viding that a debtor shall not disable himself from meeting his debts by voluntary alienations of his property, the question as to the value of the property retained and whether it is sufficient is for the jury.62 63 § 9. Knowledge and participation of grantee. In a suit by creditors to set aside their debtor's conveyance as fraudulent, the question of the grantee's or vendee's participation in, or knowledge of, the fraudulent intent of the grantor or vendor is one of fact for the jury. If the purchaser has knowledge that the effect of the sale is to deprive the vendor's creditors of the means of collecting their debts, it is a question of fact whether such knowledge does not give him notice of the fraudulent intent of the vendor. Notice of fraud in a transfer is a question of fact for the jury. The question whether a vendee had knowledge of facts calculated to arouse his suspicion and to stimulate inquiry as to the vendor's financial condition is one of fact for 64 65 62. Worthy v. Brady, 108 N. C. 440, 12 S. E. 1034, aff'g 91 N. C. 265. 63. N. Y.-New York County Nat. Bank v. American Surety Co., 174 N. Y. 544, 67 N. E. 1086, aff'g 69 App. Div. 153, 74 N. Y. Supp. 692; Mahler v. Schloss, 7 Daly, 291. U. S.-Browning v. De Ford, 178 U. S. 196, 20 Sup. Ct. 876, 44 L. Ed. 1033; Swofford Bros. Dry Goods Co. v. Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co., 85 Fed. 417, 29 C. C. A. 239. Ala.-Smith v. Kaufman, 100 Ala. 408, 14 So. 111. Conn.-Knower v. Cadden Clothing Co., 57 Conn. 202, 17 Atl. 580. Ga.-Planters', etc., Bank v. Willeo Cotton Mills, 60 Ga. 168. Ind.-Leasure v. Coburn, 57 Ind. 274. Ky.-Brown v. Force, 46 Ky. 357, 46 Am. Dec. 519. La.-Carrollton Bank v. Cleveland, 15 La. Ann. 616. Md.-Ecker v. McAllister, 45 Md. 290. N. H.-Martin v. Livingston, 68 N. H. 562, 39 Atl. 432. N. C.-Osborne v. Wilkers, 108 N. C. 651, 13 S. E. 285. Pa.-Weber v. Aschbacker, 205 Pa. St. 558, 55 Atl. 534; Helser v. McGrath, 58 Pa. St. 458; Bredin v. Bredin, 3 Pa. St. 81; Snyder v. Berger, 3 Pa. Cas. 318, 6 Atl. 733. 8. C.-Aultman v. Utsey, 34 S. C. 559, 13 S. E. 848. Tex.-Hines v. Perry, 25 Tex. 443. 64. Greenwald v. Wales, 174 N. Y. 140, 66 N. E. 665, rev'g 67 App. Div. 628. 65. Van Raalte v. Harrington, 101 Mo. 602, 14 S. W. 710, 20 Am. St.. Rep. 626, 11 L. R. A. 424. the jury." A buyer's good faith is not conclusively established by his uncontradicted testimony. The question is for the jury." In an action by a trustee in bankruptcy to recover the value of property transferred as a preference, whether defendant had reasonable cause to believe that the bankrupt was insolvent at the time of the transfer, within the meaning of the act, is a question of fact.68 70 § 10. Existence of creditors; secrecy; preferences; withholding instrument from record. It is for the law to determine whether there were creditors or not, so as to render a conveyance fraudulent.69 The existence of an unusual degree of secrecy in a sale of a stock of goods by an insolvent, so as to constitute a badge of fraud, is a question of fact for the jury. It is for the jury to determine whether or not a debtor's secret conveyance was made in fraud of his creditors." The question whether a mortgage given by an insolvent to a creditor was intended as a security or as a preferential transfer of the property is a question of fact.72 Whether an insolvent debtor is guilty of actual fraud in preferring a creditor is a question for the jury.73 Where the evidence is conflicting, the question whether there was an agreement not to record a conveyance is for the jury." § 11. Submission of case to jury. In actions involving the validity or fraudulency of conveyances or transfers of property by a debtor, where there is evidence tending to show a design on 71. Hartley v. Millard, 167 Pa. St. 322, 31 Atl. 641. 72. Porter v. Stricker, 33 S. C. 183, 21 S. E. 635. 