sufficient evidence of other facts to authorize the presumption; and to instruct the jury that "fraud cannot be presumed, but must be proved, like any other fact," is error.27 The burden of proof is on the person attacking the conveyance as fraudulent not only in actions brought to set aside fraudulent conveyances but also in attachment suits,28 or suits for the replevin of goods,29 or in any other action by or against an officer who has levied process, although the fraud is relied on as an affirmative defense.

30

§ 4. Transactions between relatives generally. The rule in most jurisdictions is that a judgment creditor alleging a convey

La.-King v. Atkins, 33 La. Ann.

1057.

Me.-Page v. Smith, 25 Me. 256. Md.-Zimmer v. Miller, 64 Md. 296, 1 Atl. 858.

-

Haskell, 5

Mass. Widgery v.
Mass. 144, 4 Am. Dec. 41.
Mich.-Whitney v. Rose, 43 Mich.
27, 4 N. W. 557.

Mo.-State v. Smith, 31 Mo. 566; Vandeventer v. Goss, 116 Mo. App. 316, 91 S. W. 958.

Neb.-Plummer V. Rummel, 26 Neb. 142, 42 N. W. 336; Bartlett v. Cheesebrough, 23 Neb. 767, 37 N. W. 652.

N. C.-Grambling v. Dickey, 118 N. C. 986, 24 S. E. 671.

Pa.-Wilson v. Silkman, 97 Pa. St. 509; Redfield, etc., Mfg. Co. v. Dysart, 62 Pa. St. 62.

V.

Tenn.-Hetterman Bros. Co. Young (Ch. App. 1898), 52 S. W. 532. Tex.-Cooper v. Friedman, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 585, 57 S. W. 581.

Vt.-Lyman v. Tarbell, 30 Vt. 463. Va.-American Net, etc., Co. v. Mayo, 97 Va. 182, 33 S. E. 523.

W. Va.-Livey v. Winton, 30 W. Va. 554, 8 S. E. 451; Goshorn v. Snodgrass; 17 W. Va. 717.

Wis.-Fisher v. Shelver, 53 Wis.

498, 10 N. W. 681; Horton v. Dewey, 53 Wis. 410, 10 N. W. 599.

27. Reed v. Noxon, 48 Ill. 323; Kendall V. Hughes, 46 Ky. 368; Schmick v. Noel, 72 Tex. 1, 8 S. W. 83.

28. Colo.-Riethmann v. Godsman, 23 Colo. 202, 46 Pac. 684.

Mo.-Mansur-Tebbetts

Implement Co. v. Ritchie, 143 Mo. 587, 45 S. W. 634.

Mont.-Finch v. Kent, 24 Mont. 268, 61 Pac. 653.

Pa.-Briggs v. Brown, 23 Pa. Super. Ct. 163.

Tex.-Compton v. Marshall, 88 Tex. 50, 27 S. W. 121, 28 S. W. 518, 29 S. W. 1059.

29. Hartman v. Hosmer, 65 Kan. 595, 70 Pac. 598; Magee v. Hartzell, 7 Kan. App. 489, 54 Pac. 129; Finch v. Kent, 24 Mont. 268, 61 Pac. 653; Ferree v. Cook, 119 N. C. 161, 25 S. E. 856, unless the instrument under which title is claimed is void on its face or enough appears therein to create a presumption of fraud.

30. Rein v. Kendall, 55 Neb. 583, 75 N. W. 1104, where an officer levies on mortgaged property; Reynolds v. Weinman (Tex. Civ. App. 1897), 40 S. W. 560.

ance made between relatives to be fraudulent must prove the fraud.31 The mere fact that transactions between relatives, in which the interests of creditors are involved, show something out of the usual course of business does not compel those claiming under such transactions to show that they were bona fide.32 The fact that a creditor preferred is a relative of the debtor does not cast the burden on him to show his good faith in the transaction.33 In some jurisdictions, however, the fact of relationship between the parties to an alleged fraudulent conveyance creates a presumption of fraud which shifts the burden of proof to the defendant, who must show the bona fides of the transaction and that it was made on sufficient consideration.34 Where a relative is preferred the burden of proving the existence of the debt which is the basis

31. N. Y.-Parks v. Murray, 2 St. Rep. 628.

Ill-American Hoist, etc., Co. v. Hall, 208 Ill. 597, 70 N. E. 581; Mathews v. Reinhardt, 149 Ill. 635, 37 N. E. 85; Rindskoph v. Kuder, 145 Ill. 607, 34 N. E. 484.

Ind.-Rockland Co. v. Sommerville, 139 Ind. 695, 39 N. E. 307.

Iowa. Klay V. McKellar, 122 Iowa, 163, 97 N. W. 1091.

Kan.-Gilmore v. Swisher, 59 Kan. 172, 52 Pac. 426.

Ky.-Redd v. Redd, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 2379, 67 S. W. 367.

Me.-Augusta Sav. Bank v. Crossman (1886), 7 Atl. 396.

