34 To render an ante-nuptial settlement void as in fraud of creditors, both parties must concur in or have notice of the intended fraud.33 A marriage settlement is valid, though made with design to defraud creditors, if the grantee had no knowledge of the fraud; and notice by creditors after the deed, though before the marriage, that the intent of the deed was fraudulent, will not affect the grantee with knowledge. Notice to the vendee of the indebtedness of the vendor and participation in the intent to defraud are necessary elements of the fraud.35 Under a statute providing that a judgment suffered with intent to defraud creditors shall be void, such fraudulent intent on the part of the debtor alone does not render the judgment void. To avoid a mortgage it is not necessary to show confederation between mortgagor and mortgagee to delay and defraud creditors. An intent of the two parties to delay or defraud is sufficient.37 § 5. Knowledge and intent of grantee; Effect of want of knowledge or notice where transfer is voluntary.-It is not necessary, in order to avoid a voluntary conveyance, that is, one not based on a valuable consideration, that the grantee should 322; McLarren v. Thompson, 40 Me. 284. Mass.-Bridge v. Eggleston, 14 Mass. 245, 7 Am. Dec. 209. Mich.-Fraser v. Passage, 63 Mich. 551, 30 N. W. 334; Fisher v. Hall, 44 Mich. 493, 7 N. W. 72. Mo.-Henderson v. Henderson, 55 Mo. 534; Stevens Lumber Co. V. Kansas City Planing Mill Co., 59 Mo. App. 373. N. H.-Blake v. White, 13 N. H. 267. Pa.-Benson v. Maxwell (1888), 14 Atl. 161. S. C.-Union Bank v. Toomer, 2 Hill Eq. 27. Tex.-Kraus v. Haas, 6 Tex. Civ. App. 665, 25 S. W. 1025. Wis. Sterling v. Ripley, 3 Chand. 166, 3 Pin. 155. 33. U. S.-Prewit v. Wilson, 103 U. S. 22, 26 L. Ed. 360; Magniac v. Thompson, 32 U. S. 348, 8 L. Ed. 709. Ala.-Nance v. Nance, 84 Ala. 375, 4 So. 699, 5 Am. St. Rep. 378. Or.-Bonser v. Miller, 5 Or. 110. Va.-Noble v. Davies (1887), 4 S. 34. Clay v. Walter, 79 Va. 92. 35. De Prato V. Jester (Ark. 1892), 20 S. W. 807. 36. Galle v. Tode, 148 N. Y. 270, 42 N. E. 673, rev'g 74 Hun, 542, 26 N. Y. Supp. 633. 37. State v. Nauert, 2 Mo. App. 295. have been cognizant of the fraud, or should have actually participated with the grantor in his fraudulent purpose, or have been privy to it. It is wholly void, without reference to knowledge or want of it on the part of the grantee, and although the grantee or transferee was innocent of any fraudulent intent, and the good faith of the grantee does not render it valid. The 38. N. Y.-Young v. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374; Whyte v. Denike, 53 App. Div. 320, 65 N. Y. Supp. 577; Truesdale v. Bourke, 29 App. Div. 95, 51 N. Y. Supp. 409; Wood v. Hunt, 38 Barb. 302; Savage v. Murphy, 8 Bosw. 75; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Kyle, 5 Bosw. 587; White's Bank v. Farthing, 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 830; Salomon v. Moral, 53 How. Pr. 342; Hildreth v. Sands, 2 Johns. Ch. 35; Mohawk Bank v. Atwater, 2 Paige, 54. U. S.