it casts upon the purchaser the burden of explaining the vendor's continued possession, so as to make that fact consistent with the bona fides of the sale and the absolute disposition of the property. The presumption of fraud arising from continued pos 6. N. Y.-First Nat. Bank of Amsterdam v. Miller, 163 N. Y. 164, 57 N. E. 308, the existence of fraudulent intent is generally a question of fact; Prentiss Tool, etc., Co. v. Schirmer, 136 N. Y. 305, 32 N. E. 849, 32 Am. St. Rep. 737; Preston v. Southwick, 115 N. Y. 139, 21 N. E. 1031; Siedenbach v. Riley, 111 N. Y. 560, 19 N. E. 275; Blaut v. Gabler, 77 N. Y. 461; Tilson v. Terwilliger, 56 N. Y. 273; May v. Walter, 56 N. Y. 8; Mitchell v. West, 55 N. Y. 107; Miller v. Lockwood, 32 N. Y. 293; Ball v. Loomis, 29 N. Y. 412; Ford v. Williams, 24 N. Y. 359; Gardner v. McEwen, 19 N. Y. 123; Thompson v. Blanchard, 4 N. Y. 303; Van Buskirk v. Warren, 4 Abb. Dec. 457, 2 Keyes, 119; Willis v. Willis, 79 App. Div. 9, 79 N. Y. Supp. 1028; Menken v. Baker, 40 App. Div. 609, 57 N. Y. Supp. 541, aff'd 166 N. Y. 628, 60 N. E. 1116; National Hudson River Bank v. Chaskin, 28 App. Div. 311, 51 N. Y. Supp. 64; New York Ice Co. v. Cousins, 23 App. Div. 560, 48 N. Y. Supp. 799; Wallace v. Nodine, 57 Hun, 239; Tate v. McCormick, 23 Hun, 218; Schoonmaker v. Vervalen, 9 Hun, 138; Hollacher v. O'Brien, 5 Hun, 277; Brown v. Wilmerding, 5 Duer, 220; Betz v. Conner, 7 Daly, 550; Stark v. Grant, 16 N. Y. Supp. 526; Parmenter v. Fitzpatrick, 14 N. Y. Supp. 748; Southard v. Pinckney, 5 Abb. N. C. 184; Howard v. Stoddart, 9 St. Rep. 429; Marvin v. Smith, 22 Alb. L. J. 115; Stout v. Rappelhagen, 51 How. Pr. 75; Kellogg v. Wilkie, 23 How. Pr. 233; Han ford v. Artcher, 4 Hill, 271; Cole v. White, 26 Wend. 511; Smith v. Acker, 23 Wend. 653; Randall v. Cook, 17 Wend. 53; Murray v. Burtis, 15 Wend. 212; Collins v. Brush, 9 Wend. 198; Hall v. Tuttle, 8 Wend. 375; Divver v. McLaughlin, 2 Wend. 596, 20 Am. Dec. 655; Bissell v. Hopkins, 3 Cow. 166, 15 Am. Dec. 259; Butts v. Swartwood, 2 Cow. 431; Beals v. Guernsey, 8 Johns. 446, 5 Am. Dec. 348; Barrow v. Paxton, 5 Johns. 258, 4 Am. Dec. 354; Jackson v. Cornell, 1 Sandf. Ch. 348; Walker v. Snediker, 1 Hoff. Ch. 145; Levy v. Welsh, 2 Edw. Ch. 438; Cram v. Mitchell, 1 Sand. Ch. 251. Ala.