Minn.-Shea v. Hynes, 89 Minn. 423, 95 N. W. 214.

Tenn.-Williamson v. Williams, 79 Tenn. 355.

Va.-Johnson v. Lucas, 103 Va. 36, 48 S. E. 497.

32. Oberholtzer v. Hazen, 92 Iowa, 602, 61 N. W. 365.

33. Coan v. Morrison, 34 Ill. App. 352.

34. Ala.-Lipscomb v. McClellan, 72 Ala. 151.

Ky.-Lavelle v. Clark, 18 Ky. L. Rep. 759, 38 S. W. 481.

La.—Pruyn v. Young, 51 La. Ann. 320, 25 So. 125.

Neb.-Lusk v. Riggs (1904), 97 N. W. 1033; Ayers v. Wolcott, 66 Neb. 712, 92 N. W. 1036, 62 Neb. 805, 87 N. W. 906; Lusk v. Riggs, 65 Neb. 258, 91 N. W. 243; Boldt v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 283, 80 N. W. 905; Plummer v. Rummel, 26 Neb. 142, 42 N. W. 336.

N. C.-Grambling v. Dickey, 118 N. C. 986, 24 S. E. 671; Hinton v. Greenleaf, 118 N. C. 7, 23 N. E. 924; Tredwell v. Graham, 88 N. C. 208; Reiger v. Davis, 67 N. C. 185; Black v. Caldwell, 49 N. C. 150; Satterwhite v. Hicks, 44 N. C. 105, 57 Am. Dec. 577.

Or.-Robson v. Hamilton, 41 Or. 239, 69 Pac. 651; Brown v. Case, 41 Or. 221, 69 Pac. 43; Goodale v. Wheeler, 41 Or. 190, 68 Fac. 753; Mendenhall v. Elwert, 36 Or. 375, 52 Pac. 22, 59 Pac. 805.

W. Va.-Moore v. Gainer, 53 W. Va. 403, 44 S. E. 458.

36

37

of the preference, as well as good faith, is on the defendant.35 The burden of exculpatory proof may be shifted to defendant where facts tending to show fraud have been proved by plaintiff, as, for example, where the transfer is of all the debtor's property," or where the consideration is inadequate. In a creditor's bill to set aside a transfer of land from a parent to an infant son, where the consideration was alleged to have been the payment by the transferee of his wages to the parent, the burden of proving emancipation is on the defendant.39

§ 5. Transactions between husband and wife.-Purchases of real or personal property, made by the wife of an insolvent debtor during coverture, are justly regarded with suspicion, and in contests with creditors of her husband the general rule is that, if the wife claims ownership of the property by a purchase during coverture, the burden of proof is upon her to show affirmatively and distinctly that the purchase was for a valuable consideration paid by her out of her separate estate, or by some person other than the husband, or that she paid for it with funds not furnished by her husband.40 Such is the community of interest between husband

35. Ala.-Thompson v. Tower Mfg. Co., 104 Ala. 140, 16 So. 116; Calhoun v. Hannan, 87 Ala. 277, 6 So. 291.

Neb.-Heffley v. Hunger, 54 Neb. 776, 75 N. W. 53; H. T. Clarke Drug Co. v. Boardman, 50 Neb. 687, 70 N. W. 248; National Bank of Commerce v. Chapman, 50 Neb. 484, 70 N. W. 39; Bartlett v. Cheesebrough, 23 Neb. 767, 37 N. W. 652; Marcus v. Leake, 4 Neb. (Unoff.) 354, 94 N. W. 100. a N. C.-Mitchell v. Eure, 126 N. C. 77, 35 S. E. 190.

Or.-Mendenhall v. Elwert, 36 Or. 375, 52 Pac. 22, 59 Pac. 805; Colfax Bank v. Richardson, 34 Or. 518, 54 Pac. 359, 75 Am. St. Rep. 664.

W. Va.-Stauffer v. Kennedy, 47 W. Va. 714, 3 S. E. 892.

38. Farwell v. Meyer, 67 Mo. App. 566.

39. Crary v. Hoffman, 115 Iowa, 332, 88 N. W. 833; Kubic v. Zemke, 105 Iowa, 269, 74 N. W. 748; Love v. Hudson, 24 Tex. Civ. App. 377, 59 S. W. 1127.

40. N. Y.-Rider v. Hulse, 24 N. Y. 372.

U. S.-Seitz v. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, 25 L. Ed. 179; Curtis v. Wortsman, 25 Fed. 893; Simms v. Morse, 2 Fed. 325, 4 Hughes, 579.

Ala.-Noble v. Gilliam, 136 Ala. 618, 33 So. 861; Collier v. Carlisle, 133 Ala. 478, 31 So. 970; Wimberly

and wife; such purchases are so often made a cover for a debtor's property; are so frequently resorted to for the purpose of withdrawing his property from the reach of his creditors and preserv

ing it for his own use, and they hold forth such temptations for fraud, that they require close scrutiny. In a contest between the