fraudulent intent, and without any knowledge or belief that the grantor had any fraudulent intent, he may recover back money paid as part of the consideration." Where the conveyance is vacated at the instance of the grantor, because of its having been obtained from him by fraud and undue influence, the grantee is entitled to reimbursement for taxes paid on the land, as a condition to the vacation of the conveyance. 45 Where a vendor has in fraud of creditors given a bill of sale of his personal property, but kept possession and subsequently disposed of the property, the vendee may recover the value thereof, especially if the bill of sale was recorded. 16 46 19. Rights and liabilities of several grantees inter se.Where fraudulent grantees of personal property accepted it with an assurance to the grantor that it should not affect his rights, one of them, receiving the property to manage for the grantor, incurred no responsibility to the other grantees by permitting the grantor to dispose of any part of the property conveyed." Where the heirs of an insolvent intestate agreed with his widow, who held a judgment against him, that the land comprising the estate should be sold to satisfy the judgment, and that one of the heirs should buy it for the others, without, however, paying any of the price bid, in trust to support the widow, and upon her death to distribute it among the heirs, and, in pursuance of such an agreement, an heir bought the land, and by representing that he was acting for the intestate's family, secured it at much less than its market value, and took possession, upon the widow's death, the heir in possession could not be compelled to perform the agreement to convey, it being in fraud of the intestate's creditors."8 44. Leach v. Tilton, 40 N. H. 473; Haven v. Low, 2 N. H. 473. Notes previously held by the grantee against the grantor and given up to the grantor as part of the consideration for the deed, or the amount thereof, may be recovered from the grantor. Leach v. Tilton, 40 N. H. 473. 45. Hutchinson V. Park (Ark. 1904), 82 S. W. 843. 46. Hoeser v. Kraeka, 29 Tex. 450. 47. Riddle v. Lewis, 70 Ky. 193. 48. Milhous v. Sally, 43 S. C. 318, 21 S. E. 268. § 20. Contribution between several grantees.-There may be contribution among fraudulent grantees of land, where the land conveyed to one of them is taken to pay the grantor's debts, such contribution to be adjusted according to the equities between the several grantees," except where the grantor retained sufficient property to satisfy the debt paid and to which the execution creditor might have been compelled to resort.50 A decree in favor of a creditor against several voluntary grantees of the debtor should apportion the debt sued for among such grantees in proportion to the property by them respectively received, holding them severally liable, however, to the extent of the property received by them, until all of them have paid their proportion.51 But contribution among volunteers will not be compelled to remove a general lien upon property conveyed to them unless there was an inevitable necessity that the property should pay the lien and there cannot be such necessity where the grantor is solvent.52 21. Rights and liabilities as to third persons in general.— The general rule is that third persons who are neither creditors nor subsequent purchasers for a valuable consideration cannot take advantage of a conveyance as fraudulent as against creditors and have no standing to question or impeach its validity.53 A creditor 49. Janvrin v. Curtis, 63 N. H. 312. 50. Thompson v. Perry, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 204, 29 Am. Dec. 68. 51. Chamberlayne v. Temple, 2 Rand. (Va.) 384, 14 Am. Dec. 786. 52. Thompson v. Perry, 2 Hill Eq. (S. C.) 204. 53. Ala.-Yeend v. Weeks, 104 Ala. 331, 16 So. 165, 53 Am. St. Rep. 50. Ind.-Edwards v. Haverstick, 53 Ind. 348; O'Neil v. Chandler, 42 Ind. 471. La.-Long v. Klein, 35 La. Ann. See White v. Willson, 102 Mo. App. 437, 76 S. W. 733. N. H.-Cutting v. Pike, 21 N. H. 347. N. J.-Osborne v. Tunis, 25 N. J. L. 633; Hendricks v. Mount, 5 N. J. L. 738, 8 Am. Dec. 623. Ohio.-Burgett v. Burgett, 1 Ohio, 469, 13 Am. Dec. 634. Pa.-Drum v. Painter, 27 Pa. St. 148. S. C.-Kid v. Mitchell, 1 Nott. & M. 334, 9 Am. Dec. 702. Tex.-Seligman v. Wilson, 1 Tex. App. Civ. Cas., § 895. Vt.-Gibbs v. Linsley, 13 Vt. 208. Wis.