Generally.

itself insufficient to set the sale aside. Culbert- debts, to satisfy which a levy was made on this son & Reno v. Luckey, 13 Iowa, 12.

8. But if A makes a mortgage to B for a sum larger than is owing, it would tend in the absence of explanatory proof, to show an unfair and fraudulent purpose. Davenport v. Cummings, 15 Iowa, 219.

9. Conveyance from parent to child. A sale of real estate by a parent to a child, in contemplation of insolvency, for a consideration different from that expressed in the deed, the grantee not taking possession under the sale, and failing to file the deed for record for a considerable time after the execution thereof, may, from the nature of the transaction, and the relation of the parties, be presumed fraudulent; but such presumption is not sufficiently strong to overcome a positive denial of fraud in a sworn answer. Culbertson & Reno v. Luckey et al., 13 Iowa, 12. And see Johnson v. McGrew, 11 Ibid. 151; Wright v. White & Wheeler, 14 Ibid. 8.

piano. Held, not liable to the debts of the father. Ibid.

13. This case is distinguished from Odell & Updegraff v. Lee et al., 14 Iowa, 411. In that case the property belonged to the wife, and was in the possession of the husband, in this the possession of the child is not the possession of the parent. Ibid.

14. Grantee chargeable with interest. The grantee of property sold and received for the purposes of hindering and delaying creditors, is chargeable with interest on the value thereof, from the time of the conversion of the same to his own use. Wilson v. Horr, 15 Iowa, 489.

15. When conveyance cannot be questioned. When it appeared affirmatively in the record of an action by the creditor of a decedent, to set aside a conveyance made by such decedent of real estate as fraudulent against creditors, that the claim of such creditor was filed as a claim of the third class against said estate, the assets of which were amply sufficient to pay all claims of that class, it was held, that he could not question the validity of the conveyance. Jordan v. Stephenson et al., 17 Iowa, 514.

16. Purchaser with notice. Where the voluntary conveyance is made in good faith, and the subsequent purchaser or incumbrancer has notice of it, he cannot defeat it. Wolf v. Van Metre, 23 Iowa, 397.

10. When the evidence showed that the grantor and grantee of real estate sustained to each other the relation of parent and child, that the grantor was indebted in a considerable sum, and desired to avoid the payment of the same; that the sale was made on the day the creditor demanded security for his debt; that the deed was hurriedly executed and placed on record; that the grantee borrowed all the purchasemoney, and the same money was returned to the lender within a few days, and that the 17. Character of interest conveyed deterproperty conveyed embraced all the property mines its validity. Where the property volunbelonging to the debtor and grantor not ex- tarily conveyed is that upon which the creditor empt from execution; it was held sufficient to had no claim, at law or in equity, such conveyovercome the allegations of an answer by de-ance is not fraudulent as against such creditor. fendant's denying fraud. Vandall v. Vandall Ibid.

et al., 13 Iowa, 247.

11. Gift to child. A gift made in good faith by a father to his child, while he is solvent, if the possession of the property shall be taken by the child, and it is held as exclusively hers and under her sole and exclusive control, will not become liable to the father's debt subsequently contracted, by the simple fact that it was kept in his house with his other furniture. Pierson v. Heisey, Sheriff. 19 Iowa, 114.

12. A father purchased and gave to his daughter a piano. It was put into the parlor where it remained with the rest of his furniture, but was treated as the daughter's property and under her exclusive control. He was solvent at the time, but subsequently incurred

18. It seems that in England a voluntary conveyance will not be declared void, either as to subsequent or existing creditors, unless it transfers property liable to be taken in execution. Aliter in this country, where it is held that if the property could have been reached by the creditor through a court of equity, though it could not have been seized on execution at law, the conveyance, if to the prejudice of creditors, will be declared void. Ibid.

19. Who are subsequent creditors. Where a debtor executes a voluntary conveyance to his wife, and afterward assumes in place of his own debt, existing at the time of such conveyance, one owing by his creditors to a third party, the latter will be regarded as an existing rather

Generally - Voluntary Conveyances.

25. Valid between the parties and their heirs. While a deed executed to defraud cred-dered fraudulent by the subsequent embarrassitors is void as to them, it is nevertheless valid as between the parties and their heirs; and equity will not decree a re-conveyance, whether the secret trust be verbal or in writing. Stephens v. Heirs of Harrow, 26 Iowa, 458.