73. Murry Nelson & Co. v. Leiter, 190 Ill. 414, 60 N. E. 851; John V. Farwell Co. v. Wright, 38 Neb. 445, 56 N. W. 984; Kilpatrick-Koch Dry Goods Co. v. McPheely, 37 Neb. 800, 56 N. W. 389. 74. Kohn v. Johnston, 97 Iowa, 99, 66 N. W. 76. the part of a debtor to hinder, delay, or defraud his creditors, or circumstances which are calculated to excite suspicion in the mind of a reasonable person that the transaction was not entirely fair and honest, the case should be submitted to the jury." When such circumstances are shown it is error for the court to take the question from the jury by non-suit, dismissal, direction of verdict, or instruction.76 The direction of a verdict is only justified where the court would be bound to set a contrary verdict aside as against the evidence." Where the evidence is conflicting as to the character of the transaction the case must be submitted to the jury.78 But where there is no evidence tending to show that the transaction was entered into with intent to defraud creditors, there is no evidence which justifies the sub 75. N. Y.-Bulger v. Rosa, 119 N. Y. 459, 24 N. E. 853; Voss v. Smith, 87 App. Div. 395, 84 N. Y. Supp. 471; Milwaukee Harvester Co. v. Culver, 89 Hun, 598, 35 N. Y. Supp. 289; Del Valle v. Hyland, 61 Hun, 625, 15 N. Y. Supp. 901; Bier v. Kibbe, 52 Hun, 612, 5 N. Y. Supp. 152. U. S.-Batavia v. Wallace, 102 Fed. 240, 42 C. C. A. 310. D. C.-Bokel, etc., Co. v. Costello, 22 App. Cas. 81. Ill.-Bradley v. Coolbaugh, 91 Ill. 148. Iowa.-Crawford v. Nolan, 70 Iowa, 97, 30 N. W. 32. Kan.-Schuster v. Kurtz, 47 Kan. 255, 27 Pac. 994. Mass.-Plimpton V. Goodell, 143 Mass. 365, 9 N. E. 791; Allen v. Wheeler, 70 Mass. 123. Minn.-Heim v. Heim, 90 Minn. 497, 97 N. W. 379; Dyer v. Rowe, 82 Minn. 223, 84 N. W. 797. Miss.-May v. Taylor, 62 Miss. 500. Mo.-Mears v. Gage (1904), 80 S. W. 712; Hanna v. Finley, 33 Mo. App. 645; Desberger v. Harrington, 28 Mo. App. 632. N. C.-Haynes v. Rogers, 111 N. C. 228, 16 S. E. 416. Pa. Snayberger v. Fahl, 195 Pa. St. 336, 45 Atl. 1065; Cover v. Manaway, 115 Pa. St. 338, 8 Atl. 393, 2 Am. St. Rep. 552; McKibbin v. Martin, 64 Pa. St. 352, 3 Am. Rep. 588: Baltimore, etc., R. Co. v. Hoge, 34 Pa. St. 214; Snyder v. Berger, 3 Pa. Cas. 318, 6 Atl. 733. Tex.-Haas v. Kraus, 75 Tex. 106, 12 S. W. 394; Weaver v. Nugent, 72 Tex. 272, 10 S. W. 458, 13 Am. St. Rep. 792; Scott v. Alford, 53 Tex. 82; Matula v. Lane (Civ. App. 1900), 56 S. W. 112. 76. N. Y.-Bulger v. Rosa, supra; Del Valle v. Hyland, supra. Mass.-Plimpton v. Goodell, supra. N. C.-Haynes v. Rogers, supra. Tex.-Matula v. Lane, supra. 77. Bulger v. Rosa, 119 N. Y. 459, 24 N. E. 853. 78. C. B. Rogers Co. v. Meinhardt, 37 Fla. 480, 19 So. 878; Steininger v. Donalson, 94 Ga. 514, 20 S. E. 420; Vickers v. Woodruff, 78 Iowa, 400, 43 N. W. 266; Kerr v. Hutchins, 46 Tex. 384. mission of the case to the jury.79 Where the evidence tends to prove merely slight circumstances of suspicion,80 or is conclusive of the existence or non-existence of fraud,81 or facts are proven from which the inference of fraud is so necessary and inevitable that a verdict to the contrary would not be endured, the question should not be submitted to the jury, but becomes one of law for the court. 82 § 12. Instructions; province of court and jury.-Where a proper case is made for the consideration of the jury and it is within the province of the jury to determine whether there was an intent to defraud creditors, the court must submit the question to them with proper instructions.83 The jury should not be 79. N. Y.-Truesdell v. Bourke, 145 N. Y. 612, 40 N. E. 83, rev'g 80 Hun, 55, 29 N. Y. Supp. 849. V. Mich.-Clark v. Phelps, 76 Mich. 564, 43 N. W. 591; Folkerts Standish, 55 Mich. 463, 21 N. W. 891. N. C.-Messick v. Fries, 128 N. C. 450, 39 S. E. 59. Pa. Snayberger v. Fahl, supra. Vt.-Tinker v. Cobb, 39 Vt. 483. Wash.