Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/450

 HEfiBINO V, RICHABDS. eeS �openly made, and the deed was recorded, and subsequent creditors had notice that the property was in the name of the children. They cannot be heard to say that credit was given Eichards on the strength of his ownership of this land. If the conveyance had been secret, concealed from creditors, and the anaount of the gift impaired the ability of Biohards to pay, the creditors might complain. �I think it is proven that the gift was accepted by the daughters, and the foUowing legal propositions must control the decision of this case : �First. Unless fraud was intended, when the conveyance was made by the father to his children, it is net void or void- able as to his subsequent creditors, inasmuch as he was free from debt at the time it was made. 8 Wheat. 239, and note to same case in 1 am. Lead. Cases; 2 Kent's Com. 173 ; 3 John Ch. 481; Id. 328. �Second. Such settlement, though voluntarily made, wiU be upheld. EUison v. ElUson, 1 Lead. Cases in Equity, 382. �Third. There is no presumption of constructive fraud by such settlement, as there might be if debts existed and the debtor impaired the rights of creditors. Kehr v. Smith, 20 Wall. 31, 35. �The rule may be summed up that the gift, conveyance, and settlement will be upheld "if it be reasonable, not dis- proportionate to the husband's means, taking into view his debts and situation, and clear of any intent, actual or con- structive, to defraud creditors." This doctrine is solid. �A fraudulent intent must be clearly shown, but if the amount of the property thus conveyed impaired the means of the grantor, so as to hinder and delay his creditors, it is void. �If an honest motive can be imputed to the donor, equally as well as a corrupt one, the former should be preferred. �If this case is tested by the rules above laid down, I think the conveyance can be sustained, for the intent to defraud creditors is not clearly and distinctly proved. There is some conflict in the testimony upon this point, but the plaintiff, upon whom the burden of proof is thrown to show the fraud- aient intent, bas failed to prove it. ����