31 aid of the court." Where an owner executed a conveyance for the purpose of preventing another from collecting a judgment that 31. N. Y.-Freelove v. Cole, 41 Barb. 318, aff'd 41 N. Y. 619. Wherever two or more persons are engaged in a fraudulent transaction to injure another, neither law nor equity will relieve either of them, as against the other, from the consequences of their own misconduct. Morgan v. Chamberlain, 26 Barb. 163; Chamberlain v. Barnes, 26 Barb. 160; Gale v. Gale, 19 Barb. 249; Bolt v. Rogers, 3 Paige, 154. U. S.-Dent v. Ferguson, 132 U. S. 50, 10 Sup. Ct. 13, 33 L. Ed. 242; Greenbank v. Ferguson, 58 Fed. 18; Beadle v. Beadle, 40 Fed. 315, 2 McCrary, 586. Ala.-Kirby v. Raynes, 138 Ala. 194, 35 So. 118, 100 Am. St. Rep. 39; Glover v. Walker, 107 Ala. 540, 18 So. 251; Williams v. Higgins, 69 Ala. 517; Roden v. Murphy, 10 Ala. 804. Ark.-Noble v. Noble, 26 Ark. 317; Payne v. Bruton, 10 Ark. 53. Cal.-Donnelly v. Rees, 141 Cal. 56, 74 Pac. 433. 8. C.-Rider v. White, 3 Mackey, 305; Fletcher v. Fletcher, 2 MacArthur, 38. Fla.-Parrott v. Baker, 82 Ga. 364, 9 S. E. 1068; Beale v. Hall, 22 Ga. 431; Goodwyn v. Goodwyn, 20 Ga. 600; McCleskey v. Leadbetter, 1 Ga. 551. Ill.-Brady v. Huber, 197 Ill. 291, 64 N. E. 264, 90 Am. St. Rep. 161; Kirkpatrick v. Clark, 132 Ill. 342, 24 N. E. 71, 22 Am. St. Rep. 531, 8 L. R. A. 511; Dobbins v. Cruger, 108 III. 188; Fast v. McPherson, 98 Ill. 496; Perisho v. Perisho, 95 Ill. App. 644, aff'g 71 Ill. App. 222. Iowa.-Holliday v. Holliday, 10 Iowa, 200. See Gebhard v. Satler, 40 Iowa, 152. Kan.-Durand v. Higgins, 67 Kan. 110, 72 Pac. 567, a fraudulent grantor cannot have his title quieted as against such a conveyance. Ky.-Gillum v. Kirksey, 29 Ky. L. Rep. 422, 93 S. W. 591; Helton v. Cunnagim, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1244, 54 S. W. 851; Warden v. Field, 5 Ky. L. Rep. 855. La. Kerwin v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 35 L. Ann. 33. Me.-Rich v. Hayes, 99 Me. 51, 58 Atl. 62; Bryant v. Mansfield, 22 Me. 360, relief that a note given by the grantee might be cancelled upon reconveyance of the property denied. Md.-Watts v. Vansant, 99 Md. 577, 58 Atl. 433; Snyder v. Snyder, 51 Md. 77; Schuman v. Peddicord, 50 Md. 560; Cushwa v. Cushwa, 5 Md. might be recovered in an action pending, neither he nor his heirs could obtain relief in equity." Where a husband, for the purpose of defeating his wife's right of dower and placing the property beyond her reach, in view of anticipated divorce, conveys certain land, equity will not lend its aid to cancel the deed. A wife who joins her husband in a conveyance in fraud of creditors cannot, after obtaining a divorce, have the conveyance set aside and the land subjected to a judgment for alimony in her favor. A party L. 177; Evans v. Herring, 27 N. J. L. 243; Anderson v. Tuttle, 26 N. J. Eq. 144; Eyre v. Eyre, 19 N. J. Eq. 42; Servis v. Nelson, 14 N. J. Eq. 94; Hantum v. Miller, 11 N. J. Eq. 551. N. C.-Hart v. Hart, 109 N. C. 368, 13 S. E. 1020; Ellington v. Currie, 40 N. C. 21. Ohio.-Pride v. Andrew, 51 Ohio St. 405, 38 N. E. 84; White v. Brocaw, 14 Ohio St. 339. Or.-U. S. Mortgage Co. v. Marquam, 41 Oreg. 391, 69 Pac. 37, 41. Pa.-Gill v. Henry, 95 Pa. St. 388; French v. Mehan, 56 Pa. St. 286; Blystone v. Blystone, 51 Pa. St. 373; Hershey v. Weiting, 50 Pa. St. 240; Sickman v. Lapsley, 13 Serg. & R. 224, 15 Am. Dec. 596; Reichart v. Castator, 5 Binn. 109, 6 Am. Dec. 402; Simon's Estate, 20 Pa. Super. Ct. 450; Becker v. Hammes, 2 Kelp, .404. R. 1.-Hudson v. White, 17 R. I. 519, 23 Atl. 57. S. C.-See Latimer v. Latimer, 53 S. C. 483, 31 S. E. 304, a release of a valid legal claim by an insolvent debtor, in consideration of a conveyance of land in trust for him, exempt from the claims of his creditors, and for his children is fraudulent as to his creditors, and neither the grantor nor his executors can avail them 33 34 Utah, 176, 60 Pac. 512. Va.