20 111. 448, where such a transfer was made with the consent of other creditors, the consenting creditors were bound by it. Ind. — ^Wilcoxson v. Annesley, 23 Ind. 285. Iowa. — ^Lycoming Rubber Co. v. King, 90 Iowa, 343, 57 N. W. 864, mortgage; Johnson v. McGrew, 11 Iowa, 151, 77 Am. Dec. 137. N. J. — Essex County v. Lindsley, 41 N. J. Eq. 189, 3 Atl. 391. Pa. — York County Bank v. Carter, 38 Pa. St. 446, 80 Am. Dec. 494. Term. — Johnson v. Coldston (Ch. App. 1899), 51 S. W. 474, where all of the transferrer's debts were assumed by the transferee, who paid some of them and became liable for the rest. Tear. — Jacobs v. Totty, 76 Tex. 343, 13 S. W. 372; Noyes v. Sanger,. 8 Tex. Civ. App. 388, 27 S. W. 1022. Fa. — Janney V. Burnes, 11 Lei. 100. Wis. — Ingram v. Osborn, 70 Wis. 184, 35 N. W. 304. Compare Foster v. Grigsby, 64 Ky. 86; Smith v. Conkwright, 28 Minn. 23, 8 N. W. 876. 88. Chipman v. Stern, 89 Ala. 207, 7 So. 409; Johnson v. McGrew, 11 Iowa, 151. Pbefeeences to Ceeditoes. 507 though the transaction results in the preference of the creditors the payment of whose claims is thus assumed, or such preference IS stipulated for by the parties, since the debtor has a legal right to direct the application of the surplus and to give preferences therefrom.*' There is no reason why the debtor may not as well direct the payment of the surplus of the consideration by the purchaser upon his debts, as to take the money and pay it on them himself.'" Where there is a complete novation, the substi- tution of a new obligation for an old one, which is thereby ex- tinguished, the debtor being released and the other creditors ac- cepting the obligation of the purchasing creditor in the place of that of the debtor, the transaction is not fraudulent.'^ A stipula- tion whereby the right is reserved to the debtor to direct what claims shall have preference as to payment from the surplus ia not objectionable as being a reservation of a benefit to him.'^ But a stipulation that the transferee or vendee shall have power to prefer creditors of the debtor at his discretion will render the con- veyance or transfer invalid.** § 32. Creditor's promise to compound felony. — A transfer of property by an insolvent debtor in payment of a debt is not fraud- ulent in law, within a statute providing for the reaching of prop- erty fraudulently conveyed by a debtor with intent to defeat, delay or defraud creditors, merely because the compounding of a felony was a part of the transaction.'* 89. N. 7.— Hine v. Bowe, supra. Mich. 195, 54 N. W. 880. U. 8. — Randolph v. Allen, supra. 92. Hine v. Bowe, supra; Goetter Ala. — Groetter v. Smith, supra. v. Smith, supra. See also Reserva- jnd. — ^Wilcoxson v. Annesley, supra, tion of power to direct application /otco.— Lycoming Rubber Co. v. of surplus proceeds, chap. X, § 9, King, supra. supra. Wis. — Ingram v. Osbom, supra. 