The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1882-10-04

AL other creditors, Of his; but McGrew ex-
prVSsly retains his claim against Spencer, and
We do not think that there is evidence
sufficient 10 show that the debt Of SS5,00O or
the large surplus besides that over SIS, $50,
held by MeGrev against Thomas Spencer
were ever released or satisfied. The witnesses
Green and Walker swear that they considered
Thos. Spencer solvent in December 1915, and
Mr.. Green SAYS, IL .hey had not SO considered
him, they would not gone on advancing 10
him thereafter, as they did, large sums Of
money to carry on his plantation, manifestly,
their advances and their opinion is to his
solyency were based upon the execution and
delivery Of toe agreement OF McGrcw with
them above referred 10, and bui for that
agreement they would have considered Thos,
Spencer insolvent So when the deed Of Dec.
18th, 1876 was executed both these witnesses
would have considered Ihos. Spencer IN
solvent But if the deed Of Dec. l2th had
BEEN executed q The SAME time. or after the
said agreement Of McGrew. dated Dec. 2Srd,
1875, still the Snancial Indebtedness Of IhoS.
Spencer was mot penny less than 1t was on
Dec. l2th, 1876, AMI we have no doubt that he
was then and ever since has teeu iusolvoui,
and that said decd, for that reason was void
as TO his creditors, and as 20 tue plaintiffs IN
this SUIT ltmay be true that IN Dec, lsI6,
by the enhanced values OF his plantation iu-
tcresis incident 10 the establishment of the
Reciprocity treaty, on sept. LIST, 1875 aud on
account Of the great hopes thereby engen-
dered, the defendant Thos. Spencer believed
he was solvent, but /; was manifestly mis-
take and because Of his insolvency the said
deed to Thos. Spencer, Jr. was void as to the
plaintiffs.
Tbr ,,l,i,tifrs rapr.srDt III she ,rs1itors
aud there arc prior and subsequent creditors.
Having arrived Ut the conclusion that the
defendant Thos Spencer, was insolyent when
the conveyance attacked was made, ii is m
necessary to consider the different legal
positions Of prior aud subsequent creditors, Ne
case can be found sustaining, as against
creditors, 4 conveyance, without valuable
consideration, made by an insolyent debtor
We have examined the case OF Baker vs..
Gilman in the 81 Barb. p. %, referred 10 by
the defendants counsel, which holds that a
creditor eousenunS TO conveyance by .
debtor would be ost0pped from questioning It,
In that case the debt Of the creditor was
nearly al a subsequent debt, aud at the time
Of the conveyance there was no other valid
debt against the debtor. In . ease where, IS
here, the grautor was insolyent whom he made
the grant, We think no principal OF estopped
would apply TO any creditor.
As to the land called Hakoa conveyed Sept.
29th, 1877, by the procurement Of Thos. Spen-
Ger, to Thos. Spencer, Jr., it appears, as above
stated, that ThOs. Spencer VAS then insolvent.
1t is claimed that the consideration therefore,
of 81 ITO was paid on behalf Of Thos. Spencer,
Jr. and out Of his funds. New proofs arc
presented The plantation books referred to
by the Chancellor are produced. Thomas
Spencer swears positively that the funds used
in the purchase were those Of Thos. Spencer,
Jr., and no satisfactory proof showing other
wise is made.
As to the land Of Hakoa, therefore, the de-
cree Of the Chancellor is reverse !, and the re-
maiuder OF the decree affirmed.
F. NJ Hatch for Plaintiffs. \. ;. Hartwell
for defendants.
Honolulu, Sept. 23i, lss2.