Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 6.djvu/453

 EOWE MACHINE CO. V. CLATBOUBN. 441 �relied upon by complainant's soliciter, that for a debtor to sell his land, convey it by deed without reservations, and yet se- cretly reserve to himself a benefit, is f raudulent as a conclu- sion of law, without reference to whether, as a matter of fact, the grantor and grantee intended to defraud creditors. It is the broad language of the court, applied to any such convey- ance made by a debtor in failing circumstances, without quali- fication, wbich I do not accept or apply in this case. Aocording to the language employed by Mr. Justice Davis it would make no difference that the grantee purchased without notice of his grantor's failing circumstances, or even that he was in- debted. It bas been held by that court that a conveyance will not be set aside without the element of bad faith in both the grantor and grantee. Clements y.Moore, 6 Wall. 312; Astor V. Wells, 4 Wheat. 466. �On the part of the grantor there can be no difficulty in finding his intention to have been fraudulent, either as a con- clusion of law or fact in making the conveyance. , But it is difficult from the whole proofs to uk upon the grantee any want of good faith, or an intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. Provision was made to pay ail debts of Thomas K. of which his son had any knowledge. The fact that the value of the property transferred, or supposed to be trans- ferred, was $2,400 in excess of the consideration stated in the deed, tends to throw suspicion on the good faith of the grantee, but, taken alone, or in connection with the other facts, it is not proof of fraud. So also the reservation by the grantor of benefits by the bond for support may be a badge of fraud ; and conveying ail the grantor's property la .another fact that awakens suspicion ; but none or ail of them are necessarily evidence of fraud on the part of the grantee. If he takes title in the belief that the grantor is not indebted, or has by the transaction provided for the payment of ail his debts, and has no good reason to believe otherwise, no ground is seen upon which to find fraudulent intent on the part of grantee. �The criterion by which to reach a conclusion is whether ��� �