93. Strong v. Skinner, 4 Barb. (N. 90. Hine v. Bowe, supra; Royer Y.) 546; Boardman v. Halliday, 10 Wheel Co. V. Fielding, 101 N. Y. 504. Paige (N. Y.), 223; Barnum v. 91. McCann v. Dillabaugh, 117 Hempstead, 7 Paige (N. Y.), 568. Mich. 446, 75 N. W. 929, distinguish- See also Delegation of power to pre- ing Hill v. Mallory, 112 Mich. 387, fer, chap. XI, § 9, supra. 70 N. W. 1016; Allen v. Stingel, 95 94. Traders' Nat. Bank v. Steere, 508 Feaudulent Conveyances. § 33. Preferences between relatives generally. — ^^A conveyance of property by an insolvent debtor to relatives in discharge of an indebtedness to them, made in good faith, is valid as against the grantor's other creditors, being only a preference given by him to the claim of his relatives over that of the others.^ Transactions between relatives whereby property is transferred from one credi- tor to another in payment of an alleged past-due indebtedness, by reason of which other creditors are deprived of their just dues, will, however, be scrutinized very closely, and the bona fides of such transactions must be clearly established.** Relationship is not a badge of fraud, though it may require that the dealings of the parties be treated with suspicion; but suspicion is not proof of fraud. Fraud must be proved not by surmise, but by evidence which rises above the realm of mere suspicion, and to the dignity of proof ; otherwise it would be next to impossible to sustain trans- actions between near relatives upon any other theory. In the ab- sence of actual fraud, a preference given for a valid subsisting debt by a debtor to a member of his family or other relative is as valid as if made to any other creditor." There is no law 165 Mass. 389, 43 N. E. 187. And Wills, 100 Fed. 25; Hinohman v. see In re Mapleback, 4 Ch. D. 150, Parlin, 74 Fed. 698, 21 C. C. A. 273, 13 Cox C. C. 374, 35 L. T. R. N. S. 41 U. S. App. 301; Buford v. Cook, 503, 25 Wkly. Eep. 103. 36 Fed. 21. 95. Silvers v. Potter, 48 N. J. Eq. Ala. — Worthington v. Rogan 539, 22 Atl. 584. (1898), 26 So. 299; Owens v. Hob- 96. Fisher v. Herron, 22 Neb. 183, bie, 82 Ala. 467, 3 So. 145 ; Crawford 34 N. W. 365. V. Kirksey, 50 Ala. 290. 97. 2f. T. — Lindaley v. Van Cort- Ark. — Hemstead v. Johnston, 18 landt, 67 Hun, 145, 22 N. Y. Supp. Ark. 123, 65 Am. Dec. 458. 222, aff'd 142 N. Y. 682, 37 N. B. CoJ.— Roberts v. Burr, 135 Cal. 825; Toffey v. Williams, 5 Thomp. & 156, 67 Pac. 46. C. 294. ZJJ.— Schuberth v. Schillo, 177 111. V. S.— Davis V. Schwartz, 155 U. 346, 52 N. E. 319, affg 76 111. App. S. 631, 15 Sup. Ct. 237, 39 L. Ed. 356; Victor v. Swisky, 87 III. App. 289; Walker v. Houghteling, 120 583. Fed. 928, 57 C. C. A. 218; Corwine Ind. — Rockland Coimty v. Sum- V. Thompson Nat. Bank, 105 Fed. merville, 139 Ind. 695, 39 N. E. 307; 196, 44 C. C. A. 442; Vansickle v. Adams v. Curtis, 137 Ind. 175, 36 N. Peefekences to Ckeditoes. 509 which forbids persons standing in near relations of consanguinity, affinity, or business, from dealing with each other, or which re- quires them to conduct their business with each other differently from the manner in which they conduct it with other persons.