crease for a reasonable time of the property, such as live stock, fraudulently conveyed by their debtor," but the privilege will not be extended for an unreasonable length of time, where a portion of the increase, at least, is produced by the labor and at the expense of the purchaser.97 The subsequently manufactured product of a factory forming no part of the original property, transferred in fraud of creditors is not liable to levy and sale under execution against the debtor.98

§ 28. Right to growing crops.-Growing crops on land fraudulently conveyed have been held to be subject to execution in favor of the grantor's creditors to satisfy the debts of the grantor, at least to the extent of the grantor's interest therein,99 and the fact that such crops had not been sown at the time of the fraudulent conveyance will not deprive a creditor of the right to resort to such crops.1 On the contrary it has been held that, since the creditor of a fraudulent grantor can reach only such property as had belonged to such grantor, if the grantee of land takes possession, and raises a crop thereon, such crop cannot be attached by the creditor of the grantor. A fraudulent grantee of a farm has, as against the creditors of his grantor, title to the crops that he raises on the farm while the convey

96. Backhouse v. Jett, 2 Fed. Cas. No. 710, 1 Brock. 500; Wheeler v. Wallace, 53 Mich. 355, 19 N. W. 33. Though the sale of a cow is not accompanied by sufficient change of possession to be valid as against creditors, yet her subsequent progeny, raised on the farm on which both vendor and vendee reside, never having been the property of the vendor, belong to the vendee as against the vendor's creditors. Wolcott v. Hamilton, 61 Vt. 79, 17 Atl. 39.

97. Wheeler v. Wallace, 53 Mich. 355, 19 N. W. 33. See also Crops and other products, chap. IV, § 25, supra.

98. McDonald v. Cohen, 5 App. Div. (N. Y.) 161, 38 N. Y. Supp. 1110.

99. Dodd v. Adams, 125 Mass. 398, hay cut on such land is subject to execution to satisfy a debt of the grantor contracted subsequent to the conveyance; Fury v. Strohecker, 44 Mich. 337, 6 N. W. 834; Stehman v. Huber, 21 Pa. St. 260.

1. Fury v. Strohecker, 44 Mich. 337, 6 N. W. 834.

2. Jones v. Bryant, 13 N. H. 53. See also Wolcott v. Hamilton, 61 Vt. 79, 17 Atl. 39.

3

ance is unimpeached, unless it be shown that he manages the farm, and raises the crops, for the benefit of the grantor.*

§ 29. Several fraudulent transactions.—Where voluntary conveyances, fraudulent as to creditors, are made to several diferent persons, property so conveyed in the hands of one volunteer is liable to its whole extent, if required to pay the debts of the creditors, and not merely to the proportion thereof which it bears to the property conveyed to others. Where by an active fraudulent combination property has been obtained and transferred from one person to another by a system of leases, mortgages, and deeds, all of which are fictitious, all the guilty parties are answerable for the whole of the property.

5

30. Possession of grantee adverse to creditors. It is held in some jurisdictions that a grantee, under a fraudulent conveyance, cannot be deemed to be in adverse possession, so as to acquire a title by possession which will bar the creditors of the fraudulent grantor or a purchaser at a sale under execution issued on a judgment in favor of such creditors," in the absence of proof

3. Cain v. Mead, 66 Minn. 195, 68 N. W. 840. Hartman v. Weiland, 36 Minn. 223, 30 N. W. 815.

4. Hartman v. Weiland, supra. See also Crops and other products, chap. IV, § 25, supra.

5. Hopkirk v. Randolph, 12 Fed. Cas. No. 6,698, 2 Brock. 132; Adams v. Holcombe, Harp. Eq. (S. C.) 202, 14 Am. Dec. 719. See Contribution between grantees, § 20, supra.

6. Bruce v. Kelly, 39 N. Y. Super. Ct. 27.

7. U. S.-Farrar v. Bernheim, 74 Fed. 435, 20 C. C. A. 496, the fraudulent conveyance affords no beginning point for the running of the statute of limitations in favor of the grantee or his heirs as against the defrauded

creditors or one claiming as purpurchaser at an execution sale in favor of such creditors.

Ala.-High v. Nelms, 14 Ala. 350, 48 Am. Dec. 103; McCaskle V. Amarine, 12 Ala. 17.

