intent to defraud the creditors of the husband, and that the wife had connived at the fraud, the testimony showed that the wife, before marriage, had no knowledge of any fraud, the court properly refused a request to direct an issue out of chancery to try the question of fraud.' Where a judgment by confession is attacked as fraudulent as to other creditors of the judgment debtor, and the evidence merely tends to prove circumstances of suspicion, an issue is properly refused. § 3. Reference and accounting.-The court is not compelled, in an action to set aside a conveyance as in fraud of creditors, always to decide the question of fraud in advance, but may, if necessary, refer the case for the determination of certain facts before decreeing the conveyance void. Where it is provided by statute that the question of fraudulent intent shall be deemed one of fact and not of law, a referee to whom has been referred the issue of the good faith of a debtor's transfer of property as to other creditors is to determine such question as if he were a jury, and, if there is evidence reasonably tending to support the referee's findings, they should not be disturbed.10 Where a judgment debtor, being the owner of certain shares of stock, assigned them to his wife, it is necessary, to enable the creditor in a creditor's suit to sell such shares and apply them on his judgment that a finding that the wife's title was fraudulent and inoperative against him should be made by the referee, though the shares were not transferred to the wife on the books of the company issuing them."1 Where a creditor seeks to vacate a conveyance from a husband to his wife, who claims that it was made to satisfy a debt due her from her husband, an account is properly taken to ascertain the amount of this debt, although no account was prayed for.12 Where a creditor's bill prayed the setting aside of a deed and bond for 7. Noble v. Davies (Va. 1887), S. E. 206. 8. Hagy v. Poike, 3 Pa. Dist. 792, aff'd 169 Pa. St. 522, 28 Atl. 846. 9. First Nat. Bank v. Parsons, 42 W. Va. 137, 24 S. E. 554. 10. Vose v. Stickney, 19 Minn. 367. 11. Vail v. Craig, 13 St. Rep. (N.. Y.) 448. 12. Hester v. Thomson, 58 Miss.. 108. a deed made in alleged fraud of creditors, and the sale of the property, and the grantee answered, alleging that the two instruments constituted a mortgage securing a bona fide debt, a decree holding that the instruments did constitute a mortgage, and that the grantee was entitled to a prior lien on the property, properly directed an accounting to determine the amount due the grantee, although he filed no cross bill.13 13 § 4. Questions for jury-Questions of law and factFraudulent intent in general. Where the fraudulent intent in making a transfer of a debtor's property is to be determined by evidence collateral to the writing, such question is determinable alone by the jury, and usually the question of fraudulent intent is, by statute or by general rule of law, one of fact to be determined by the jury. Where, however, there is no dispute about the 14 13. Callahan v. Ball, 197 Ill. 318, 64 N. E. 295. 14. N. Y.-Bristol v. Hull, 166 N. Y. 59, 59 N. E. 698; Syracuse Chilled Plow Co. v. Wing, 85 N. Y. 421; Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N. Y. 623; New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 69 App. Div. 153, 74 N. Y. Supp. 692; Vogedes v. Beakes, 38 App. Div. 380, 56 N. Y. Supp. 662; Hurlbut v. Hurlbut, 49 Hun, 189, 1 N. Y. Supp. 854; Bennett v. McGuire, 58 Barb. 625; Peck v. Crouse, 46 Barb. 151; Groat v. Rees, 20 Barb. 26; Bishop v. Cook, 13 Barb. 326; Brace v. Gould, 1 Thomps. & C. 226; Colby v. Peabody, 52 N. Y. Super. Ct. 394; Blaut v. Gabler, 8 Daly, 48, aff'd 77 N. Y. 461; Rheinfeldt v. Dahlman, 19 Misc. Rep. 162, 43 N. Y. Supp. 281; White's Bank v. Farthing, 10 St. Rep. (N. Y.) 830; Hyatt v. Dusenbury, 12 Civ. Proc. R. 152; Murray v. Burtis, 15 Wend. 212. U. S.