-Teague v. Bass, 131 Ala. 422, 31 So. 4; Troy Fertilizer Co. v. Norman, 107 Ala. 667, 18 So. 201; Ullman v. Myrick, 93 Ala. 532, 8 So. 410; Crawford v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 283, 28 Am. Rep. 704; Moog v. Benedicks, 49 Ala. 512; Mayer v. Clark, 40 Ala. 259; Wyatt v. Stewart, 34 Ala. 716; Upson v. Raiford, 29 Ala. 188; Millard's Adm'rs v. Hall, 24 Ala. 209; Borland v. Walker, 7 Ala. 269; Blocker v. Burness, 2 Ala. 354; Martin v. White, 2 Stew. 162; Hobbs v. Bibb, 2 Stew. 54. The mere failure to record a voluntary deed from a husband to his wife is not evidence of itself of a fraudulent conveyance, and, where consistent with good intentions, the law will attribute no bad motive to the grantee. Allen v. Caldwell, Ward & Co. (1906), 42 So. 855. Ariz.-Leibes v. Steffy, 4 Ariz. 11, 32 Pac. 261. Ark.-Smith v. Jones, 63 Ark. 232, session by the vendor may be rebutted by proof of payment of a valuable or adequate consideration, that when the sale was made 37 S. W. 1052; Stix v. Chaytor, 55 Ark. 116, 17 S. W. 707; Valley Distilling Co. v. Atkins, 50 Ark. 289, 7 S. W. 137, the continuance of an insolvent vendor in the possession of goods is prima facie evidence of a secret trust, which is fraudulent as to his creditors; Collins v. Lightly, 50 Ark. 97, 6 S. W. 596; Martin v. Ogden, 41 Ark. 186; Apperson v. Burgett, 33 Ark. 328; Hempstead v. Johnston, 18 Ark. 123, 65 Am. Dec. 458; Danley v. Rector, 10 Ark. 211, 50 Am. Dec. 242; Dodd v. MeCraw, 8 Ark. 83, 46 Am. Dec. 301; Field v. Simco, 7 Ark. 269; Cocke v. Chapman, 7 Ark. 197, 44 Am. Dec. 536. Conn.-Dibble v. Morris, 26 Conn. 416; Meade v. Smith, 16 Conn. 346; Osborne v. Tuller, 14 Conn. 520; InPatgraham v. Wheeler, 6 Conn. 277; ten v. Smith, 4 Conn. 450. D. C.-Justh v. Wilson, 19 D. C. 529. Fla.-Volusia County Bank v. Bertola, 44 Fla. 734, 33 So. 448, the sale will be held fraudulent in law, unless the vendee shows that the possession was consistent with the bill of sale, or unavoidable, or for the temporary convenience of the vendee; Spencer v. Mugge (1903), 34 So. 271; Briggs v. Weston, 36 Fla. 629, 18 So. 852; Holliday v. McKinne, 22 Fla. 153; Sanders v. Pepoon, 4 Fla. 465; Gibson v. Love, 4 Fla. 217. Ga. Ross v. Cooley, 113 Ga. 1047, 39 S. E. 471; Pool v. Gramling, 88 Ga. 653, 16 S. E. 52; Collins v. Taggart, 57 Ga. 355; Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 20 Ga. 600; Scott v. Winship, 20 Ga. 426; Beers v. Dawson, 8 Ga. 556; Carter v. Stanfield, 8 Ga. 49; Fleming v. Townsend, 6 Ga. 103, 50 Am. Dec. 318; Peck v. Land, 2 Ga. 1, 46 Am. Dec. 368. Ill.-Corgan v. Frew, 39 Ill. 31, 89 Am. Dec. 286; Kitchell v. Bratton, 2 Ill. 300. Ind.-Seavey v. Walker, 108 Ind. 78, 9 N. E. 347; Powell v. Stickney, 88 Ind. 310; Rose v. Colter, 76 Ind. 590; Kane v. Drake, 27 Ind. 29; Maple v. Burnside, 22 Ind. 139; Blystone v. Burgett, 10 Ind. 28, 68 Am. Dec. 658; Nutter v. Harris, 9 Ind. 88; South Branch Lumber Co. v. Stearns, 2 Ind. App. 7, 28 N. E. 117. Iowa.