-Berlin v. Van de Vanter, 25 Wash. 465, 65 Pac. 756. 80. Foster v. McAlester, 114 Fed. 145, 52 C. C. A. 107; Simmons Clothing Co. v. Davis, 3 Ind. T. 374, 58 S. W. 653; State v. O'Neill, 151 Mo. 67, 52 S. W. 240; Baker, etc., Co. v. Schneider. 85 Mo. App. 412; Hagy v. Poike, 160 Pa. St. 522, 28 Atl. 846, aff'g 2 Pa. Dist 792. 81. Prentiss Tool, etc., Co. V. Schirmer, 136 N. Y. 305, 32 N. E. 849, 32 Am. St. Rep. 737; Fish v. McDonnell, 42 Minn. 519, 44 N. W. 535. 82. Inglehart v. Thousand Island Hotel Co., 109 N. Y. 454, 17 N. E. 358. 83. N. Y.-Frank v. Batten, 49 Hun, 91, 1 N. Y. Supp. 705; Cohen v. Kelly, 35 N. Y. Super. Ct. 42; Topping v. Lynch, 2 Rob. 484. U. S.-Norris v. McCanna, 29 Fed. 757. Ala.-Bank of Commerce v. Eureka Brick, etc., Co., 108 Ala. 89, 18 So. 600; Carlton v. King, 1 Stew. & P. 472, 23 Am. Dec. 295. Ga. Kiser v. Dozier, 102 Ga. 429, 30 S. E. 967, 66 Am. St. Rep. 184. Ill.-Merrill V. Merrill, 105 Ill. App. 5. Me.-Weeks v. Hill, 88 Me. 111, 33 Atl. 778; Hall v. Sands, 52 Me. 355. Mass. Jaquith v. Rogers, 179 Mass. 192, 60 N. E. 486. Minn.-Walkow V. Kingsley, 45 Minn. 283, 47 N. W. 807. Mo.-National Bank of Commerce v. Brunswick Tobacco Works Co., 155 Mo. 602, 56 S. W. 283; National Tube Works Co. v. Ring Refrigerator, etc., Co., 118 Mo. 364, 22 S. W. 947; Blom-Collier Co. v. Martin, 98 Mo. App. 596, 73 S. W. 729. Neb.-Thompson v. Benner, 33 Neb. 193. 49 N. W. 1116. left to determine without direction whether a transaction is fraudulent.84 The court should instruct the jury as to the nature and effect of legal fraud, and not leave the evidence to them without direction to find whether a sale was fraudulent or not.85 What is termed fraud in law is distinct from fraud in fact, and it is the duty of the judge to instruct the jury that their conclusions from facts must be regulated by the character and import given to these facts by necessary legal implication. Where the legal effect of a conveyance is to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, no matter what the actual intention may have been, the court is bound to declare it fraudulent in law. The court should not invade the province of the jury by assumptions as to facts, or by instructions in the nature of commentaries on the weight and sufficiency of the evidence.88 Specific mention of sus 87 Pa.-Montgomery-Webb Co. v. Dienelt, 133 Pa. St. 585, 19 Atl. 428, 19 Am. St. Rep. 663; Widdall v. Garsed, 125 Pa. St. 358, 17 Atl. 418; Jordan v. Frink, 3 P. St. 442. S. C.-McGee v. Wells, 52 S. C. 472, 30 S. E. 602. Tex.-Dosche v. Nette, 81 Tex. 265, 16 S. W. 1013; City Nat. Bank v. Martin-Brown Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 52, 48 S. W. 617, 49 S. W. 523; Blankenship v. Willis, 1 Tex. Civ. App. 657, 20 S. W. 952. Vt.-Hall v. Parsons, 15 Vt. 358. Wash.-Adams v. Dempsey, 22 Wash. 284, 60 Pac. 649, 79 Am. St. Rep. 933. Wis.—Missinskie v. McMurdo, 107 Wis. 578, 83 N. W. 758. Instructions held not to withdraw the question of fraud from the jury.-Deere v. Wolf, 77 Iowa, 115, 41 N. W. 588; Whitehouse v Bolster, 95 Me. 458, 50 Atl. 240. 84. Williams v. White, 7 Kan. App. 664, 53 Pac. 890; Potter v. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62; Weaver v. Nugent, 72 86 Tex. 272, 10 S. W. 458, 13 Am. St. 85. Cadbury v. Nolen, 5 Pa. St. 320. 87. Ala.-Smith v. Collins, 94 Ala. 394, 10 So. 334, assumption as to knowledge and intent of grantee. Dak.-Young v. Harris, 4 Dak. 367, 32 N. W. 97. Mich.-Hutchinson V. Poyer, 78 Mich. 337, 44 N. W. 327. Mo.-First Nat. Bank v. Fry, 168 Mo. 492, 68 S. W. 348; Kurtz v. Troll, 86 Mo. App. 649. Neb.-Powell v. Yeazel, 46 Neb. 225, 64 N. W. 695, characterizing a sale as a pretended sale." Nev.-Tognini v. Kyle, 17 Nev. 209, 30 Pac. 829, 45 Am. Rep. 442. Tex.-Schmick v. Connellee (Tex. Civ. App. 1894), 26 S. W. 738, assumption as to nature of transfer. 88. N. Y.-Hoffman v. Gundrum, 15 N. Y. Supp. 98. |