-Ratliff v. Ratliff, 102 Va. 880, 47 S. E. 1007; Smith v. Chilton, 84 Va. 840, 6 S. E. 142; Turner v. Campbell, 3 Gratt. 77; James v. Bird, 8 Leigh, 510, 31 Am. Dec. 668; Smith v. Elliott, 1 Patt. & H. 307. W. Va.-Poling v. Williams, 55 W. Va. 69, 46 S. E. 704; Edgell v. Smith, 50 W. Va. 349, 40 S. E. 402; Billingsley v. Menear, 44 W. Va. 651, 30 S. E. 61; McClintock v. Loisseau, 31 W. Va. 865, 8 S. E. 612, 2 L. R. A. 816. Wis.-Kronskop v. Kronskop, 95 Wis. 296, 70 N. W. 475; Sommers v. Hamberger, 91 Wis. 107, 64 N. W. 880. Eng. Smith v. Garland, 2 Meriv. 123, 16 Rev. Rep. 154, 35 Eng. Reprint, 887. 32. Jones v. Jones (S. D. 1906), 108 N. W. 23. 33. Creighton v. Roe, 218 Ill. 619, 75 N. E. 1073. 34. Barrow v. Barrow, 108 Ind. 345, 9 N. E. 371. to a conveyance, made with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors, cannot plead the fraud to avoid his own action.35 A creditor giving a receipt in full for a debt as part of a scheme to defraud the debtor's other creditors cannot show that it was not intended as a discharge.36 The maxim, " In pari delicto melior est conditio defendentis," applies to all cases where both parties being of legal capacity, freely enter into a contract or agreement in fraud of others, neither party being influenced or persuaded thereto by the other. A court of equity cannot grant relief merely on the ground of difference, however great, in intellect, provided both parties were capax fraudis.37 The heirs or distributees of a fraudulent grantor stand in no better position than the grantor and a conveyance of their ancestor cannot be impeached by them, as being fraudulent as against his creditors.38 This can only be done 35. Cuney v. Dupree, 21 Tex. 211. 36. Aborn v. Rathbone, 54 Conn. 444, 8 Atl. 677. 37. Smith v. Elliott, 1 Patt. & H. (Va.) 307. 38. U. S.-Gridley v. Wynant, 64 U. S. 500, 16 L. Ed. 411. Ala.-Dearman V. Radcliffe, 5 Ala. 192. Colo.-Lathrop v. Pollard, 6 Colo. 424. Ga.-Anderson v. Brown, 72 Ga. 713. Ill.-Francis v. Wilkinson, 147 Ill. 370, 35 N. E. 150; White v. Russell, 79 Ill. 155; Ellis v. Petty, 51 Ill. App. 636. Ind.-Kitts v. Wilson, 130 Ind. 492, 29 N. E. 401. Ky.-Warren v. Hall, 36 Ky. 450; Neal v. Neal, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 962, 82 S. W. 981; Helton v. Cunnagim, 21 Ky. L. Rep. 1244, 54 S. W. 851; Tinsley v. Tinsley, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 295. La. Guidry v. Grivot, 2 Mart. N. S. 13, 14 Am. Dec. 193, a legatee. See also Kerwin v. Hibernia Ins. Co., 35 La. Ann. 33; Dupuy v. Dupont, 11 La. Ann. 226. Miss.-Foules v. Foules (1903), 33 So. 972; Winn v. Barnett, 31 Miss. 653; Gully v. Hull, 31 Miss. 20; Snodgrass v. Andrews, 30 Miss. 472, 60 Am. Dec. 169; Ellis v. McBride, 27 Miss. 155, a distributee cannot impeach the conveyance of his intestate. Mo.-Sell v. West, 125 Mo. 621, 28 S. W. 969, 46 Am. St. Rep. 508; Thomas v. Thomas, 107 Mo. 459, 18 S. W. 27; Hall v. Callahan, 66 Mo. 316: McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 16 Mo. 242; Ober v. Howard, 11 Mo. 425. N. J.-Hildebrand v. Willig, 64 N. J. Eq. 249, 53 Atl. 1035. Pa. In re Hummel's Estate, 161 Pa. St. 215, 28 Atl. 1113. 8. C.-Anderson v. Rhodus, 12 Rich. Eq. 104. Tex.-Wilson V. Demander, 71 Tex. 603, 9 S. W. 678; Fowler v. Stoneum, 11 Tex. 478, 62 Am. Dec. 490; Danzy v. Smith, 4 Tex. 11. Vt.-Peaslee V. Barney, 1 D. Chipm. 331, 6 Am. Dec. 743. 