cause." That the applicant has an honest relief as to the apprehended danger of loss of property which will result from the delay incident to a notice of the application is not sufficient to authorize an appointment of a receiver pending an action without notice, but there must be a full statement of facts clearly and satisfactorily showing such belief to be well grounded.22 But a receiver may be appointed without notice when the exigency of the case demands it, where, for example, some urgent emergency is shown rendering interference, before there is time to give notice, necessary to prevent waste or injury of property,23 or where to give notice would cause delay, which would defeat the receiver and prevent him from taking possession of the property." The insolvency of the vendees or their inability to respond to any decree which may be rendered against them, if clearly established by the facts set forth in the application, may be a good reason for failure to give notice.25 It has been held that the title to property, in an action to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent, and the rights of creditors in such case, are not affected by the appointment of a receiver.26 But the doctrine of the New York courts is that when a creditor procures the appointment of a receiver, he abandons his judgment lien for the remedy of a sale by the receiver, and seeks a satisfaction of his debt out of the debtor's property generally. The personal estate becomes vested in the receiver from the time and by virtue of the appointment; the real estate only by virtue of a conveyance to him which the court has power to compel; and in this way the satisfaction is 21. Stillwell v. Savannah Grocery Co., 88 Ga. 100, 13 S. E. 963, the grantee should be offered the alternative of giving bond and security in lieu of surrendering the property to a receiver; Ruffner v. Mairs, 33 W. Va. 655, 11 S. E. 5. 22. Gilreath v. Union Bank, etc., Co., 121 Ala. 204, 25 So. 581; Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co., 87 Ala. 733, 6 So. 928. 23. Moritz v. Miller, 87 Ala. 331, 6 So. 269; Micon v. Moses, 72 Ala. 439; Weis v. Goetter, 72 Ala. 259; Ruffner v. Mairs, supra. 24. Moritz v. Miller, supra. 25. Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co. 87 Ala. 333, 6 So. 928; Turnipseed v. Kentucky Wagon Co., 97 Ga. 258, 23 S. E. 84. 26. Davis v. Bonney, 89 Va. 755, 17 S. E. 229. See also Micon v. Moses, 72 Ala. 439. worked out. The legal title passes to the receiver who thus be comes a trustee of the property for the benefit of the creditor and discharges his duty under the direction of the court." § 27. Appeal and review. The rules of almost universal application requiring presentation and reservation in the lower court of grounds of review, or that questions, of whatever nature, not raised in the trial court will not be noticed on appeal, and that objections must be raised in the trial court in order to reserve questions for review, apply in actions to set aside fraudulent conveyances.28 The usual exceptions to these rules also apply, as to errors apparent on the face of the record, etc.29 In an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, an objection that there is no return of nulla bona must be taken in the court below and cannot be made after a trial on the issue of fraud.30 The general rules as to the parties entitled to allege error apply, and one not prejudiced thereby cannot take advantage of errors committed in the lower court.31 27. Chautauqua County Bank v. Risley, 19 N. Y. 369, 75 Am. Dec. 347; McDonald v. McDonald, 62 Hun (N. Y.), 621, 17 N. Y. Supp. 230; Passacant v. Bowdoin, 60 Hun (N. Y.), 433, 15 N. Y. Supp. 8; National Union Bank v. Riger, 38 App. Div. (N. Y.) 123, 56 N. Y. Supp. 545. 