The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1894-05-04

5. Rep. p. ~, it was held that A
executed for a valuable
consideration will be upheld against
the creditors of the grantor, however
fraudulent his purpose may have
been, il the grantee had no knowledge
thereof. 2nd. An Ante nuptial
settlement of lands though made by
the settler with the design of de-
frauding his creditors, will not be set
aside IN the absence of the clearest
proof of his intended wife's partici-
patton IN the fraud" In order to
render conveyance void for fraud
on creditors. it Is necessary that the
grantee should have knowledge of,
and IN some way participate In the
fraud" This was the language of
Sherwood, j. In Fraser V. Passage,
63 Mich. SOL. and number of cases
are there cited in support.
In Strauss V. Parshall ct al. 81 n.
w. Rep. p. 1117, (Mich.) it was held
that a deed was valid where the
grantee took the deed with no fraud
ulent intent.
In lick V. Guebert ct al. 81. n.
E. Rep. D. COL, (Ill..) it was held that
. A 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 parti
cipated in the vendors intent, nor
knew of his insolvency"
We cannot find from the evidence
that the respondent had any reason
to believe that Norton was insolvent,
or that he was even embarrassed.
The mere fact that she knew he owed
some debts, and that as she says,
g the house was not all paid for"
that there was 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 insolvent. We do not
find 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 Al Fed. Rep. p. $40, Is.
Carol.) 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
age, but one dollar. The $1,000 paid
to Levers 81 Cooke was the respond
ent's own money, and in our opinion,
was treated by all as consideration
for tue deed; the evidence points to
this beyond any doubt. The ether
being marriage is beyond any ques
ton a good consideration; it stands
undisputed. In Prewit V. Wilson,
ante, Mr.. Justice Field says Now,
marriage is not only valuable con-
siderat;on. but, as Coke says, there IS
no other consideration so much res
pected In the law" 1t has been held
in the case OF Belts V. Union Bank,
Har. s. g. Md. It's, that where
money consideration was expressed
in the deed, and it was sought to
prove that the money was not IN fact
paid and the real consideration was
aud substituted for the
named. it was repugn-
ant to the averments of the deed and
inaamissible; but that IS not this
case. Here we have the two consid-
srations, passing; the money was
paid and the marriage took place;
here was no substituting. The ex-
.cution of the deed, the marriage, the
payment OF the $1,000 was all one
although the acts were
lot all done on one day and at one
lime. We are of the opinion that
he considerations shown were good
ind valuable, and that the deed Is
7alid.
The decree dismissing the bill |
8 sustained, and the appeal dis
missed
w. r. Castle for complainant; j.
L. Magoon for defendant.
1904