** In accordance with the general rules stated in the first section of this chapter, a debtor has a legal right to give a preference for a hona fide debt to his father,'' to his mother,^ to his brother,^ to E. 1095; Jones v. Snyder, 117 Ind. 229, 20 N. E. 140; Wilson v. Wilson, 113 Ind. 415, 15 N. E. 513; Goff v. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459. Iowa. — ^Roberts v. Brothers, 119 Iowa, 309, 93 N. W. 289; Brooks v. Jones (1900), 82 N. W. 434; StroflT V. Swaffoid, 81 Iowa, 695, 47 N. W. 1023; Rockford Boot, etc., Mfg. Co. V. Mastin, 75 Iowa, 112, 39 N. W. 219; Wise v. Wilds, 47 Iowa, 586, 42 N. W. 553. Kan. — Winfleld Nat. Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 629, 26 Pac. 942; Bliss V. Couch, 46 Kan. 400, 26 Pac. 706; Cooper v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Kan. 5, 18 Pac. 937. Ky. —Siokes v. Coffey, 71 Ky. 533; Young V. Stallings, 44 Ky. 307. Md. — Conunonwealth Bank v. Kearns, 100 Md. 202, 59 Atl. 1010. Mich. — Webber v. Webber, 109 Mich. 147, 66 N. W. 960; Leppig v. Bretzel, 48 Mich. 321, 12 N. W. 199. Miss. — Donoghue v. Shull, 85 Miss. 404, 37 So. 817. Mo. — ^Ridge v. Greenwell, 53 Mo. App. 479. Neb. — ^Blair State Bank v. Bunn, 61 Neb. 464, 85 N. W. 527; Farring- ton V. Stone, 35 Neb. 456, 53 N. W. 389. Sr. J.— Silvers v. Potter, 48 N. J. Eq. 539, 22 Atl. 584. Ohio. — Thacker v. Newall, 7 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 576, 3 Cine. L. Bui. 1159. Or.— Hesse v. Barrett, 41 Or. 202, 68 Pac. 751; Feldman v. Nicolai, 28 Or. 34, 40 Pac. 1010; Jolly v. Kyle, 27 Or. 95, 39 Pac. 999. Pa. — Candee's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093; Kitchen v. Mc- Closkey, 150 Pa. St. 376, 24 Atl. 688, 30 Am. St. Rep. 811; Collins v. Cronin, 117 Pa. St. 35, 11 Atl. 869. S. C. — Mechanics' Bldg., etc., Assoc. V. Fowler, 57 S. C. 110. 8. jD.— Studebaker Mfg. Co. v. ZoUars, 12 S. D. 296, 81 N. W. 292. Tenn. — ^Miller v. Winton (Ch. App. 1900), 56 S. W. 1049; Maryville Bank v. Thorton (Ch. App. 1895), 35 S. W. 565. Va. — Johnson v. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, 48 S. E. 497. Eng. — Grogan v. Cooke, 2 Ball & B. 234. 98. Johnson t. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, 48 S. E. 497. An insolvent private manu- facturing corporation may pre- fer its directors, or creditors on whose claims the directors are sure- ties, though their votes are necessary therefor, and though loss is thereby caused to persons having claims against the corporation, the directors owing no duty to creditors. Nap- panee Canning Co. t. Reid, 159 Ind. 614, 64 N. B. 870, 1115, 59 L. R. A. 199. 99. if. F.— Lindsley v. Van Oort- 510 Fraudulent Conveyances. his sister,' or to his child/ to the same extent as he might prefer other creditors. Where there is no fraud, parents may lawfullj' landt, 67 Hun, 145, 22 N. Y. Supp. 222, aff'd 142 N. Y. 682, 37 N. E. 825. iTid. — Rockland County v. Summer- ville, 139 Ind. 695, 39 N. E. 307; Me- Fadden v. Ross, 126 Ind. 341, 26 N. E. 78. Iowa. — First Nat. Bank v. Bru- baker, 128 Iowa, 587, 105 N. W. 116. Mtc^i.