28. Ky.-Kinkle v. Gale, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 126, 11 S. W. 664, filing of judgment, execution, and sheriff's return. Md.-Birely v. Staley, 5 Gill & J. 432, 25 Am. Dec. 203. Mass.-Boylen v. Leonard, 84 Mass. 407. Mo.-Renney v. Williams, 89 Mo. 139, 1 S. W. 227; Ziekel v. Douglass, 88 Mo. 382. Va.-Flynn v. Jackson, 93 Va. 341, 25 S. E. 1; McNew v. Smith, 5 Gratt. 84. 29. Gibbs v. Hodge, 65 Ala. 366; Every reasonable presumption Taylor v. Johnson, 113 Ind. 164, 15 N. E. 238; Potter v. Stevens, 40 Mo. 229; Thornton v. Gaar, 87 Va. 315, 12 S. E. 753. 30. Barton v. Barton, 80 Ky. 212, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 743; Hill v. Cannon, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 591. 31. Ill.-Coale v. Moline Plow Co., 134 Ill. 350, 25 N. E. 1016, the grantee in a fraudulent conveyance cannot complain on appeal because the conveyance was set aside for the benefit of a single creditor, instead of all the creditors, of the grantee. Mich.-Manhard Hardware Co. v. Rothschild, 121 Mich. 657, 80 N. W. 707. Mo.-Meyer Bros. Drug Co. v. Va.-Price v. Thrash, 30 Gratt. 515, will be resolved in favor of the judgment of the court below.32 Unless it plainly appears that the discretion of the trial court has been abused, the appellate court, on review, will not reverse a decision made in the exercise of the trial court's discretion.33 The general rules relating to the review of questions of fact on appeal are applicable in actions to set aside fraudulent conveyances. Where the evidence is conflicting the finding of the 34 in a suit to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, the judgment debtor cannot question the fraud on appeal, where the alienees do not appeal. W. Va.-Silverman v. Greaser, 27 W. Va. 550. 32. Stam v. Smith, 183 Mo. 464, 81 S. W. 1217, in an action by a judgment creditor to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance of the homestead of the debtor, a general finding for defendant raises a presumption that the trial court found as a matter of fact that the land conveyed did not exceed fifteen hundred dollars in value, in the absence of a special finding on that issue; Beeman v. Cooper, 64 Vt. 305, 23 Atl. 794, where the record is silent as to whether the mortgagor retained other property sufficient to pay his existing debts, the court will not presume the want of other property to enable it to raise a constructive fraud in a mortgage given in consideration of future support. 33. Irwin v. McKnight, 76 Ga. 669. 34. N. Y.-Smith v. Hahn, 130 N. Y. 694, 30 N. E. 68, aff'g 55 Hun, 611, 8 N. Y. Supp. 663; Donohue v. Joyce, 64 Hun, 634, 19 N. Y. Supp. 134; Manchester v. Tibbetts, 49 Hun, 612, 4 N. Y. Supp. 23. Colo.-Gregory v. Filbeck, 12 Colo. 379, 21 Pac. 489. Ill.-Treadwell v. McEwen, 123 Ill. 253, 13 N. E. 850, aff'g 23 Ill. App. 111; Powers v. Green, 14 Ill. 386. Kan.-Johnson v. Jones, 6 Kan. App. 755, 50 Pac. 983. Ky.-Marcoffsky v. Franks, 19 Ky. L. Rep. 1377, 43 S. W. 440; Lutkenhoff v. Lutkenhoff, 13 Ky. L. Rep. 584, 17 S. W. 863; Meritt v. Meritt, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 493, 11 S. W. 593; Johnson v. Skaggs, 8 Ky. L. Rep. 601, 2 S. W. 493. La.-Carrollton Bank v. Cleveland, 15 La. Ann. 616; Hayes v. Clarke, 12 La. Ann. 666. Mich.-Heaton v. Nelson, 74 Mich. 199, 41 N. W. 895. Mo.-Brown v. Fickle, 135 Mo. 405, 37 S. W. 107; Pinger v. Leach, 70 Mo. 42. Mont.-Woods v. Berry, 7 Mont. 195, 14 Pac. 758. Neb.-Parlin, etc., Co. v. Ulrich, 57 Neb. 780, 78 N. W. 275; South Omaha Nat. Bank v. Chase, 30 Neb. 444, 46 N. W. 513; Hart v. Dogge, 29 Neb. 237, 45 N. W. 626, aff'g 27 Neb. 256, 42 N. W. 1035. N. J.-Stone v. Newell, 54 N. J. Eq. 690, 35 Atl. 285. Pa.