Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/192

 IfOTBB V. AOAUS. 185 �neither money nor property of the husband had entered into the land which was the subject of controversy. In bûth these cases the property was conveyed to the wife by the husband through a trustee. These are the only cases cited from the supreme court of Indiana which bear any analogy to the case now before the court. In Catherwood-v. Watson, 65 Ind. 576, ïhs snpreaie court merely deoided that, where a tract of land was purchased by the wife with her money, and a deed was taken in her husband's name, there was no resulting trust in favor of the wife as against a judgment and execution creditor who levied on the land, and had no notice of the wife's inter- est in the land. In Glidewell v. Spaugh, 26 Ind. 319, the court decided, where a conveyance of real estate was made to one person, and the consideration therefor proceeded from an- other, that no trust arose under the statute unless there waa an agreement without fraud to hold the title for the use of the person paying the purchase money. �The district court, in each of the cases now under consid- eration, sustained the bill, and held that the eonveyances respectively made to the wife were fraudulent as against the creditors of the bankrupts. From that decision an appeal was taken in each case by the wife, and by her husband. I think the decision of the district court was right in each case. The deeds were made to the wife in the fall of 1877, ai a time when there can be no reasonable doubt that the firm of Stoner & Moyer was insolvent, as well as each member of the firm. Neither can there be any doubt that these eonvey- ances were respectively made for the purpose of preventing the property from coming into the hands of the creditors of Stoner & Moyer, and ao were fraudulent in contemplation of law, unless the fact that some money of the wife entered into the property changed the principle. The supreme court of this state has sustained eonveyances made to the wife where the whole consideration was paid by her, where no money or property of the husband became an integral part of the estate conveyed, and where the deed had been taken in the name of the husband ; but this is as far as the supreme court has gone. It may be questionable, I think, where the wife haa ����