— State Bank v. Whittle, 48 Mich. 1, 11 N. W. 756. Minn. — Ferguson v. Kumler, 11 Minn. 104. JVe6. — Peregoy v. Krantz, 31 Neb. 58, 47 N. W. 422. 1. Leach v. Flack, 31 Hun (N. Y.), 605; Auburn Exch. Bank v. Fitch, 48 Barb. (N. Y.) 344; Roberts V. Burr, 135 Cal. 156, 67 Pac. 46; Coley V. Coley, 14 N. J. Eq. 350; Jones V. Naughright, 10 N. J. Eq. 298; Lloyd v. Williams, 21 Pa. St. 327. 2. Ala. — Moog V. Farley, 79 Ala. 246. Cal. — Saunderson v. Broadwell, 82 Cal. 132, 23 Pac. 36. Colo. — ^Krippendorf-Dittman Co. v. Trenoweth, 16 Colo. App. 178, 64 Pac. 373. Iowa. — ^Adams v. Ryan, 61 Iowa, 733, 17 N. W. 159. Ey. — Shaw v. Bhaw, 15 Ky. L. Rep. 592, 24 S. W. 630. Pa. — Kitchen v. McCloskey, 150 Pa. St. 376, 24 Atl. 688, 30 Am. St. Rep. 811. See also Candee's Appeal, 191 Pa. St. 644, 43 Atl. 1093, where one member of a debtor firm was a brother of a member of the creditor firm. 8. C— Sloan v. Hunter, 56 S. C. 385, 34 S. E. 658, 879, 76 Am. St. Kep. 551; Thorpe v. Thorpe, 12 S. C. 154. 3. Toffey v. Williams, 5 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.) 294; Cahn v. Groves, 46 Mo. App. 263. 4. N. Y. — ^National Bank v. Port Jervis v. Bounell, 26 Misc. Rep. 541, 57 N. Y. Supp. 486 ; Hyde v. Houston, 29 N. Y. Supp. 818. U. 8. — Micou V. First Nat. Bank, 104 U. S. 530, 26 L. Ed. 834; Vattier V. Hinde, 7 Pet. 252, 8 L. Ed. 675. Ind.— Clow V. Brown (1904), 72 N. E. 534. Iowa. — Riddick v. Parr, 111 Iowa, 733, 82 N. W. 1002; Sands v. Pier- son, 61 Iowa, 702, 17 N. W. 107. Kan. — Pettyjohn v. Newhart, 7 Kan. App. 64, 51 Pac. 969; Nurray V. First Nat. Bank, 5 Kan. App. 456, 49 Pac. 326. ffy.— Seller v. Walz, 100 Ky. 105, 29 S. W. 338, 31 S. W. 729, 17 Ky. L. Rep. 301; Caldwell v. Deposit Bank, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 156, 35 S. W. 625; Spurrier v. Haley, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 364. Md. — Thompson v. Williams, 100 Md. 195, 60 Atl. 26. Afm.— Donly v. Ray (1889), 6 So. 324. Mo. — ^Lillard v. Johnson, 148 Mo. 23, 49 S. W. 889; Ridge v. Green- well, 53 Mo. App. 479. Neh. — Carson v. Murphy, 1 Neb. (Unoff.) 519, 96 N. W. 110. N. J. — ^Doremus v. Daniels (Ch. 1890), 20 Atl. 147. Tenn. — ^Nelson v. Kinney, 93 Tenn. 428, 25 S. W. 100. Wis.— Barr t. Church, 82 Wis. 382, 52 N. W. 691. Can. — Gurofski v. Harris, 27 Ont. Peefebences to Ceeditoes. 511 receive pay or take security from their son, who is indebted to them, though they know that the result will be to delay or defeat his other creditors.* Where a father emancipates his child so that his earnings belong to him and thereafter borrows the same from him, a conveyance from the father to the child to repay the same is not fraudulent as to existing creditors of the father.' As a general rule a transfer of property by an insolvent debtor to a relative, which has the effect of hindering or delaying other creditors in the collection of their debts, will be subjected to greater scrutiny than if the parties to the conveyance were strangers, though it will be sustained if made in good faith and for an adequate consideration.