-Beecher v. Clark, 3 Fed. Cas. No. 1,223, 12 Blatchf. 256. Ala.-Wooten v. Steele, 109 Ala. 563, 19 So. 972, 55 Am. St. Rep. 947; Hudson v. Bauer Grocery Co., 105 Ala. 200, 16 So. 693; Early v. Owens, 68 Ala. 171; Pickett v. Pipkin, 64 Ala. 520; Anderson v. Anderson, 64 Ala. 403. Ark.-Hershy v. Latham, 46 Ark. 542; Dodd v. McCraw, 8 Ark. 83, 46 Am. Dec. 301. Cal.-Bush, etc., Co. v. Helbing, 134 Cal. 676, 66 Pac. 967; Chalmers v. Sheehy, 132 Cal. 459, 64 Pac. 709, 84 Am. St. Rep. 62; Lee v. Figg, 37 Cal. 328, 99 Am. Dec. 271. Colo.-Wells v. Schuster-Hax Nat. Bank, 23 Colo. 534, 48 Pac. 809; Gwynn v. Butler, 17 Colo. 114, 28 Pac. 466. Conn.-Mallory v. Gallagher, 75 Conn. 665, 55 Atl. 209; Hitchcock v. Kiely, 41 Conn. 611. 38 Del.-Russell v. Thatcher, 2 Del. Ch. 320. Fla.-McKeown v. Allen, 37 Fla. 490, 20 So. 556. Ga. Westmoreland v. Powell, 59 Ga. 256. Ill.-Bauer Grocer Co. v. McKee Shoe Co., 87 Ill. App. 434; Head v. Harding, 62 Ill. App. 302; Marmon v. Harwood, 26 Ill. App. 341. Ind.-York v. Rockwood, 132 Ind. 358, 31 N. E. 1110; Heaton v. Shanklin, 115 Ind. 595, 18 N. E. 172; Meredith v. Citizens' Nat. Bank, 92 Ind. 343; Wright v. Nipple, 92 Ind. 310; Sherman v. Hogland, 73 Ind. 472, Borror v. Carrier, 34 Ind. App. 353, 73 N. E. 123; Trent v. Edmonds, 32 Ind. App. 432, 70 N. E. 169; Spiers v. Whitesell, 27 Ind. App. 204, 61 N. E. 28. Iowa.-Gaar v. Hart, 77 Iowa, 597, 42 N. W. 451; Lyons v. Hamilton, 72 Iowa, 759, 33 N. W. 655; Lyons v. Hamilton, 69 Iowa, 47, 28 N. W. 429; Watson V. Riskamire, 45 Iowa, 231. Me.-Spear v. Spear, 97 Me. 498, 54 Atl. 1106; Weeks v. Hill, 88 Me. 111, 33 Atl. 778; Laughton v. Harden, 68 Me. 208; Emery v. Vinall, 26 Me. 295; Tucker v. Andrews, 13 Me. 124. Md. Rickards V. Rickards, 98 Md. 136, 56 Atl. 397, 103 Am. St. Rep. 379, 63 L. R. A. 724; Goodman v. Wineland, 61 Md. 449; Foley v. Bitter, 34 Md. 646; Dorn v. Bayer, intent of the grantor in such cases, and not the knowledge of the intent by the grantee, determines the fraud, and it is immaterial whether the creditors as to whom the fraudulent character of the conveyance is alleged became such prior or subsequent to the grant.59 A conveyance by a debtor to his wife, with intent to defraud his creditors and without consideration, will be set aside, though she had no knowledge of the fraudulent intent," and 16 Md. 144; Worthington v. Bullitt, 6 Md. 172. Mass.-Gray v. Chase, 184 Mass. 444, 68 N. E. 676; Clark v. Chamberlain, 95 Mass. 257; Blake v. Sawin, 92 Mass. 340. Mich.-Schaible V. Ardner, 98 Mich. 70, 56 N. W. 1105; Matson v. Melchor, 42 Mich. 477, 4 N. W. 200. Minn. Knatvold v. Wilkinson, 83 Minn. 265, 86 N. W. 99. Miss.-Young v. White, 25 Miss. 146. Mo.-Bohannon v. Combs, 79 Mo. 305; Gamble v. Johnson, 9 Mo. 605; Farmers', etc., Bank v. Price, 41 Mo. App. 291. Neb.-Nebraska Nat. Bank v. Hallowell, 63 Neb. 309, 88 N. W. 556; Ayres v. Wolcott, 62 Neb. 805, 87 N. W. 906; Smith v. Schmitz, 10 Neb. 600, 7 N. W. 329. N. H.-Preston v. Cutter, 64 N. H. 461, 13 Atl. 874; Carter v. Grimshaw, 49 N. H. 100. N. J.