-Warner v. Norton, 20 How. 448, 15 L. Ed. 950; McLaughlin v. Potomac Bank, 7 How. 220, 12 L. Ed. 675; Fleischman v. Bowser, 62 Fed. 259, 10 C. C. A. 370; Hills v. Stockwell, etc., Furniture Co., 23 Fed. 432; Means v. Montgomery, 23 Fed. 421; Morse v. Riblet, 22 Fed. 501; Howe Mach. Co. v. Claybourn, 6 Fed. 438; Sedgwick v. Place, 21 Fed. Cas. No. 12, 621, 12 Blatchf. 163. Ala.-Davidson v. Kahn, 119 Ala. 364, 24 So. 583; Bank of Commerce v. Eureka Brick, etc., Co., 108 Ala. 89, 18 So. 600; Howell v. Carden, 99 Ala. 100, 10 So. 640; Johnson v. Thweatt, 18 Ala. 741; Thomas v. De Graffenreid, 17 Ala. 602; Planters', etc., Bank v. Borland, 5 Ala. 531. Cal.-Bull v. Bray, 89 Cal. 286, 26 Pac. 873, 13 L. R. A. 576; Harris v. Burns, 50 Cal. 140; Tully v. Harloe, 35 Cal. 302, 95 Am. Dec. 102; Miller v. Stewart, 24 Cal. 502; Roberts v. Burr (1898), 54 Pac. 849. Fla.-Gibson v. Love, 4 Fla. 217. Ga.-Kiser v. Dozier, 102 Ga. 429, 30 S. E. 967, 66 Am. St. Rep. 184; Powell v. Westmoreland, 60 Ga. 572, 59 Ga. 256; Nicol v. Crittenden, 55 facts, the question whether they constitute fraud is one of law.15 Ga. 497; Hobbs v. Davis, 50 Ga. 213. Ill.-Bushnell v. Wood, 85 Ill. 88; Hayes v. Bernard, 38 Ill. 297; Hargadine-McKittrick Dry Goods Co. v. Belt, 74 Ill. App. 581. Ind.-Carnahan v. Schwab, 127 Ind. 507, 26 N. E. 67; Citizens' Bank v. Bolen, 121 Ind. 301, 23 N. E. 146; Neisler v. Harris, 115 Ind. 560, 18 N. E. 39; Jarvis v. Banta, 83 Ind. 528; Bishop v. State, 83 Ind. 67; Goff v. Rogers, 71 Ind. 459; Hardy v. Mitchell, 67 Ind. 485; Pence v. Croan, 51 Ind. 336; Parton v. Yates, 41 Ind. 456; Church v. Drummond, 7 Ind. 17; Stewart v. English, 6 Ind. 176. Iowa.-Sweet v. Wright, 62 Iowa, 215, 17 N. W. 468. Kan.-Jones v. Johnson, 7 Kan. App. 616, 52 Pac. 464. Me.-Whitehouse v. Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 Atl. 240; Hall v. Sands, 52 Me. 355; Rich v. Reed, 22 Me. 28. Mass.-Winchester v. Charter, 102 Mass. 272; Marden v. Babcock, 43 Mass. 99; Boyd v. Brown, 34 Mass. 453; Harrison v. Phillips Academy, 12 Mass. 456. Mich.-Gordon v. Alexander, 122 Mich. 107, 80 N. W. 978; Bedford v. Penney, 65 Mich. 667, 32 N. W. 888; Bagg v. Jerome, 7 Mich. 145; Oliver v. Eaton, 7 Mich. 108. Minn.-Filley v. Register, 4 Minn. 391, 77 Am. Dec. 522. Miss. Wilson V. Kohlheim, 46 Miss. 346; Harney v. Pack, 4 Sm. & M. 229. Mo.-First Nat. Bank v. Fry, 168 Mo. 492, 68 S. W. 348; State v. Mason, 112 Mo. 374, 20 S. W. 629, 34 Am. St. Rep. 390; State v. Merritt, 70 Mo. 275; Potter v. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62; Middleton v. Hoof, 15 Mo. 415; Lane v. Kingsberry, 11 Mo. 402; White v. Million, 114 Mo. App. 70, 89 S. W. 599; Hungerford v. Greegard, 95 Mo. App. 653, 69 S. W. 602; Sevier v. Allen, 80 Mo. App. 187; Graham Paper Co. V. St. Joseph Times Printing, etc., Co., 79 Mo. App. 504. Neb.-Bender v. Kingman, 64 Neb. 766, 90 N. W. 886; Boldt v. First Nat. Bank, 59 Neb. 283, 80 N. W. 905; Oak Creek Valley Bank v. Helmer, 59 Neb. 176, 80 N. W. 891; Sloan v. Thomas Mfg. Co., 58 Neb. 713, 79 N. W. 728; Adler v. Hellman, 55 Neb. 266, 75 N. W. 877; Omaha Coal, etc., Co. v. Suess, 54 Neb. 379, 74 N. W. 620; Harris v. Weir-Shugart Co., 51 Neb. 483, 70 N. W. 1118; Campbell v. Farmers', etc., Bank, 49 Neb. 143, 68 N. W. 344; Goldsmith v. Erickson, 48 Neb. 48, 66 N. W. 1029; Grimes Dry Goods Co. v. Shaffer, 41 Neb. 112, 59 N. W. 741; Hewitt v. Commercial Banking Co., 40 Neb. 820, 59 N. W. 693; Houck v. Heinzman, 37 Neb. 463, 55 N. W. 1062; Connelly v. Edgerton, 22 Neb. 82, 34 N. W. 76. N. C.