-La Crosse, etc., R. Co. v. Seeger, 4 Wis. 268. of one obtaining possession from a fraudulent grantee cannot avoid the original conveyance which is fraudulent and void as against the creditors of the parties to the fraud. The seller of goods on rescinding the sale, on the ground that it was procured by fraud of the purchaser, cannot retake them from one to whom they have been transferred with intent to hinder and delay creditors, for the latter transfer is good as against all persons save those claiming as creditors.55 Where an assignment of a debt is made to defraud creditors, the debtor cannot set up the fraud as a defense to a suit by the assignee.56 The assignee in bankruptcy, or the grantee of such assignee, is not estopped to claim property conveyed by the debtor in secret trust to defraud creditors.57 The grantee in a conveyance alleged to be fraudulent is entitled to recover for the use and possession of the land against trespassers who have attorned to other persons claiming title, for their occupation previous to their attornment.58 Where a debtor's grantee sues to recover possession of property, the defendant, in order to impeach plaintiff's title on the ground that the conveyance was in fraud of creditors, must show, not only such fraud and that the creditors have by some act avoided the conveyance, but also that he duly represents the creditors' title, and is therefore entitled to set it up against that of the grantee. 59 A mortgage executed by a judgment debtor subsequently to the rendition of the judgment confers on the mortgagee a title on which he may maintain an action against any one who does not connect himself with the judgment." A bank with which a note is deposited by the payee for collection cannot refuse to return it, or its proceeds, to the depositor, on the ground that it was given to defraud creditors of a third person, unless the bank itself is one of those creditors.61 Where money was deposited in the hands of defendant for the credit of the plaintiff, the purpose of the deposit being to place the fund beyond the reach of the depositor's creditors, the defendant cannot take advantage of the fraudulent intent in an action by the plaintiff to recover the money so deposited. 62 22. Rights of maker of note fraudulently transferred.-The maker of a promissory note, in an action thereon by a transferee, cannot assail the plaintiff's title on the ground that the transfer was made in fraud of the creditors of the payee; the transfer can only be assailed on that account by the creditors or some one representing them. It is no defense to an action on a bill or note payable to bearer, that the real title is in another person than the plaintiff, unless the possession of the plaintiff is mala fides and may prejudice the defendant. Where the holder of a note assigns the debt to another, and for that purpose gives up the note to the maker, causing him to execute and deliver another to the assignee, the maker is no longer liable to the holder of the first note, nor to his creditors, although the assignment and subsequent transaction was for the purpose of defrauding and delaying the creditors of the first holder, the maker of the note being innocent of such design. 65 23. As to creditors of grantee.-A conveyance made in fraud of the grantor's creditors being valid as between the parties and as to all others creditors, the legal title is in the grantee, and while he holds the property it is subject to the claims of his creditors by attachment or levy and sale under execution, the same as any other 68 property of his, and neither he nor his fraudulent grantor will be permitted by the courts to set up their own fraud and to be heard in avoidance of the fraudulent transfer as against such creditors.66 A subsequent conveyance thereof, made by the grantor, after levy and sale under execution against the grantee, passes no title as against creditors of the grantee.67 The grantee's violation of a promise not to record the deed cannot affect his creditor who knew nothing of the promise. Where the owner of lands allows the apparent title to remain in another who obtains credit on such appearance, the land is liable to the claims of the creditor after its conveyance to the owner, although such owner did not have actual knowledge of the obtaining of the credit.69 But until the creditors of the grantee of property fraudulently conveyed obtain a lien upon the property, they have no rights thereto superior to the equities of the grantor's creditors, and it is not a fraud upon the grantee's creditors for him to reconvey it to the grantor." But creditors of a fraudulent grantor have no superior equities to the 66. N. Y.-Davis v. Graves, 29 Barb. 480. Ill.-Oliver v. Wilhite, 201 Ill. 552, 66 N. E. 837. Ind.-Edwards v. Haverstick, 53 Ky.-Berry v. Frantz, 113 Ky. 888, 125. Nev.-Maher v. Swift, 14 Neb. 324; S. C.-Davidson v. Graves, Riley 12. 68. Oliver v. Wilhite, 201 Ill. 552, 66 N. E. 837. 69. Singer Mfg. Co. v. Stephens, 169 Mo. 1, 68 S. W. 903; Susong v. Williams, 48 Tenn. 625. |