wife has the right to assail her husband's conveyance for fraud, because it impairs his ability to perform his obligation to support her, a complaint by her for that purpose is insufficient, which does not allege that the husband has failed, neglected or refused to furnish suitable and proper support, nor that the conveyance in question has lessened or diminished in any way his present or future ability or capacity to furnish such support. Ullrich v. Ullrich, 68 Conn. 580 (37 Atl. Rep. 393.)

Sec. 368. Conveyances between husband and wife. Except as against existing creditors and as against those to whom he contemplates becoming indebted, a husband may gratuitously convey his property to his wife. Lavigne v. Tobin, 52 Neb. 686 (72 N. W. Rep. 1040.) A gift of real estate by a husband to his wife, cannot be assailed by one who becomes a creditor of the husband several years thereafter, although the wife was not present when the deed was executed nor consulted about the transaction. Goodfellow v. Le May, 15 Wash. 684 (47 Pac. Rep. 25). The sale of property belonging to a wife, but held and managed by her husband, in his name, and the conversion of the proceeds into property held by her in her name, is not a fraud upon a creditor of the husband, who acquired his claim after the sale of the property, there being no proof of any act of fraud or concealment, or that the creditor changed his position on the faith of the husband's supposed ownership of the property. Hall v. Warren, Ariz. (48 Pac. Rep. 214). A deed from an insolvent married man to his wife, founded upon no other consideration but a contract previously made between them, by the terms of which she was to perform the ordinary household duties of a wife, for which he was to pay her a stipulated sum per annum, is, as to the creditors of the husband whose claims were in existence at the time of the execution of the deed, voluntary and therefore void. Lee v. Savannah Guano Co., 99 Ga. 572(27 S. E. Rep. 159; 59 Am. St. Rep. 243). Where a business conducted by a husband with his wife's capital is in fact his own, property purchased with the profits of such business and conveyed to his wife may be subjected to the claims of his creditors. Murphy v. Nilles, 166 Ill. 99 (46 N. E. Rep. 772). A conveyance from a hus

band to his wife claimed by them to be made in payment of a debt due from him to her, will not be sustained against his creditors by the uncorroborated testimony of the husband and wife as to the existence of the debt. Sanford v. Allen, Tenn. (42 S.W.Rep.183). A conveyance to a wife of lands purchased by her, will not be set aside as fraudulent as to her husband's creditors, because a portion of the purchase money was paid out of money which the wife had saved of the allowance made from time to time by her husband for the support of the family. Green v. Buckier, Ky. (40 S. W. Rep. 382). The simple failure to record a conveyance of real property does not of itself render the instrument fraudulent as to creditors, but it is one circumstance which, in connection with others, may avoid the deed. Where the instrument is a voluntary conveyance from husband to wife, and it is withheld from record until after equities of the husband's creditors without notice attach to the property, either by reason of some lien, or because of credit extended upon the faith of the grantor's possession and apparent ownership of record of the property conveyed, the conveyance will be invalid as against such creditors. American Frechold Land & Mortg. Co. v. Maxwell, 39 Fla. 489 (22 So. Rep. 751). Citing, Fetters v. Duvernois, 73 Mich. 481 (41 N. W. Rep. 514); Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. St. 43; Wait, Fraud. Conv., § 235; Warner v. Watson, 35 Fla. 402 (17 So. Rep. 654). Particular conveyance from husband to wife held fraudulent as. to his creditors. Preston Nat. Bank v. Pierson, 112 Mich. 435 (70 N. W. Rep. 1013; Carkeck v. Boston Nat. Bank, 16 Wash. 399 (47 Pac. Rep. 884); Sanford v. Allen, Tenn. (42 S. W. Rep. 183); Dillman v. Nadelhoffer, 162 Ill. 625 (45 N. E. Rep. 680). Particular conveyance from husband to wife held not to be a fraud upon his creditors. Stonebraker v. Hicks, 94 Va. 618 (27 S. E. Rep. 497); Spence v. Repass, 94 Va. 716 (27 S. E. Rep. 583). Particular transactions between husband and wife held to constitute a fraud upon his creditors. Thomas v. McDaneld, 102 Ia. 564 (71 N. W. Rep. 572); Township of Maple Valley v. Foley, 113 Mich. 622 (71 N. W. Rep. 1086); Shepherd v. Reeves, 114 Ala. 281 (21 So. Rep. 956); Darling v. Hanks, Ky. (42 S. W. Rep. 1130).

Sec. 369, Conveyances between husband and wifePresumptions - Burden of proof. A conveyance by an insolvent husband to his wife will be presumed fraudulent as to his creditors, and the mere recital in the deed of a valuable consideration without any proof of actual payment thereof, is insufficient to rebut this presumption. Redmond v. Chandley, 119 N. C. 575 (26 S. E. Rep. 255). In Nebraska it is held that when a conveyance from a husband to a wife or from a wife to a husband is attacked by his or her creditor, whose claim existed at the time the conveyance was made, the presumption will be indulged that such conveyance was fraudulent and the burden rests upon the husband or wife, as the case may be, of showing the good faith of the transaction. Kirchman v. Corcoran, 51 Neb. 191 (70 N. W. Rep. 916); Jansen v. Lewis, 52 Neb. 556 (72 N. W. Rep. 861). Where, in an action to subject property conveyed to a wife to the payment of her husband's debts, it appears from the evidence that he could not have furnished the funds with which to purchase it, and that she was engaged in a business the resources of which would enable her to make such purchase, the presumption that the husband furnished the money is overcome. Kinnier's Adm'r v. Woodson, 94 Va. 711 (27 S. E. Rep. 457).

