Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/771

 LEB V. HOLLISTEE. T59 �the lots conveyed to Mrs, Hollister. The consideration re- cited in the deeds is the same amount, and the deeds are of the same date. The çonveyance made by Thomas G. Ean- dall seems to have been acknowledged first. I shall therefore decide that çonveyance is sustained by a valuable considera- tion, and refuse to set it aside. Miller v. Edwards, 7 Bush, 393; Latimer v. Gknn, 2 Bush, 535. �In coming to this conclusion, I bave not overlooked the lapse of time between the receipt of the proceeds ol these sales by the bankrupt and the execution of bis paroi agree- ment. But this agreement was executed by the bankrupt at a time and under cireumstances which made it quite proper he should do so. He was abundantly able to have paid ail of his debts, and have a handsome estate left. The cases of Pryor, Assignee, v. Smith, 4 Bush, 379, and Darnaby v. Dam- ahy, 14 Bush, 485, are unlike these cases. In those cases the paroi agreement had not been executed, and its execution was sought by the wife against the creditors of an insolveni husband. �There is nothing in this record tending to prove actual fraud upon the part of the bankrupt or his wife either in the inaking of this paroi agreement or its execution. The only claim the assignee or the bank can bave to set aside the conveyances of either of these lots is under the provisions of the second section of the Kentucky statute against fraud- aient conveyances, which provides that "every gift, çonvey- ance, assignment, transfer, or charge made by a debtor of or upon any of his estate, without valuable consideration there- for, shall be void as to ail of his then existing liabilities, but shall not on that account alône be void as to creditors whosë debts or demands are thereaftercontracted; » * » and, though it be adjudged to be void as to a prior creditor, it shall not therefore be deemed to be void as to such subse- quent creditors." Gen. St. c. 44, § 2, p. 488. This section is peremptory, The only inquiry is whether the çonveyance was without a valuable consideration, and are there ànd were there existing liabilities of the grantor ? If the çonveyance is without a valuable consideration, it is void as to existing lia- ����