Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/459

 IN EB WOOD. 447 �Tiigg, 98 U. S. 50;, In re Jackson Iron Manuf'g Co. 15 N. B. .E.438. �The only evidence to support this contract to cpnvey is thajt of the husband and the wife. If this evidence were compe- general in its nature and character to establish the existence of such a contract. The convenance cannot, upon this ground, ,be sustained. �Can the conveyances be supported upon the ground that it was a eonveyance to the wife by the husband in payment of a debt dvie from him to her? I think, in equity, that the wife, atrthe time this eonveyance was made, was the crediter of her husband; andi in law, she occupied the same relation to the extent of the sumoff 1,000 invested in the house, and the sum of $300 receivedin 1862, and that of $495 received in 1864, as any other crediter. The $1,000 was given her for a specifie purpose as her own meanp, and was so treated by the husband. The other two sums were her separate property by the laws of Ohio, and it does not appear that she had ever parted with her title to it, but that it was always treated by her husband as her eeparate property. That a wife may become the crediter of her husband is clearly laid down by Story in his Equity Jurisprudence, § 1373. �As to the sum of $17000 invested in the building and cem- pleting of the house it is clear to my mind that her equities are superior to those of other ereditors. It was her prop- erty — her means — which brought the house into existence. But as to the $300 and $495 she occupied no such position ; ehe was a general crediter, with no greater equities than any other general crediter. �With this view as to her rights as a crediter, can these conveyances be supported ? At the time they were made the husband was insolvent. He made these conveyances to place the property beyend the reach of his ereditors, and this gives her a preference ever them, and this evades the provisions of the bankrupt law. The wife knew of his insolvency,,. — that such was the purpose of the husband, and that such would be the effect of the eonveyance. And whilst I do not find the ����
 * tent, it does not describe the terms of the contract, and is too