42 by the creditors or purchasers who have been defrauded and those in privity with them.39 A court of equity will interpose to restrain proceedings at law for the recovery of property conveyed in fraud of creditors.40 It is not necessary that it should appear that some particular creditors were intended to be defrauded, and that some particular creditors, were in fact, defrauded, but if the intent of the parties was to defraud creditors, the court will not interfere to aid the parties to the fraudulent transaction." The parties to a fraudulent transaction may, however, rescind it by mutual agreement.12 A grantor who conveys his property to another with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors, cannot afterwards have such conveyance set aside, although the grantee had no knowledge of the fraudulent intent, or even though he has not yet parted with possession of the property, or the purchase price still remains unpaid." If the conveyance be made with a secret agreement to reconvey, neither the grantor nor his fraudulent creditor can successfully assail it in a court of equity. The fraudulent character of the transaction cannot be set up by one of the parties thereto to defeat an action of ejectment, an action to dispossess," an 43 39. Ill.-Fitzgerald v. Forristal, 48 Ill. 228. Ind. Springer v. Drosch, 32 Ind. 486, 2 Am. Rep. 356. Mass.-Harvey v. Varney, 98 Mass. 118; Fairbanks v. Blackington, 26 Mass. 23. R. I.-Gardner v. Commercial Nat. Bank, 13 R. I. 155. Wis.-Clemens v. Clemens, 28 Wis. 637, 9 Am. Rep. 520. And see cases cited in preceding notes to this section. 40. Gridley v. Wynant, 23 How. (U. S.) 500, 16 L. Ed. 411. 41. Blount v. Costen, 47 Ga. 534. 42. Goetter v. Smith, 104 Ala. 481, 16 So. 534. 43. Wier v. Day, 57 Iowa, 84, 10 N. W. 304. 45 44. Parrott v. Baker, 82 Ga. 364, 9 S. E. 1068. 45. Jones v. Farris, 70 Iowa, 739, 29 N. W. 812. 46. N. Y.-Moseley v. Moseley, 15 N. Y. 334. Ga.-Bush v. Rogan, 65 Ga. 320, 38 Am. St. Rep. 785. But see Harrison v. Thatcher, 44 Ga. 638. Nev.-Peterson v. Brown, 17 Nev. 172, 30 Pac. 697, 45 Am. Rep. 437. Pa.-Murphy v. Hubert, 16 Pa. St. 50. Vt.-Norton v. Perkins, 67 Vt. 203, 31 Atl. 148. Contra.-Kirkpatrick v. Clark, 132 Ill. 342, 24 N. E. 71, 22 Am. St. Rep. 531, 8 L. R. A. 511, in such case the law will not aid either party. 47. Tufts v. Du Bignon, 61 Ga. 322. See Bibb v. Barker, 56 Ky. 292. 50 action of replevin,48 or to defeat an action to establish equitable rights in certain lands," or to defeat an action on a note, regular upon its face, but given to the payee for a fraudulent purpose,5 or to defeat a bill to set aside a contract as unconscionable, for inadequacy of price and undue influence.51 But it is competent for the grantee or those claiming under him to set up the fraudulent character of the transaction and that therefore it was binding as between the parties, for the purpose of showing a good title as against the grantor, his privies, and those claiming under him.52 Equity will grant relief to the grantee of property fraudulently conveyed where the property is taken from him, after he has acquired title, by fraudulent contrivance on the part of the grantor.5 53 § 3. Where parties are not in pari delicto.—The well settled rule of equity already stated denying relief to one party against another when both have been engaged in a fraudulent transaction, is, however, subject to another equally well settled rule that, where the transfer is between persons occupying confidential relations, wherein one party may naturally exercise an influence over the conduct of the other, or where the transfer is procured or induced by the grantee under circumstances of oppression, imposition, or undue influence, or where the grantor was at a great disadvantage with the grantee, under such circumstances the voluntary act of the party in making the transfer is not a defense to its being set aside, as the parties are not in pari delicto in such act, and courts of equity will interpose with their aid to grant relief to the |