-Osborn v. Ratliff, 53 Iowa, 748, 5 N. W. 746; Suiter v. Turner, 10 Iowa, 517. Kan.-Locke v. Hedrick, 24 Kan. 763; Phillips v. Reitz, 16 Kan. 396; Wolfley v. Rising, 8 Kan. 297. Ky.-Short v. Tinsley, 58 Ky. 397, 71 Am. Dec. 482; Enders v. Williams, 58 Ky. 346; Kendall v. Hughes, 46 Ky. 368; Christopher v. Covington, 41 Ky. 357; Vernon v. Morton, 38 Ky. 247. La.-Hughes v. Mattes, 104 La. 218, 28 So. 1006; Yale v. Bond, 45 La. Ann. 997, 13 So. 587; Cochrane v. Gilbert, 41 La. Ann. 735, 6 So. 731; Cole v. Cole, 39 La. Ann. 878, 2 So. 794; Devonshire v. Gauthreaux, 32 La. Ann. 1132; Spivey v. Wilson, 31 La. Ann. 653; Pendleton v. Eaton, 23 La. Ann. 435; Guice v. Sanders, 21 La. Ann. 463; Keller v. Blanchard, 19 La. Ann. 53; Hill v. Hanney, 15 La. Ann. 654; Dyer v. Dyer, 14 La. Ann. 701; Zacharie v. Kirk, 14 La. Ann. 433; Griffith v. Frellsen, 11 La. Ann. 163; Wartel v. Darbein, 8 La. Ann. 506; McCandlish v. Kirkland, 7 La. the vendor had sufficient other property to pay all his debts, declarations and acts of the parties to the transfer calculated to Ann. 614; Brown v. Glathary, 4 La. Ann. 124; Jorda v. Lewis, 1 La. Ann. 59; Planters' Bank v. Watson, 9 Rob. 272; Thompson v. Chretien, 12 Mart. 250; Pierce v. Curtis, 6 Mart. 418. Me.-Reed v. Reed, 70 Me. 504; Farrar v. Smith, 64 Me. 74; Fairfield Bridge Co. v. Nye, 60 Me. 372; McKee v. Garcelon, 60 Me. 165, 11 Am. Rep. 200; Googins v. Gilmore, 47 Me. 9, 74 Am. Dec. 472; Sawyer v. Nichols, 40 Me. 212; Ludwig v. Fuller, 17 Me. 162, 35 Am. Dec. 245; Gardiner Bank v. Hodgdon, 14 Me. 453; Ulmer v. Hills, 8 Me. 326; Holbrook v. Baker, 5 Me. 309, 17 Am. Dec. 236; Reed v. Jewett, 5 Me. 96. Md.-Hambleton v. Hayward, 4 Harr. & J. 443; Bruce v. Smith, 3 Harr. & J. 499; Hudson v. Warner, 2 Harr. & G. 415. Mass.-Ashcroft v. Simmons, 163 Mass. 437, 40 N. E. 171; Ingalls v. Herrick, 108 Mass. 351, 11 Am. Rep. 360; Allen v. Wheeler, 70 Mass. 123; Jones v. Huggeford, 44 Mass. 515; Oriental Bank v. Haskins, 44 Mass. 332, 37 Am. Dec. 140; Briggs v. Parkman, 43 Mass. 258, 37 Am. Dec. 89; Marden v. Babcock, 43 Mass. 99; Shurtleff v. Willard, 36 Mass. 202; Macomber v. Parker, 31 Mass. 497; Fletcher v. Willard, 31 Mass. 464; Parsons v. Dickinson, 28 Mass. 352; Adams v. Wheeler, 27 Mass. 199; Shumway v. Rutter, 25 Mass. 443, 19 Am. Dec. 340; Ward v. Sumner, 22 Mass. 59; Gould v. Ward, 21 Mass. 104; Wheeler v. Train, 20 Mass. 255; Homes v. Crane, 19 Mass. 607; Badlam v. Tucker, 18 Mass. 389, 11 Am. Dec. 202; Bartlett v. Williams, 18 Mass. 288; Brooks v. Powers, 15 Mass. 244, 8 Am. Dec. 99. Mich.