^ Where a debtor prefers a credi- tor related by blood or marriage, clearer proof of good faith is required than in case of strangers,* and the bona fides of such transaction must be clearly established.' 201, aff'd 23 Ont. App. 717; Smith v. Wright. 2 N. Brunsw. Eq. 528. 5. First Nat. Bank v. Brubaker, 128 Iowa, 587, 105 N. W. 116. 6. McCaffrey v. Hickey, 66 Barb. (N. Y.) 489; Flynn v. Baisley, 35 Or. 268, 57 Pac. 908, 76 Am. St. Eep. 495, 45 L. E. A. 645; Bomar v. Means, 53 S. C. 232, 31 S. E. 234; Rosenbaum v. Davis (Tenn. Ch. App. 1898), 48 S. W. 706. See also Wages of debtor's minor child, chap. IV, § 10, supra; Earnings of minor child, chap. VIII, § 57, supra. 1. N. T. — Lindsley v. VanCort- landt, 67 Hun, 145, 22 N. Y. Supp. 222, aff'd 142 N. Y. 682, 37 N. E. 570. 4to.— Russell V. Davis (1901), 35 So. 514; Calhoun v. Hannon, 87 Ala. 277, 6 So. 291; Moog v. Farley, 79 Ala. 246. Md. — Commonwealth Bank v. Kearns, 100 Md. 202, 59 Atl. 1010. A^e6. — Blair State Bank v. Bunn, 61 Neb. 464, 85 N. W. 527; Stein- kraus v. Korth, 44 Neb. 777, 62 N. W. 1110; Farrington v. Stone, 35 Neb. 456, 53 N. W. 389. N. C— Mitchell v. Eure, 126 N. C. 77, 35 S. E. 190; Allen v. McLendon, 113 N. C. 321. 18 S. E. 206. Or. — Feldman v. Nicolai, 28 Or. 34, 40 Pac. 1010; Jolly v. Kyle, 27 Or. 95, 39 Pac. 999. Fo.— Lloyd v. Williams, 21 Pa. St. 327. Va. — Johnson v. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, 48 S. E. 497. 8. Schloss V. McGuire, 102 Ala. 626, 15 So. 275; Smith v. Collins, 94 Ala. 394, 10 So. 334; Owens v. Hob- bie, 82 Ala. 467, 3 So. 145. 9. Calhoun v. Hannan, 87 Ala. 277, 6 So. 291; Bonwit v. Heyman, 43 Neb. 537, 61 N. W. 716; Plummer v. Rummel, 26 Neb. 142, 42 N. W. 336; Bartlett v. Cheesbrough, 23 Neb. 767, 37 N. W. 652; Brooks v. Todd, 1 Handy (Ohio), 169, 12 Ohio Dec. (Reprint) 84, the parties must have acted with the most scrupulous 512 Feaudulent Conveyances. § 34. Preference of husband and wife. — It is quite generally held by the courts that, inasmuch as dealings between husband and wife which result in the appropriation of the husband's prop- erty for the payment of a debt claimed to be due the wife, to the exclusion of other creditors, furnish uncommon opportuni- ties for the perpetration and concealment of fraud, they should be carefully and rigidly scrutinized, especially when charged to be fraudulent.^" Yet it is a well established rule that where a wife is a bona fide creditor of her husband, she is entitled to security or payment, the same as any other creditor; and, al- though the husband is insolvent or in failing circiimstances, he may in good faith prefer her, either by payment of money or the conveyance of property still under his control, or by giving se- curity, to the exclusion of other creditors, the same as he may prefer any other creditor, and such a preference is not of itself fraudulent, and will not be set aside as in fraud of the other creditors of the husband, unless there is proof of a fraudulent intent on the part of the husband." The same principles apply good faith, taking care that no un- lations — Husband and wife, chap. just or unnecessary delay or hind- IX, § 4, supra. ranee is offered to the rights of others, It. 77. 