Voluntary Conveyances.

34. From father to son. A conveyance of real estate by a father to his son in consideration of services performed by the latter for the father several years before, and for which it was, at the time they were rendered, agreed that the son should receive from the father a tract of land of a specified number of acres, is not fraudulent as against creditors. Hunt v. Hoover, 34 Iowa, 77. 35. Nor would the fact that, at the time of the conveyance of the land, by reason of its increased value since the rendition of the services, was worth considerably more than the amount of the son's wages, affect the validity of the conveyance. Ibid.

Mowre, 17 Ibid. 195; Culbertson v. Lucky, 13
Ibid. 12.

39. A subsequent creditor cannot impeach a conveyance made by the debtor, on the ground merely that it is voluntary. Hook v. Moure et al., 17 Iowa, 195.

40. But it seems that where a voluntary conveyance is made and received with the actual intention of defrauding existing creditors of the grantor, it is not such a conveyance as will protect the property in the hands of the fraudu lent grantee, against the claims of subsequent creditors of the grantor. (Parkman v. Welch19 Pick. 231; Wadsworth v. Havens, 3 Wend. 411; Fiedler v. Day, 2 Sandf. 594; Young v. Pate, 4 Yerg. 164; Damon v. Bryant, 2 Pick. 411; Smith v. Lowell, 6 N. H. 67; 12 Ibid. 403; Mason v. Rogers, 1 Root, 324; Hester v. Wilkinson, 6 Humph. 215; Howe v. Ward, 4 Greenl. 195; Taylor v. Jones, 2 Ark. 600; Benton v.

36. When a father in distributing property to his children executed a deed conveying certain real estate to a minor son, but the deed was not delivered, nor the possession surrendered, and after the expiration of about ten years from the execution of such deed, it was destroyed by the grantor and a new one exe-Jones, 8 Conn. 190; Russell v. Hammond, 1 Ibid. cuted and delivered, conveying the same prop- 15; Lewis v. Love's Heirs, 2 B. Mon. 345; Sands erty to the wife of the son, at his request, and v. Hildreth, 14 Johns. 493; S. C., 2 Johns. Ch. 35, without any knowledge on the part of the 42; and see particularly Ch. KENT's celebrated grantor that the grantee was in debt. Held, 1. judgment in Reade v. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. That the mere execution of the deed without 498, 499, where the usual cases in which subsedelivery did not pass any title to the son, and that quent creditors may impeach, are stated. Sexton the grantor, by retaining the deed and the pos- v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229, and 1 Am. Lead. Case, session, retained absolute control of the prop- 33, 51; Roberts on Fraud. Convey. 17, et seq.; erty. 2. That it was competent for the Jackson v. Myers, 18 Johns. 425; Clark v. French, grantor to change the grantee and convey the 23 Me. 221, and note distinction drawn by property to the wife of the son, instead of to TENNEY, J., between conveyances where there the son himself, and that the property in the is and is not a secret trust for the grantor; holdhands of the wife, under a conveyance noting that if there is such a trust, subsequent credtainted with any fraud by the grantor or gran-itors may avoid. Edwards v. Coleman, 2 Bibb. tee, was not liable for the debts of her husband. WRIGHT, Ch. J., dissenting as to the application of these principles to this case. Stow v. Miller et al., 16 Iowa, 460.

37. Test of validity. A voluntary conveyance to a child, without intent to defraud, will be good as against existing creditors, provided the grantor retains property enough to pay them. Stewart v. Rogers, 25 Iowa, 395.

38. In the absence of an existing actual intent to defraud, whether a voluntary conveyance to a child will be void as to the creditors of the father will depend upon its reasonableness, and the condition of the grantor as respects his abllity to pay his debts out of the property retained by him. Ibid., and Carson v. Foley, 1 Iowa, 524; Lyman v. Cessford, 15 Ibid. 229; Hook v.

204; Henderson v. Dodd, 1 Benley's Eq. 138; Ridg way v. Underwood, 4 Wash. C. C. 128; Hutchinson v. Kelley, 1 Rob. (Va.) 123; Story's Eq. Jur., 361; 2 Kent's Com. 442; King v. Wilcox, 11 Paige, 589.) Ibid.

41. A conveyance which is voluntary and fraudulent is void as against existing and subsequent creditors. Gardner v. Baker, 25 Iowa,

343.