-Williams v. Brown (1904), 100 N. W. 786, 11 Det. L. N. 365; Jansen v. McQueen, 105 Mich. 199, 63 N. W. 73; Hopkins v. Bishop, 91 Mich. 328, 51 N. W. 902, 30 Am. St. Rep. 480; Kipp v. Lamoreaux, 81 Mich. 299, 45 N. W. 1002; Clark v. Lee, 78 Mich. 221, 44 N. W. 260; Buhl Iron Works v. Teuton, 67 Mich. 623, 35 N. W. 804; Waite v. Matthews, 50 Mich. 392, 15 N. W. 524; Webster v. Anderson, 42 Mich. 554, 4 N. W. 288, 36 Am. Rep. 452; Webster v. Bailey, 40 Mich. 641; Molitor v. Robinson, 40 Mich. 200; Hatch v. Fowler, 28 Mich. 205; Jackson v. Dean, 1 Dougl. 519. Minn.-Flanigan v. Pomeroy, 85 Minn. 264, 88 N. W. 761; Cortland Wagon Co. v. Sharvy, 53 Minn. 216, 53 N. W. 1147; Baker v. Pottle, 48 Minn. 479, 51 N. W. 383; Mackellar v. Pillsbury, 48 Minn. 396, 51 N. W. 222; Lathrop v. Clayton, 45 Minn. 124, 47 N. W. 544; Chickering v. White, 42 Minn. 457, 44 N. W. 988; Murch v. Swensen, 40 Minn. 421, 42 N. W. 290; Camp v. Thompson, 25 Minn. 175; Benton v. Snyder, 22 Minn. 247; Vose v. Stickney, 19 Minn. 367; Blackman v. Wheaton, 13 Minn. 326. V. Miss.-Charlotte Supply Co. Britton, etc., Bank (1898), 23 So. 630; Hilliard v. Cagle, 46 Miss. 309; Summers v. Roos, 42 Miss. 749, 2 Am. Rep. 653; Johnston v. Dick, 27 Miss. 277; Comstock v. Rayford, 20 Miss. 369; Farmers' Bank v. Douglass, 19 Miss. 469; Garland v. Chambers, 19 Miss. 337, 49 Am. Dec. 63; Bogard v. Gardiey, 12 Miss. 302; Rankin v. Holloway, 11 Miss. 614; Carter v. Graves, 7 Miss. 9. give notoriety to the transaction, and other facts explanatory of the transaction and tending to show good faith. The existence Mo.-Kuykendall v. McDonald, 15 Mo. 416, 57 Am. Dec. 212; Milburn v. Waugh, 11 Mo. 369; Boyd v. Pottle, 65 Mo. App. 374, 2 Mo. App. R. 1220. Neb.-Snyder v. Dangler, 44 Neb. 600, 63 N. W. 20; Paxton v. Smith, 41 Neb. 56, 59 N. W. 690; First Nat. Bank v. Lowrey, 36 Neb. 290, 54 N. W. 568; Fitzgerald v. Meyer, 25 Neb. 77, 41 N. W. 123; Miller v. Morgan, 11 Neb. 121, 7 N. W. 755; Densmore v. Tomer, 11 Neb. 118, 7 N. W. 535; Robison v. Uhl, 6 Neb. 328. N. H.