-Beasley v. Bray, 98 N. C. 266, 3 S. E. 497; Hardy v. Simpson, 35 N. C. 132; Leadman v. Harris, 14 N. C. 144; Smith v. Niel, 8 N. C. 341. N. D.-Stevens v. Myers (1905), 104 N. W. 529. Or.-Weaver v. Owens, 16 Or. 301, 18 Pac. 579. Pa.-White v. Gunn, 205 Pa. St. 229, 54 Atl. 901; Gray v. Trent (1888), 16 Atl. 107; Barr v. Boyles, 96 Pa. St. 31; Ferris v. Irons, 83 Pa. St. 179; Mullen v. Wilson, 44 Pa. St. 413, 84 Am. Dec. 461; Vallance v. Miners L. Ins. Co., 42 Pa. St. 441; Graham v. Smith, 25 Pa. St. 323; Avery v. Street, 6 Watts, 247. 8. C.-Perkins v. Douglass, 52 S. C. And where a conveyance is fraudulent on its face, there is nothing for the jury to pass upon.16 The New York statute relating to fraudulent transfers and conveyances, which declares that the question of fraudulent intent arising thereunder shall be deemed a question of fact and not of law, does not, as now interpreted, interfere with the prerogative of the court to direct a verdict, provided the fraudulent intent is conclusively established on the face of the instrument of transfer, or by the uncontradicted verbal evidence." 129, 29 S. E. 400; Pringle v. Rhame, 10 Rich. 72, 67 Am. Dec. 560; Hamilton v. Greenwood, 1 Bay, 173, 1 Am Dec. 607. Tenn.-Charlton v. Lay, 24 Tenn. 496; Hoskins v. Carroll, 15 Tenn. 505. Tex.-Van Bibber v. Mathis, 52 Tex. 406; Briscoe v. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326, 46 Am. Dec. 108; Moore v. Robinson (Civ. App. 1903), 75 S. W. 890; Schuster v. Farmers', etc., Nat. Bank, 23 Tex. Civ. App. 206, 54 S. W. 777, 55 S. W. 1121, 56 S. W. 93; McGregor v. White, 15 Tex. Civ. App. 299, 39 S. W. 1024; Kruschell v. Anders (Civ. App. 1894), 26 S. W. 249. Vt.-Fish v. Field, 19 Vt. 141. Wash.-Adams V. Dempsey, 22 Wash. 284, 60 Pac. 649, 70 Am. St. Rep. 933; Ephraim v. Kelleher, 4 Wash. 243, 29 Pac. 985, 1 L. R. A. 604. Wis.-Kaufer v. Walsh, 88 Wis. 63, 59 N. W. 460; Hoey v. Pierron, 67 Wis. 262, 30 N. W. 692; Hooser v. Hunt, 65 Wis. 71, 26 N. W. 442; Evans v. Rugee, 63 Wis. 31, 23 N. W. 24; Trowbridge v. Sickler, 54 Wis. 306, 11 N. W. 581; Barkow v. Sanger, 47 Wis. 500, 3 N. W. 16; Hyde v. Chapman, 33 Wis. 391; Bond v. Seymour, 2 Pinn. 105, 1 Chandl. 40. 15. N. Y.-Jackson v. Mather, 7 Cow. 301. Cal.-Chenery v. Palmer, 6 Cal. The court should be very cautious in finding fraud in a written instrument as a matter of law, and, where presumptions of fraud arise upon the face of the deed, the parties are entitled to introduce evidence to explain suspicious transactions and rebut even strong legal presumptions of fraud; and in cases at law such questions must be determined by the jury.18 Where the court cannot clearly see that a deed is fraudulent on its face, it may submit to the consideration of the jury the suspicious provisions of the deed, as well as the evidence that may be adduced to explain them or to show the fraudulent intent.19 Whether a voluntary conveyance is fraudulent or not, as against creditors, is in most jurisdictions a question of fact for the jury.20 It is within the province of the jury to inquire whether in point of fact a judgment by confession was fraudulent.21 A bill of sale of property absolute in terms, but given as security for a present debt and future advances, is not fraudulent as against creditors as a matter of law.22 Where the facts concerning a conveyance claimed to be fraudulent as to creditors of the grantor are ascertained and determined by the trial court, the conclusion to be drawn from the facts so found, including the determination of the existence of constructive fraud and of a valuable consideration, is a question of law.23 The question of intent in an alleged fraudulent conveyance of property, |