The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1894-05-04

received it and accepted il. These
sire sll uudisputed facts. Norton be.
csme sick and was unsble to attend
TO business, snd lost his employment.
This could not be forseen, but result
ted in his being sdjudicsted bank
rupt. There Is not one iots Of evidence
to indicate that he contemplated
bankruptcy at the time he made this
! deed, nor Is their evidence TO show
that he was bankrupt at the time.
1t Is urged by the plaintiffs counsel
: rbst the making of the deed IN cues
( ton, made Moron in fact insolgent
because 1t put out Of his hands part
OF the property with which be colld
psy his debts. But the question be-
| fore us Is not Whist his condition was
I after he made the deed. but what the
respondent knew of his Souii'iou 81
/ the time be made the deed. We will
now take up the question as Z that
notice the respondent had -.i the
| financial condition of Morton In
the case of Prewit V. Wilson. l03 [.
). Rep. .. -. ii was held that A
conveyance executed for valuable
consideration will be upheld against
the creditors Of the grsntor, however
fraudulent his purpose may have
been, If the grantee had no knowledge
thereof. 2nd. An Ante nuptial
settlement of lands though made BY
the settler with the design of de
frsuding his creditors, will not be set
aside in the absence of the cleares,
proof of his intended wife's partici-
pstion in the fraud" In order to
render a conveyance void for fraud
on creditors, 1t Is necessary that the
grantee should have a knowledge of,
and II some way participate in the
fraud" This was the language OF
Sherwood, ]. in Fraser '. Passage.
g Mich. 551. and a number Of cases
are there cited in support
In Strauss '. Psrshgll ct al. 81 \.
W Rep. p. III, Mich } it was held
that deed was valid where the
| grantee took the deed with no fraud
ulent intent.
In Ziek =. Guebert ct al. 81. y.
E Rep. p. col, (Ill.) it was held that
" 4 sale of land for two thirds of its
value though made by an insolvent
with intent to defraud his creditors,
will not be set aside, where it ap-
pears that the vendee neither psrti
eipsted in the vendors intent. nor
knew OF his insolvency
We cannot fud from the evidence
that the respondent had any reason
to believe that Norton was Inso!yent,
or that he was even embarrassed.
The mere fact that she knew he owed
some debts, and that as she says,
, the house was not all paid for"
that there was a balance unpaid,
would not OF necessity. make her
believe that he was insolvent at the
time the deed WAS made. A man
may owe large sums OF money and
still not be Insolveut- We do not
ind that the respondent had any
knowledge Of, Or participated IN any
fraud IN connection with the deed in
question. Mere suspicion of fraud
ulent collision Is not sufficient; it
must be made out by clear prepond
erance Of testimony. Wilson ct al.
Welsh, ct al Il Fed. Rep. 0. $40, Is.
Carroll Fraser v Passage, ante.
The next question Is, what was the
consideration for the deed We find
there were two considerations, money
and marriage The deed does not
state the consideration TO be mari
aga, bus one dsIlar The 1920 paid
ID Levers i Cooke was the respond
ent's own money, and n our op MON,
was treated by all ss 4 consideration
for the deed; the evidence points to
this beyond any doubt. The ether
being marriage IS beyond any que5
ton = good Consideration; It stands
uadispnt-d- In PrewIt ' Wilson,
ante, Mr. Justice Field says Now,
marriage Is not only q valuable con
siderstiOu, but, as Coke says, there Is
no other consideration so much res
pectei il the law Il has been held
II the case Of Belts '. Union Bank. l
Hsr. & g. Md 115, that where a
money consideration was expressed
IN the deed, and il was sought TO
prove that the money was not IN fact
paid and the real consideration was
marriage, aud substituted for the
consideration nsmed- It was repugn-
ant 70 the sFerflsnrs Of sle deed and /
iuedmi-=ibIei bot that Is not this !
case Here We have the two eOusid-
erstIOLs, passing. the money was [
PAID and the marriage took place; !
th-Ts was 10 substituting The ex- I
ecGtiol Ot the deed the marriage the /
payment Of the $500 vas al one 1
transaction, although the acts were
not al d1Le On one day and 1t one
time We are Of the opinion that
ths c5nsIdsrstiOns shown we're good /
and valuable, and that the deed i
valid
The decree dismiszing the bill
:. $4,000 IL IL -r--L l.