Conn.-Beach v. Catlin, 4 Day, 284, 4 Am. Dec. 221.

La. Decuir v. Veazy, 8 La. Ann. 453.

N. C.-Hoke V. Henderson, 14 N. C. 12; Pickett v. Pickett, 14 N. C. 6.

S. C.-Garvin v. Garvin, 40 S. C. 435, 19 S. E. 79; Suber v. Chandler, 36 S. C. 344, 15 S. E. 426; Aikin v. Ballard, Rice Eq. 13.

Va.-Snoddy v. Haskins, 12 Gratt.

363.

that the creditors were guilty of laches in proceeding against the property; but after a sale under a creditor's execution, a fraudulent deed is color of title against the purchaser. In other jurisdictions a grantee in possession under a deed from a judgment debtor, alleged to be fraudulent as against creditors, holds adversely to the creditors of the grantor and a purchaser under the creditor's execution from the time when possession was taken under the fraudulent deed, and such possession for the statutory period vests in the vendee the legal title, and the conveyance cannot be attacked for fraud,10 unless the creditors could not, by reasonable diligence, have discovered the fraud within the statutory period before the levy of execution," or unless the grantee holds the property as trustee in recognition of a secret trust for the grantor and disclaims any personal interest therein."

§ 31. Right of grantee to attack execution sale.-A fraudulent vendee of personalty taken in execution against his vendor cannot object that the sheriff should have resorted to the real property of the debtor before taking the personalty.13 It has

8. Farrar v. Bernheim, 74 Fed. 435, 20 C. C. A. 496; Garvin v. Garvin, 40 S. C. 435, 19 S. E. 79.

9. Beach v. Catlin, 4 Day (Conn.), 284; Hoke v. Henderson, 14 N. C. 12; Pickett v. Pickett, 14 N. C. 6.

10. Ala.-Peter v. Kahn, 93 Ala. 201, 9 So. 729; Lockard v. Nash, 64 Ala. 385; Snodgrass v. Branch Bank, 25 Ala. 161, 60 Am. Dec. 505.

Ill.-Cook v. Norton, 48 Ill. 20. Md.-Baxter v. Sewell, 3 Md. 334. Minn.-Brasie v. Minneapolis Brewing Co., 87 Minn. 456, 92 N. W. 340, 94 Am. St. Rep. 709, 67 L. R. A. 865. Miss.-Snodgrass v. Andrews, 30 Miss. 472, 64 Am. Dec. 169.

Mo.-Potter v. Adams, 125 Mo. 118, 28 S. W. 490, 46 Am. St. Rep. 478; Walker v. Bacon, 32 Mo. 144.

Tenn.-Welcker V. Staples, 88

Tenn. 49, 12 S. W. 340, 17 Am. St. Rep. 869; McBee v. Bearden, 75 Tenn. 731; Ramsay v. Quillen, 73 Tenn. 184; Knight v. Jordan, 25 Tenn. 101; Reeves v. Dougherty, 15 Tenn. 222, 27 Am. Dec. 496; Mulloy v. Paul, 2 Tenn. Ch. 156. But see Marr v. Rucker, 20 Tenn. 348; Jones v. Read, 20 Tenn. 335.

Tex.-Reynolds v. Lansford, 16 Tex. 286; B. C. Evans Co. v. Guipel (Civ. App. 1896), 35 S. W. 940.

11. Lockard v. Nash, 64 Ala. 385; Snodgrass v. Branch Bank, 25 Ala. 161, 60 Am. Dec. 505; Belt v. Raguet, 27 Tex. 471.

12. Smith v. Hall, 103 Ala. 235, 13 So. 525.

13. Flanders v. Batten, 50 Hun (N. Y.), 542, 3 N. Y. Supp. 728, aff'd 123 N. Y. 627, 25 N. E. 952.

been held that a fraudulent vendee cannot dispute and contest the regularity of the title of a purchaser at an execution sale of the property under a judgment obtained by a creditor of the vendor,1 and that evidence that the price was inadequate is inadmissible, because the deficiency of the price might have arisen from the circumstance of the fraudulent deed.15 On the other hand it is held that a fraudulent grantee of property is not precluded from having a sheriff's sale of the property, under an execution against his grantor, set aside, on showing irregularities in the proceedings, and that the property was sold for a grossl inadequate price.16