7. — ^Manchester t. Tib- as m « 1. ij « J 1 4. l«tte, 121 N. Y. 219, 24 N. E. 304, Transactions beld fraudulent ' _ _ . , ... 18 Am. St. Eep. 816; Baker t. to nnsecnred creditors. — .. Arnold V. Wilds, 77 Iowa, 593. 42 N. ^'^' ^^ ^PP" ^'^- ^49. *! N. Y. W. 555; Wise v. Wilds, 77 Iowa, ^"PP- ^"30; F.rst Nat. Bank r. 586 42 N W 553 Hamilton, 76 Hun, 613, 27 N. Y. 10. White "v. Benjamin, 150 N. Y. ^"PP- ^"29; Jewett v. Noteware, 30 258, 44 N. E. 956; Manchester v. ^™' ^^^' Woodworth v. Sweet, 44 Tibbetts, 121 N. Y. 219, 24 N. E. B^'''- ^68, affd 51 N. Y. 8; Doty T. 304. 18 Am. St. Eep. 816; Hollis v. Clint, 11 St. Eep. (N. Y.) 87. Eodgers, 106 Ga. 13, 31 S. E. 783; T7. S.— New York Fourth Nat. Vietor v. Swiskey, 200 111. 257. 65 N. Bank v. American Mills Co., 137 U. E. 625; Sutton v. Guthrie. 188 Pa. S. 234, 11 Sup. Ct. 52, 34 L. Ed. St. 359, 41 Atl. 528; McElwee v. 655; Jewell v. Knight, 123 U. S. Kennedy, 56 S. C. 154. 34 S. E. 86; 426, 8 Sup. Ct. 193, 31 L. Ed. 190; Hairston v. Hairston, 35 S. C. 298, Magniac v. Thompson, 7 Pet. 348, 14 S. E. 634. See also Transactions aff'g 16 Fed. Cas. No. 8,956, Baldw. between persons in confidential re- 344; Vansickle v. Wells, 105 Fed. Peefeeences to Ceeditoes. 513 between husband and wife as between any other persons occupy- 16; Hinchman v. Parlin, etc., Co., 74 Fed. 698, 21 C. 0. A. 273. Ala. — Beddow v. Sheppard, 118 Ala. 474, 23 So. 662; National Bank of Republic v. Dickinson, 107 Ala. 265, 18 So. 144; Kilgore v. Stoner (1892), 12 So. 60; Whaun v. Atkin- son, 84 Ala. 592, 4 So. 681; North- ington V. Faber, 52 Ala. 45. Cat — Roberts v. Burr, 135 Cal. 156, 67 Rac. 46. Colo. — First Nat. Bank v. Kava- nagh, 7 Colo. App. 160, 43 Pac. 217; Stramann v. Seheeren, 7 Colo. App. 1, 42 Pac. 191. Fla.— mil V. Meinhard, 39 Fla. Ill, 21 So. 805. Ga. — Simms v. Tidwell, 98 Ga. 686, 25 S. E.' 555; Comer v. Allen, 72 Ga. 1. III. — German Ins. Co. v. Bartlett, 188 111. 165, 58 N. E. 1075, 80 Am. St. Rep. 172, 52 L. R. A. 283, aff'g 89 111. App. 469; Tomlinson v. Mat- thews, 98 111. 178; Earl v. Earl, 186 111. 370, 57 N. E. 1079, rev'g 87 lU. App. 491; Cooke v. Peter, 93 111. App. 1; Cartwrigbt v. Cartwright, 68 111. App. 74; Hensley v. Hensley, 65 111. App. 195; Hughes v. Bell, 62 III. App. 74; Fleming v. Weagley, 32 111. App. 183. InH, — Brigham v. Hubbard, 115 Ind. 474, 17 N. E. 920; Dice v. Irvin, 110 Ind. 561, 11 N. E. 488; Hoea v. Royer, 108 Ind. 494, 9 N. B. 427; Bragg V. Stanford, 82 Ind. 234; Sims V. Rickets, 35 Ind. 181, 9 Am. Rep. 679; Kyger v. F. Hull Skirt Co., 34 Ind. 249. ' /owa.— Clark v. Ford, 126 Iowa, 460, 102 N. W. 421; Meredith v. Schaap (1901), 85 N. W. 628; Muir V. Miller, 103 Iowa, 127, 72 N. W. 33 409; Sprague v. Benson, 101 Iowa, 678, 70 N. W. 731; Fowler Co. v. Mc- Donnell, 100 Iowa, 536, 69 N. W. 873; Jones v. Brandt, 59 Iowa, 332, 10 N. W. 8S4, 13 N. W. 310. ffflw.