-Bouquet v. Heyman, 50 N. J. Eq. 114, 24 Atl. 266; Providence Nat. Bank v. Hamilton, 34 N. J. Eq. 158; Morris Canal, etc., Co. V. Stearns, 23 N. J. Eq. 414. N. C.-Helms v. Green, 105 N. C. 251, 11 S. E. 470, 18 Am. St. Rep. 893; Lassiter v. Davis, 64 N. C. 498; Green v. Kornegay, 49 N. C. 66, 67 Am. Dec. 261. N. D.-Faber v. Wagner, 10 N. D. 287, 86 N. W. 963. Pa.-Clark v. Depew, 25 Pa. St. 509, 64 Am. Dec. 717. R. I.-First Nat. Bank v. Randall, 20 R. I. 319, 38 Atl. 1055, 78 Am. St. Rep. 867; McKenna v. Crowley, 16 R. I. 364, 17 Atl. 354. S. C.-Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 12 S. E. 560; Woody v. Dean, 24 S. C. 499; Beckham v. Secrest, 2 Rich. Eq. 54; Miller v. Tollison, Harp. Eq. 145, 14 Am. Dec. 712. whether she participated in the fraud or not." Where the confession of a judgment includes a debt not due, and is part and parcel of a scheme to remove property from the reach of creditors, it is void, not to the extent of the fraud, but absolutely, and it is immaterial whether the plaintiff was cognizant of the fraud or not. Where a conveyance is invalidated by reason of the fraud of the grantor towards his creditors, only an innocent purchaser is protected thereunder, and not a donee."3 42 6. The effect of knowledge or notice where transfer is to one not a creditor.-A sale of real or personal property made by a debtor to one not a creditor with the intention of delaying, hindering, or defrauding creditors, though an adequate consideration be paid," where the purchaser has knowledge or notice of the fraudulent intent of the seller, is fraudulent and void as 45 against creditors.46 A sale of real or personal property to a 41. Knapp v. Day, 4 Colo. App. 21, 34 Pac. 1008. 42. Simons v. Goldbach, 56 Hun (N. Y.), 204, 9 N. Y. Supp. 359. 43. Swartz v. Hazlett, 8 Cal. 118. 44. Roeber v. Bcwe, 26 Hun (N. Y.), 554; Hayes v. Reilly, 49 N. Y. Super Ct. 334; Russell & Erwin Mfg. Co. v. E. C. Faitoute Hardware Co. (N. J. Ch.), 62 Atl. 421. See also Effect of consideration, § 30, infra. 45. See Constructive or implied notice, 17, infra. 46. N. Y.-Decker v. Decker, 108 N. Y. 128, 15 N. E. 307; Gilmore v. Colcord, 96 App. Div. 358, 89 N. Y. Supp. 689; New York Ice Co. v. Cousins, 23 App. Div. 560, 48 N. Y. Supp. 799; Union Nat. Bank v. Warner, 12 Hun, 306; Gowing v. Warner, 30 Misc. Rep. 493, 62 N. Y. Supp. 797; Sands v. Codwise, 4 Johns. 536, 4 Am. Dec. 305. U.S.-Collinson v. Jackson, 14 Fed. 305, 8 Sawy. 357; Singer v. Jacobs, 11 Fed. 559, 3 McCrary, 638. Ala.-Reeves v. Skipper, 94 Ala. 407, 10 So. 309; Crawford v. Kirksey, 55 Ala. 282, 27 Am. Rep. 704; Pulliam v. Newberry, 41 Ala. 168. Ark.-Galbreath v. Cook, 30 Ark. 417. Ga.-Conley v. Buck, 100 Ga. 187, 28 S. E. 97; Cothran v. Forsyth, 68 Ga. 560; Watts v. Kilburn, 7 Ga. 356; Peck v. Land, 2 Ga. 1, 46 Am. Dec. 368. Ill.-Jewett v. Cook, 81 Ill. 260; Boies v. Henney, 32 Ill. 130; Hoff v. Larimore, 106 Ill. App. 589. Oaksford v. Dunlap, 63 Ill. App. 498. Ind.