-The seller's retaining possession of chattels sold raises a presumption of a secret trust, which must be rebutted by evidence explaining the transaction, or the sale will be adjudged void as to creditors. Harrington v. Blanchard, 70 N. H. 597, 49 Atl. 576; Thompson v. Esty, 69 N. H. 55, 45 Atl. 566; Doucet v. Richardson, 67 N. H. 186, 29 Atl. 635; Parker v. Marvell, 60 N. H. 30; Towne v. Rice, 59 N. H. 412; Flagg v. Pierce, 58 N. H. 348; Sumner v. Dalton, 58 N. H. 295; Plaisted v. Holmes, 58 N. H. 293; Cutting v. Jackson, 56 N. H. 253; Walcott v. Keith, 22 N. H. 196; Kendall v. Fitts, 22 N. H. 1; Coburn v. Pickering, 3 N. H. 415, 14 Am. Dec. 375. Where there is an agreement that the vendor shall still have the right to use the thing sold in and about his business, the actual intention of the parties will not be inquired into, but it constitutes a secret trust from which fraud is an inference of law. Lang v. Stockwell, 55 N. H. 561. N. J.-Shreve v. Miller, 29 N. J. L. 250; Sherron v. Humphreys, 14 N. J. L. 217; Hall v. Snowhill, 14 N. J. L. 8; Runyon v. Groshon, 12 N. J. Eq. 86. N. C.-Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C. 347, S. E. 702, 11 Am. St. Rep. 748; Phifer v. Erwin, 100 N. C. 59, 6 S. E. 672; Boone v. Hardie, 83 N. C. 470; Cheatham v. Hawkins, 80 N. C. 161, 76 N. C. 335; Foster v. Woodfin, 33 N. C. 339; Hardy v. Skinner, 31 N. C. 191; Rea v. Alexander, 27 N. C. 644; Howell v. Elliott, 12 N. C. 76; Smith v. Niel, 8 N. C. 341; Trotter v. Howard, 8 N. C. 320, 9 Am. Dec. 640; Falkner v. Perkins, 3 N. C. 224; Vick v. Kegs, 3 N. C. 287; Ingles v. Donaldson, 3 N. C. 222. N. D.-Retention of possession by the vendor is made by Rev. Code, § 5053, presumptively fraudulent. Conrad v. Smith, 6 N. D. 337, 70 N. W. 815. Under Dak. Comp. Laws, § 4657, the presumption of fraud was conclusive. Morrison v. Oium, 3 N. D. 76, 44 N. W. 288; Conrad v. Smith, 2 N. D. 408, 51 N. W. 720. Ohio.-Thorne v. First Nat. Bank, 37 Ohio St. 254; Ferguson v. Gilbert, 16 Ohio St. 88; Collins v. Myers, 16 Ohio, 547; Hombeck v. Vanmetre, 9 Ohio, 153; Burbridge V. Seely, Wright, 359; Rogers v. Dare, Wright, 136. Or.-Haines v. McKinnon, 35 Or. 573, 57 Pac. 903; Pierce v. Kelly, 25 Or. 95, 34 Pac. 963; Marks v. Miller, 21 Or. 317, 28 Pac. 14, 14 L. R. A. 190; McCully v. Swackhamer, 6 Or. 438; Moore v. Floyd, Or. 101; Monroe v. Hussey, 1 Or. 188, 75 Am. Dec. 552. R. I.-Mead v. Gardiner, 13 R. I. 257; Goodell v. Fairbrother, 12 R. I. of fraudulent intent, under this rule, is a question of fact for the consideration of the jury, under appropriate instructions from 233, 34 Am. Rep. 631; Sarle v. Arnold, 7 R. I. 582; Anthony v. Wheatons, 7 R. I. 490. 8. C.