— Fuller v. Croco, 46 Kan. 634, 26 Pac. 944; Winfield Nat. Bank v. Croco, 46 Kan. 629, 26 Pac. 942; De Ford V. Nye, 40 Kan. 665, 20 Pac. 481; Cooper v. First Nat. Bank, 40 Kan. 5, 18 Pac. 937; Chapman v. Summerfield, 36 Kan. 610, 14 Pac. 235; Miller v. Krueger, 36 Kan. 344, 13 Pac. 641; Kennedy v. Powell, 34 Kan. 22, 7 Pac. 606. Ky. — Taylor v. Cooley, 20 Ky. L. Rep. 1365, 49 S. W. 335. See also Ck)chran v. Rennison, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2326, 67 S. W. 5; McCandless v. Bea, 21 Ky. L. Rep. L687, 56 S. W. 10. Me. — Ferguson v. Spear, 65 Me. 277; French v. Motley, 63 Me. 326. Md;.— Orane v. BarkdoU, 59 Md. 534. Mass. — ^Atlantic Nat. Bank v. Tave- ner, 130 Mass. 407, where the con- veyance was made through a third person. Mich.— €ole v. Cole, 126 Mich. 569, 85 N. W. 1098; Strauss v. Parshall, 91 Mich. 475, 51 N. W. 1117; Dull v. Merrill, 69 Mich. 49, 36 N. W. 677; Leppig V. Bretzel, 48 Mich. 321, 12 N. W. 199; Hyde v. Powell, 47 Mich. 156, 10 N. W. 181 ; Jordan v. White, 38 Mich. 253; Allen v. Antisdale, 38 Mich. 229; Hill v. Bowman, 35 Mich. 191. Minn. — Frost v. Steele, 46 Minn. 1, 48 N. W. 413. Miss. — Savage v. Dowd, 54 Miss. 728. And see Magnum v. Finucane, 38 Miss. 354. 514 Feaudulent Conveyances. ing the relation of debtor and creditor toward each other," and a married woman who has a bona fide claim against her husband is entitled to the same legal rights as any other creditor, except as to remedy." The validity of a preference by an insolvent hus- band to his wife is not affected by the fact that it was for money loaned by the wife from the proceeds of her separate estate, which had been previously given to her by her husband, when he was sol- vent and it was not done in fraud of creditors, prior or subsequent," Mo. — See Third Nat. Bank v. Cra- mer, 78 Mo. App. 476. Mont. — Lambrecht v. Palten, 15 Mont. 260, 38 Pac. 1063. Nel. — ^Dayton Spice-Mills Co. v. Sloan, 49 Neb. 622, 68 N. W. 1040; Ward V. Parlin, 30 Neb. 376, 46 N. W. 529. N. J.— Taloott V. Arnold, 54 N. J. Eq. 570, 35 Atl. 532; Brock v. Hud- son County Nat. Bank, 48 N. J. Eq. 615, 23 Atl. 269, 27 Am. St. Rep. 451. Or.— Sabin v. Wilkins, 31 Or. 450, 48 Pac. 425, 37 L. R. A. 465. Pa. — Benson v. Maxwell 105 Pa. St. 274, 10 Pa. Cas. 380, 14 Atl. 161; Lahr's Appeal, 90 Pa. St. 507; Mat- ter of Bradway, 1 Ashm. 212. 8. C. — ^MeElwee v. Kennedy, 56 S. C. 154, 34 S. E. 86 ; McGhee v. Wells, 52 S. C. 472, 30 S. B. 602; Gerald v. Gerald, 28 S. C. 442, 6 S. E. 290. Tea!.— McCrory v. Lutz, 94 Tex. 650, 64 S. W. 780; Thompson v. Wil- son, 24 Civ. App. 666, 60 S. W. 354; Massie v. McKee (Civ. App. 1900), 56 S. W. 119; Jacobs v. Womack (Civ. App. 1894), 26 S. W. 431. ^_ Ya. — ^Bennett v. Bennett, 37 W. Va. 396, 16 S. E. 638, 38 Am. St. Rep. 47; Cale's Adm'r v. Shaw, 33 W. Va. 299, 10 S. E. 637. Wis. — Brickley v. Walker, 68 Wis. 563, 32 N. W. 773. Can.