42. But see, contra, Whitescarver v. Bonney, 9 Iowa, 480, and Fifield v. Gaston, 12 Ibid. 218, where it is held that, as a rule, it is prior and not subsequent creditors that can successfully assail its validity.

43. Burden of proof. A conveyance by a debtor to his wife, including all his real estate except the homestead, recited the consideration

Fraudulent Mortgages - Fraudulent sale of Chattels.

to be "the natural love and affection which I the mortgage, if he accepts it for the purpose of have for my wife, and the further consideration securing a bona fide debt due him from the of $5,000 in hand paid to me," etc. Held, 1. mortgagor. Chase, Merritt & Blanchard v. WalThat as to an existing creditor the deed was ters et al., 28 Iowa, 460. void on its face to the extent that it was in consideration of natural love and affection; 2. That the burden of proof is upon the defendant to show, that as to the property claimed by plaintiff, the deed was made for a valuable consideration; 3. That no proof being made that any valuable consideration whatever was paid for the conveyance, the same is declared voluntary and void as to plaintiff's claim. Baldwin v. Tuttle, 23 Iowa, 66.

44. The facts upon which a conveyance by a debtor to his wife, as against an existing creditor, is fraudulent and void, stated. Ibid.

45. Collusive judgment: existing creditors. A voluntary conveyance is valid as against a subsequent judgment rendered against the grantor by collusion between him and the pretended judgment creditor, for the purpose of regaining the land. But such conveyance is constructively fraudulent as against an existing bona fide creditor of the grantor. King v. Thrap, 26 Iowa, 283.

III. FRAUDULENT MORTGAGES.

46. Intent to hinder and delay. The intent of the parties to a mortgage in executing the same to hinder and delay the creditors of the mortgagor, in the collection of their claims, renders the mortgage void as to existing creditors, notwithstanding there was no actual intent to defraud. Davenport v. Cummings, 15 Iowa, 219. 47. A mortgage of property executed by a debtor to his creditors in good faith, to secure a debt, may be valid, notwithstanding it operates to hinder and delay other creditors; but a mortgage executed with the intention to hinder and delay is fraudulent and void. Wilson et al. v. Horr et al., 15 Iowa, 489.

48. A mortgage made in good faith to secure a bona fide creditor is not fraudulent though it have the effect to delay and postpone other creditors. Adler & Bro. v. Claflin, Mellin & Co., 17 Iowa, 89; Davenport v. Cummings, 15 Ibid. 219.

49. A mortgage executed by a debtor to a creditor, with the intent on the part of the debtor to delay or defraud another creditor, will not be held fraudulent and void, even though such intent is known to the creditor receiving

50. How fraud may be shown. Fraud in the execution of a mortgage may be shown by direct and positive evidence, or may be inferred from facts and circumstances established by a preponderance of testimony. Davenport v. Cummings, supra.

51. Badge of fraud. That a mortgage on its face purports to be for a larger consideration than the one which actually passed between the parties, is a badge of fraud. Ibid.

52. Distribution of property to creditors. A creditor who is a party to a fraudulent mortgage executed by his debtor to hinder and delay other creditors, is not entitled to come in pari passu with the other creditors for a distributive share out of the property which was the subject of the fraud, even for the amount that is really due him. Wilson v. Horr, 15 Iowa, 489.

53. As he can claim no right from his fraudulent act, he stands in no better position than any other creditor having a simple debt against the fraudulent vendor or mortgagor. Ibid.

IV. FRAUDULENT SALE OF CHATTELS. 54. Sale with intent to defraud creditors. A

sale of property, made for the purpose of defrauding creditors, is fraudulent and void as to the creditors. Miller v. Bryan, 3 Iowa, 58; Davis & Co. v. Gibbon, 24 Ibid. 257.

55. Possession by vendor. A sale of personal property, the possession of which is retained by the vendor, is void as to creditors and subsequent purchasers, without actual notice, or by a duly recorded bill of sale. Miller v. Bryan, 3 Iowa, 58.

56. Possession after sale. But mere possession of personal property by the vendor after a sale, will not defeat it, unless such possession is continued until another acquires an adverse right or interest therein. Blake v. Graves et al., 18 Iowa, 312.

57. Badges of fraud as against vendor's creditors. Where one purchased goods on credit and sold them to defendant, with knowledge, who bought them on credit extending beyond the time when the claims against his vendor would become due. Held, that such facts, if proved, may be considered in determining the

Relief against Conveyances.