-Perkins v. Douglass, 52 S. C. 129, 29 S. E. 400; Werts v. Spearman, 22 S. C. 200; Pregnall v. Miller, 21 S. C. 385, 53 Am. Rep. 684; Nelson v. Good, 20 S. C. 223; Kohn v. Meyer, 19 S. C. 190; Pringle v. Rhame, 10 Rich. 72, 67 Am. Dec. 560; Smith v. Henry, 1 Hill, 16; Smith v. Henry, 2 Bailey, 118; Cordery v. Zealy, 2 Bailey, 205; Footman v. Pendergrass, 3 Rich. Eq. 33; Howard v. Williams, 1 Bailey, 575, 21 Am. Dec. 483; Terry v. Belcher, 1 Bailey, 568. Tenn. Morris v. Clark (Ch. App. 1901), 62 S. W. 673; Carney v. Carney, 7 Baxt. 284; Tennessee Nat. Bank V. Ebbert, 9 Heisk. 153; Grubbs v. Greer, 45 Tenn. (5 Coldw.) 160; Ocoee Bank v. Nelson, 1 Coldw. 186; Wiley v. Lashlee, 8 Humphr. 717; Galt v. Dibrell, 10 Yerg. 146; Simpson v. Mitchell, 8 Yerg. 417; Maney v. Killough, 7 Yerg. 440; Young v. Pate, 4 Yerg. 164; Darwin v. Handley, 3 Yerg. 502; Callen v. Thompson, 3 Yerg. 475,24 Am. Dec. 588 Tex.-Traders' Nat. Bank v. Day, 87 Tex. 101, 26 S. W. 1049; Edwards v. Dickson, 66 Tex. 613, 2 S. W. 718; Kerr v. Hutchins, 46 Tex. 384; Thornton v. Tandy, 39 Tex. 544; Van Hook v. Walton, 28 Tex. 59; Stadtler v. Wood, 24 Tex. 622; Green v. Banks, 24 Tex. 508; Howerton v. Holt, 23 Tex. 51; Gibson v. Hill, 21 Tex. 225, 23 Tex. 77; Mills v. Walton, 19 Tex. 271; Earle v. Thomas, 14 Tex. 583; Converse v. McKee, 14 Tex. 20; McQuinnay v. Hitchcock, 8 Tex. 33; Morgan v. Republic of Texas, 2 Tex. 279; Bryant v. Kelton, 1 Tex. 415; Perry v. Patton (Civ. App. 1902), 68 S. W. 1018; Landman v. Glover (Civ. App. 1894), 25 S. W. 994; Johnston v. Luling Mfg. Co. (Civ. App. 1894), 24 S. W. 996. Va.-King v. Levy (1895), 22 S. E. 492; Norris v. Lake, 89 Va. 513, 16 S. E. 663; Wray v. Davenport, 79 Va. 19; Sipe v. Earman, 26 Gratt. 563; Dance v. Seaman, 11 Gratt. 778; Curd v. Miller, 7 Gratt. 185; Forkner v. Stuart, 6 Gratt. 197; Davis v. Turner, 4 Gratt. 422. W. Va.-Poling v. Flanagan, 41 W. Va. 191, 23 S. E. 685; Curtin v. Isaacsen, 36 W. Va. 391, 15 S. E. 171; Blackshire v. Pettit, 35 W. Va. 547, 14 S. E. 133; Bindley v. Martin, 28 W. Va. 773; Livesay v. Beard, 22 W. Va. 585. Wis.-Griswold V. Nichols, 126 Wis. 401, 105 N. W. 815, the presumption is rebutted by proof of payment of full consideration; Densmore Commission Co. v. Shong, 98 Wis. 380, 74 N. W. 114; Cook v. Van Horne, 76 Wis. 520, 44 N. W. 767; Norwegian Plow Co. v. Hanthorn, 71 Wis. 520, 37 N. W. 825; Sharp v. Carroll, 66 Wis. 62, 27 N. W. 832; Williams v. Porter, 41 Wis. 422; Janvrin v. Maxwell, 23 Wis. 51; Bullis v. Borden, 21 Wis. 136; Mayer v. Webster, 18 Wis. 393; Livingston v. Littell, 15 Wis. 218; Grant v. Lewis, 14 Wis. 487, 80 Am. Dec. 785; Smith v. Welch, 10 Wis. 91; Gleason v. Day, 9 Wis. 498; Whitney v. Brunette, 3 Wis. 621; Sterling v. Ripley, 3 Pinn. 155, 3 Chandl. 166; Bond v. Seymour, 2 Pinn. 105, 1 Chandl. 40. |