#### EDGINGTON v. WILLIAMS, AND OTHERS.

Fraudulent covering up property — equity will subject such.

Where a stockholder of a failing bank puts his property into the hands of his son, to secure the enjoyment of it for himself and family, and to protect it from his liabilities to the creditors of the bank, the act is fraudulent and void.

The causing the property to be taken in execution and sold to the son, or leased land to be forfeited and reentered by the son in his name, will not change the character of the tiansaction, nor preclude an investigation into the real state of facts.

Property so held will be subject in equity to the payment of the father’s debts, being held by the son as trustee of his father.

Chancery. The complainant sets forth in the bill, that he is proprietor of two judgments, against Jo. Williams and others, which remain unsatisfied, notwithstanding executions have been issued. The first was recovered in 1820, the other in 1823. Second was levied on the southwest corner of section ten of school lands, as the property of the defendant, in July, 1826, but a stay of execution was entered, and both judgments became dormant. That the defendants are insolvent, and wholly unable to pay, except by a sale of that quarter section. That Williams was a stockholder in the Mansfield bank, and, becoming alarmed.for his liabilities on account of its insolvency, fraudulently conveyed the quarter to his son Amos, in trust for himself; and the more effectually to cover up the transaction, suffered the lot to. become forfeit for non payment of ground rent, and go to sale; on which sale, the father furnished *440the funds, and the son purchased it in, and *took a*title *to*himself, under which the property is still held, although occupied by the father, which state of things so clouds the title, that a sale cannot be made at law. Amos died in 1828, leaving a widow and two children, (defendants) his heii’s, and prays a sale of the land to satisfy the judgments.

*Jo.*Williams, in his answer, admits the judgments in force, the execution and levy, and his insolvency. Denies the fraud.

The heirs have no knowledge, and call for proof.

There is a general replication, and proof.

Coffinberry, for the complainant.

*Burr,*for the defendant.

By the Court.

The judgments unsatisfied, the executions and insolvency of the defendants are beyond dispute in the case. The proof also appears to us conclusive, that J oseph Williams, when the bank of Mansfield closed its doors, was apparently a man in easy circumstances, having land, including the quarter section ten, and a considerable stock on the land, and other personal property. He became alarmed as to his liability on account of the bank, and made a pretended sale at auction of his personal property. It was purchased in by his children and other friends, with money furnished by himself, and left on the farm, where he and the sons lived, as the property of the children. That the quarter section ten, held by permanent lease, was then worth several hundred dollars, but in order to protect it from his creditors and those of the bank, he suffered it to become forfeit, by the non payment of twenty dollars rent, and to go to sale at public auction. He furnished his son the money to buy it with, silenced competition, and the son purchased and took a title to himself. The property has since been occupied by the father under a pretended lease from the son. The son died without other claim to the land. The father discloses no title, nor is any disclosed in behalf of the heirs of Amos Williams.

From this state of fact, we have no doubt but Amos took the title to the quarter section as trustee of his father; a trust resulting from the fact, that the father furnished the purchase money. At his death, the land passed to the children in like trust, and is so held by the defendants. It is in equity the property of the judgment debtor, and liable to satisfy the judgments. Decree, that if the money is not paid within sixty days, the land be sold to satisfy the judgments»