§ 32. Right of grantee to pay creditor's claim and retain property.—Where, in suit by a judgment creditor to set aside a sale of the debtor's land for value, as in fraud of his judgment, the court decrees the sale "void as to the judgment," and renders judgment for the creditor for the amount due, the grantee, by paying such amount, frees his title as against the decree."7 In proceedings to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, after the issues at the trial are found in the judgment creditor's favor, it is too late for the fraudulent transferee to ask the court to fix a short time within which he could pay off the creditor's judgment, and take the land freed from its lien, and it is proper to enter judgment canceling the fraudulent conveyance.18 Where a conveyance by a debtor to a grantee, who has in good faith paid a part of the consideration for the property transferred, is set aside as fraudulent towards creditors, the grantee will be given the alternative of paying the vendor's debts, or of having the property sold and the proceeds applied, first to his reimbursement, and second to the claims of the existing creditors of the grantor.19

14. Floyd v. Goodwin, 16 Tenn. 484, 29 Am. Dec. 130.

15. Laurence v. Lippencott, 6 N. J. L. 473.

16. Miller v. Koertge, 70 Tex. 162 7 S. W. 691, 8 Am. St. Rep. 587.

17. Kitts v. Willson, 140 Ind. 604,

39 N. E. 313. See also Assent or confirmation by creditors, chap. III, § 8, supra.

18. Pickens v. Taylor, 47 Kan. 294, 27 Pac. 986.

19. Adams' Assignee v. Branch, 3 Ky. L. Rep. 178.

§ 33. Personal liability of grantee in general.-A voluntary grantee, under a conveyance of property made with intent to defraud creditors of the grantor, is held to be a trustee by operation of law for the benefit of the existing creditors of the grantor, or a trustee ex maleficio, and liable to account therefor as a trustee for such creditors.20 Where a conveyance is not fraudulent, but part of the consideration is invalid as against creditors of the grantor, the grantee will be considered to hold such interest in the granted property as represents the invalid part of the consideration, as a trust fund for the use of the creditors of the grantor." Where land has been purchased with the money of a husband and conveyed to his wife, the wife will be declared a trustee for the creditors of the husband." A judgment representing the property, recovered against an attaching

20. N. Y.-Dewey v. Moyer, 72 N. Y. 70; Fox v. Erbe, 100 App. Div. 343, 91 N. Y. Supp. 832; Hillyer v. Leroy, 84 App. Div. 129, 82 N. Y. Supp. 80, trustee ex maleficio.

Ala.-Lockard v. Nash, 64 Ala. 385; Bryant v. Young, 21 Ala. 264.

Ark.-Miller v. Fraley, 21 Ark. 22. Ind.-Doherty v. Holiday, 137 Ind. 282, 32 N. E. 315, 36 N. E. 907; Buck v Voreis, 89 Ind. 116; Stout v. Stout, 77 Ind. 537.

Mass.-Cheney V. Gleason, 117

under, equity will make him trustee for the attaching creditor.

Wis.-Mason v. Pierron, 69 Wis. 585, 34 N. W. 921; Ferguson v. Hillman, 55 Wis. 181, 12 N. W. 389.

in

Effect of proceedings another state. The liability of a creditor to whom goods were delivered by a debtor in fraud of other creditors is not affected by judicial proceedings thereafter taken in another state, to which the goods have since been carried, whereby the creditor attaches the goods as property of the debtor. Rothschild v. Knight, 184 U. S. 334, 22 Sup. Ct. 391, 46 L. Ed. 573, aff'g 176 Mass. 48, 67 N. E. 337.

21. Columbia Sav. Bank v. Winn, 132 Mo. 80, 33 S. W. 457; Lininger v. Herron, 18 Neb. 450, 25 N. W. 578; Sutherlin v. March, 75 Va. 223.

22. Johnson v. Ingram (Miss. 1891), 9 So. 822; Lawson v. Dunn, 66 N. J. Eq. 90, 57 Atl. 415; Belford v. Crane, 16 N. J. Eq. 255, 84 Am. Dec. 155.