-Hoffman v. Henderson, 145 Ind. 613, 44 N. E. 629; Pierce v. Hower, 142 Ind. 626, 42 N. E. 223; Buck v. Vories, 89 Ind. 116; Bishop v. Redmond, 83 Ind. 157; Tyner v. Somerville, 1 Ind. 175; Johnson v. Brandis, Smith, 263; Basey ▼. Daniel, Smith, 252. person who has notice of a judgment against the seller and purchases for the purpose of defrauding the creditor's execution is Iowa.-Liddle v. Allen, 90 Iowa, 738, 57 N. W. 603; Baxter v. Myers (1891), 47 N. W. 879; Douglass v. Hannah, 81 Iowa, 469, 46 N. W. 1053; Taylor v. Branscombe, 74 Iowa, 534, 38 N. W. 400; Williamson v. Wachenheim, 58 Iowa, 277, 12 N. W. 302; Sweet v. Wright, 57 Iowa, 510, 10 N. W. 870; Chapel v. Clapp, 29 Iowa, 191. Ky.-Brite v. Guy, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 57, 88 S. W. 1069; Carter v. Richardson, 22 Ky. L. Rep. 1204, 60 S. W. 397; McFarland v. McFarland, 1 Ky. L. Rep. 422. La. Shultz v. Morgan, 27 La. Ann. 616; Danjean v. Blacketer, 13 La. Ann. 595; Barker v. Phillips. 11 Rob. 190; Hiriar v. Roger, 13 La. 126. Me.-Dockray v, Mason, 48 Me. 178; Howe v. Ward, 4 Me. 195. Md.-Glenn v. Randall, 2 Md. Ch. 220. See Biddinger v. Wiland, 67 Md. 359, 10 Atl. 202. Mass.-Day v. Cooley, 118 Mass. 524; Wadsworth v. Williams, 100 Mass. 126. Mich.-Coon v. Henry, 49 Mich. 208, 13 N. W. 518. Miss.-Buckingham v. Wesson, 54 Miss. 526; Farmers' Bank v. Douglass, 11 Sm. & M. 469. Mo.-Stewart v. Outhwaite, 141 Mo. 562, 44 S. W. 326; Garesche v. MacDonald, 103 Mo. 1, 15 S. W. 379; Stone v. Spencer, 77 Mo. 356; Shelley v. Boothe, 73 Mo. 74, 39 Am. Rep. 481; Johnson v. Sullivan, 23 Mo. 474; Kurtz v. Troll, 86 Mo. App. 649; Christian v. Smith, 85 Mo. App. 117; Esselbruegge Mercantile Co. v. Troll, 79 Mo. App. 558; Monarch Rubber Co. v. Bunn, 78 Mo. App. 55; Sellers v. Bailey, 29 Mo. App. 174; Clark v. Finn, 12 Mo. App. 583. Neb. Snyder v. Dangler, 44 Neb. 600, 63 N. W. 20; Hedrick V. Strauss, 42 Neb. 485, 60 N. W. 928; Meyer v. Stone, 21 Neb. 717, 33 N. W. 420; Savage v. Hazard, 11 Neb. 323, 9 N. W. 83; Tootle v. Dunn, 6 Neb. 93. N. H.-Robinson v. Holt, 39 N. H. 557, 75 Am. Dec. 233. N. J.-Kinmonth v. White (Ch. 1900), 47 Atl. 1; Atwood v. Impson, 20 N. J. Eq. 150; Danbury v. Robinson, 14 N. J. Eq. 213, 82 Am. Dec. 244. N. C.-Peeler v. Peeler, 109 N. C. 628, 14 S. E. 59; Hudson v. Jordan, 108 N. C. 10, 12 S. E. 1029; Cansler v. Cobb, 77 N. C. 30. N. D.-Salemonson v. Thompson (1904), 101 N. W. 320; Flulgel v. Henschel, 7 N. D. 276, 74 N. W. 996, 66 Am. St. Rep. 642. Ohio.-Brown v. Webb, 20 Ohio, 389; Shur v. Statler, 2 Ohio Dec. 70, 1 West. L. Month. 317. Or.-Lyons v. Leahy, 15 Or. 8, 13 Pac. 643, 3 Am. St. Rep. 133. Pa.-Renninger v. Spatz, 128 Pa. St. 524, 18 Atl. 405, 15 Am. St. Rep. 692; Ashmead v. Hean, 13 Pa. St. 584. S. C.-Lenhardt v. Ponder, 64 S. C. 354, 42 S. E. 169; Thomas v. Jeter, 1 Hill, 380; Hipp v. Sawyer, Rich. Eq. Cas. 410. Tenn.-Carny v. Palmer, 42 Tenn. 35; Trotter v. Watson, 25 Tenn. 509. Tex.-Weisiger V. Chisholm, 28 Tex. 780, 22 Tex. 670; Tuttle v. Turner, 28 Tex. 759; Walcott v. Brander, |