Where a conveyance by a husband to his wife is assailed for fraud by his creditors, the burden is upon her to show by clear and satisfactory evidence, the good faith of the transaction. Darden v. Ferguson, Va. (27 S. E. Rep. 435); Spence v. Repass, 94 Va. 716 (27 S. E. Rep. 583); American Freehold Land & Mortg. Co. v. Maxwell, 39 Fla. 489 (22 So. Rep. 751). The same rule applies where the contest is over property purchased by the wife in her name during her husband's insolvency. Kahn v. Weinlander, 39 Fla. 210 (22 So. Rep. 653); Crump v. Johnson, Tenn.

(40 S. W. Rep. 73). Where a conveyance from a husband to wife is assailed as a fraud upon the equitable rights of his creditors, although she paid a valuable consideration, the burden is on her to show that she took without notice of their rights, although Mont. Comp. Stat. 1887, div. 5, § 232, per. taining to conveyances provides that "the provisions of this chapter shall not be construed in any manner to affect or

impair the title of a purchaser for a valuable consideration, unless it shall appear that such purchaser had previous notice of the fraudulent intent of his immediate grantor or of the fraud rendering void the title of such grantor." Lewis v. Lindley, 19 Mont. 422 (48 Pac. Rep. 765). When a husband appropriates his own money to erecting buildings upon his wife's land with her consent, the increment of value thereby created can be taken by his prior creditors through proceedings in equity, even though there was no actual intent to defraud such creditors; and when a wife receiving from time to time her husband's income, first invests it in her separate business, and then pays the family expenses out of that business, the burden is upon her, as against his prior creditors, to show affirmatively the amount actually consumed in such expenses. Trefethen v. Lynam, 90 Me. 376 (38 Atl. Rep. 335; C0 Am. St. Rep. 271; 38 L. R. A. 190).

Sec. 370. Conveyances between near relatives. The fact that liens given by a debtor to his near relatives are held by them for a long time without seeking their enforcement, does not, of itself, show that they were fraudulently executed. Norton v. Reed, Tenn. (42 S. W. Rep. 688). A conveyance by a father to his daughter in discharge of a bona fide debt due her for support furnished him, will not be held fraudulent. Citizens' State Bank v. Weston, 103 Ia. 736 (72 N. W. Rep. 542). The moral obligation of an alleged fraudulent grantor arising from the performance of service by members of his family, without contract or agreement that they should be paid therefor, is not a sufficient consideration for a transfer of a part of his property to them without retaining sufficient property to pay his existing debts. Fair Haven Marble & M. S. Co. v. Owens, 69 Vt. 246 (37 Atl. Rep. 749); Dodson v. Scvers, 54 N. J. Eq. 305 (38 Atl. Rep. 28). A conveyance by one heavily in debt to members of his own family, who are acquainted with his financial condition and who have neither money nor property with which to meet their obligations given for the conveyance, will be set aside as fraudulent. Gamet v. Simmons, 103 Ia. 163 (72 N. W. Rep. 444). An absolute conveyance by a failing debtor to his uncle and a lease back to the debtor openly

made and recorded for the purpose of securing a bona fide indebtedness to the grantee who is guilty of no fraud, will not be held fraudulent. Cathcart v. Grieve, 104 Ia. 330 (73 N. W. Rep. 835). Where a conveyance from a debtor to a member of his family is assailed as fraudulent by his creditors, the burden of showing good faith in the transaction is upon the defendant. Lavelle v. Clark, Ky. (38 S. W. Rep. 481). Particular conveyance by mother to son in consideration of love and affection and his agreement to pay certain debts of hers and support her during life, held to be fraudulent as to creditors. Hazlewood v. Forrer, 94 Va. 703 (27 S. E. Rep. 507). Particular transactions held to be a fraud upon creditors; between father and son, Chatterton v. Mason, 86 Md. 236 (37 Atl. Rep. 960); between the widow and the heirs of a decedent, Ranson v. Brinkerhoff, 56 N. J. Eq. 149 (38 Atl. Rep. 919); between members of a family, Martin v. Berry, 116 Ala. 233 (22 So. Rep. 493). For particular transactions between members of a family held not to be fraudulent as to creditors, see Coyne v. Sayre, 54 N. J. Eq. 702 (36 Atl. Rep. 96); Torrey Cedar Co. v. Eul, 95 Wis. 615 (70 N. W. Rep. 823); Williams v. Tye, Ky. (42 S. W. Rep. 90); Kincaid v. Irvine, 140 Mo. 615 (41 S. W. Rep. 963).

Sec. 371. Reconveyance by fraudulent grantee to his grantor. The moral obligation resting upon a grantee to whom property has been conveyed to defraud his grantor's creditors, imposed by his agreement to reconvey to such grantor, is sufficient consideration to sustain an executed conveyance by him to his grantor, and such a conveyance gives the latter a title superior to the rights of the creditor of his original grantee, who extended credit on the faith of the latter's ownership of the property but did not acquire any lien on the land. Biccochi v. Casey-Swasey Co., 91 Tex. 259 (42 S. W. Rep. 963; 66 Am. St. Rep. 875). Citing, Clark v. Rucker, 7 B. Mon. 583; Powell v. Ivey, 88 N. C. 256; Stanton v. Shaw, 3 Baxt. 12; Davis v. Graves, 29 Barb. 480; Wait, Fraud. Conv., §§ 387-398; Bump, Fraud. Conv., p. 224; Petty v. Petty, 31 N. J. Eq. 14; Irion v. Mills, 41 Tex. 310.

Sec. 372. As to what constitutes a fraudulent con

veyance-Particular cases. A conveyance by an insolvent