— Fair v. Young, 26 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 544. CoBTeyance regarded as mort- gage. — A conveyance to a vpife by a husband in failing circumstances is not absolutely void as against cred- itors, but is valid as a mortgage, where the facts were that she had bor- rowed money for him on her property on condition that he would make the- conveyance as security. Baker v. Georgi, 10 App. Div. (N. Y.) 249, 41 N. Y. Supp. 1030. And see Brock v.. Hudson County Nat. Bank, 48 N. J. Eq. 615, 23 Atl. 269, 27 Am. St. Rep. 451. Failure of the -nife to make Iier claim known will not deprive her of her rights as a creditor even as against one of the husband's cred- itors who gave credit to him in ignor- ance of the wife's claim. Dull v.. Merrill, 69 Mich. 49; Hyde v. Powell, 47 Mich. 156. 12. Vietor v. Swisky, 87 111. App. 583; Rudershausen v. Atwood, 19 111. App. 58; Torrey v. Cameron, 73 Tex. 583, 11 S. W. 840. 13. Righter v. Riley, 42 W. Va. 633, 26 S. E. 367. 14. De Prato v. Jester (Ark. 1892), 20 S. W. 807; Knox v. Clark, 15 Colo. App. 356, 62 Pac. 334; Laird V. Davidson, 124 Ind. 412, 25 N. E. 7.. Peefekences to Cbeditoes. 515 or the purchase money for which had been furnished by the husband ■when solvent. ^^ And it is immaterial that the statute of limita- tions had run against the debt or a portion of the debt preferred, since the husband was not obliged by any duty he owed his other creditors to interpose the statute as a defense.^* IlTeither the stat- ute of limitations, nor the presumption of payment arising from lapse of time, applies to a loan made by the wife to the husband, so as to render a preference of such debt by him fraudulent." But the fact that the debt or a portion thereof was barred by limita- tions is admissible in evidence in support of the claim that the conveyance was fraudulent, to be considered on the question of good faith,^* or whether or not an actual indebtedness existed.^' A conveyance by a debtor to his wife has been held to be volun- tary as to creditors, where the only consideration therefor was certain sums of money furnished him by her at various times, ranging from seven to thirty years, before the conveyance was made, for which no note, aclcnowledgment, or promise of pay- ment, was taken, no account kept, nor payment of interest re- quired.^* 15. Bean v. Patterson, 122 U. S. Debts barred by limitation, ehap. 496, 7 Sup. Ct. 1298, 30 L. Ed. 1126. VIII, § 22, supra. 16. Manchester v. Tibbetts, 121 N. 17. Rudershausen v. Atwood, 19' Y. 219, 24 N. E. 304, 18 Am. St. Rep. III. App. 58; Dice v. Irwin, 110 Ind. 816; Vansickle v. Wells, 105 Fed. 16; 561, 11 N. E. 488. Kennedy V. Powell, 34 Kan. 22; Frost 18. Vansickle v. Wells, Fargo & V. Steele, 46 Minn. 1, 48 N. W. 413. Co., 105 Fed. 16. See also French v. Motley, 63 Me. 19. HoUis v. Rodgers, 106 Ga. 13, 326, the fact that the debt was barred 31 S. E. 783. by the statute is not conclusive evi- 20. Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, 162 denoe of a want of good faith. See 111. 625, 45 N. E. 680, aif'g 56 111. App. 517.