-Stewart v. Wilson, 42 Pa. St. 35 court or jury will not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of evidence of passion, prejudice, or partiality on their part. A judgment will not be reversed for error which is harmless and not prejudicial to the appellant.36 Whether the conveyance assailed was or was not made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors of the grantor depends upon the circumstances surrounding the transaction, the credit to be given to the witnesses, and the inferences properly drawn therefrom; and wherever the referee has found in favor of the conveyance and the general term has affirmed the finding, the court of appeals will not set it aside where the finding is possible and reasonable upon some view of the evidence.37 450; Rose v. Keystone Shoe Co., 2 Pa. Cas. 243, 4 Atl. 1. S. C.-Mitchell v. Mitchell, 42 S. C. 475, 20 S. E. 405; Jackson v. Plyler, 38 S. C. 496, 17 S. E. 255, 37 Am. St. Rep. 782; Wagener v. Mars, 27 S. C. 97, 2 S. E. 844. Tenn.-Farmers, etc., Nat. Bank v. Herndon (Ch. App. 1898), 46 S. W. 550. Tex.-Moss v. Sanger, 75 Tex. 321, 12 S. W. 619; Frieberg v. Sanger (1889), 12 S. W. 1136; Linz v. Atchinson, 14 Tex. Civ. App. 647, 38 S. W. 640, 47 S. W. 542; Houston, etc., R. Co. v. Shirley (Civ. App. 1894), 24 S. W. 809. Va.-Moore v. Butler, 90 Va. 683, 19 S. E. 850. The question of fraudulent 35. N. Y.-Parmenter v. Fitzpatrick, 135 N. Y. 190, 31 N. E. 1032, rev'g 60 Hun, 580, 14 N. Y. Supp. 748. Cal. Claudine v. Aguirre, 89 Cal. 501, 26 Pac. 1077. Ind.-Seavey v. Walker, 108 Ind. 78, 9 N. E. 347. Iowa.-Sperry v. Kain, 84 Iowa, 203, 50 N. W. 945; Saar v. Finkin, 79 Iowa, 61, 44 N. W. 538. Ky.-Deshazer v. Deshazer, 11 Ky. L. Rep. 159, 11 S. W. 772. Neb.-Sonnenschein v. Bartels, 37 Neb. 592, 56 N. W. 210; Bierbower v. Singer, 27 Neb. 414, 43 N. W. 254. 36. N. Y.-Mullenneaux v. Terwilliger, 50 Hun, 526, 3 N. Y. Supp. 442. Ala.-Robinson v. Pontius, 136 Ind. 641, 36 N. E. 421. Iowa.-Bener 76 Edgington, Iowa, 105, 40 N. W. 117; Hall v. Carter, 74 Iowa, 364, 37 N. W. 956. V. Minn.-McDonald v. Peacock, 37 Minn. 512, 35 N. W. 370. Tex.-Hudson v. Willis, 87 Tex. 387, 28 S. W. 929; Sanger v. Colbert, 84 Tex. 668, 19 S. W. 863; Blum v. Light, 81 Tex. 414, 16 S. W. 1090. 37. Third Nat. Bank v. Cornes, 102 N. Y. 737, 8 N. E. 42. intent is a question of fact, and, where there is sufficient evidence to sustain the finding, it will not be disturbed.38 Where, by statute, fraud or fraudulent intent is made a question of fact for the court or jury trying the cause, the appellate court will not weigh the evidence and determine the preponderance on appeal in an action involving the question whether a conveyance was made with intent to defraud creditors, and where there is competent evidence to support the verdict or finding of the lower court, it will not be reviewed on appeal. The usual practice in determining and disposing of the cause prevails on appeals in actions to set aside conveyances as fraudulent as against creditors.40 The unanimous affirmance by the Appellate Division of that part of the judgment which sets aside certain confessions of judgment and transfers as fraudulent, is conclusive in the Court of Appeals that a finding of the trial court that the creditors so preferred participated in the debtor's fraud is sustained by the evidence.41 38. Bennett v. McGuire, 58 Barb. (N. Y.) 625. 39. N. Y.-Hastings v. Claffin, 133 N. Y. 539, 30 N. E. 1148, aff'g 60 Hun, 580, 14 N. Y. Supp. 757; Muller v. Abramson, 25 Misc. Rep. 520, 54 N. Y. Supp. 1027. Cal.-Poulson v. Stanley, 122 Cal. 655, 55 Pac. 605, 68 Am. St. Rep. 73. Ind. Eacker v. Thompson, 4 Ind. App. 393, 30 N. E. 1114. Minn.-Vose v. Stockney, 19 Minn. 367. Neb. Schrider v. Tighe, 38 Neb. 394, 56 N. W. 994. N. D.-Stevens v. Myers (1905), 104 N. W. 529. |