veyances and may invoke their benefit in case of a conveyance by her husband in fraud of her rights. Houseman v. Grossman, 177 Pa. St. 453 (35 Atl. Rep. 736)..

The

Sec. 360. Setting aside-Parties-Pleading. creditors of a deceased insolvent debtor may maintain an action against his heirs to set aside as fraudulent a voluntary deed executed to them by him in his lifetime, and it is not necessary to show that there has been or is pending any administration of such decedent's estate, or make his administrator a party. Merchants' National Bank v. McGee, 108 Ala. 304 (19 So. Rep. 356). Both the debtor and the transferee are necessary parties. Where the latter is a non-resident the statutory proceedings necessary to bring him into court must be instituted within the time limited for the bringing of the action. Traders' Deposit Bank v. Hoffman, 99 Ky. 240 (35 S. W. Rep. 631). The administrator of a deceased fraudulent grantor is not a necessary party. McLaren v. Anderson, 109 Ala. 571 (19 So. Rep. 982). In a bill in aid of an execution seeking the cancellation of a fraudulent conveyance by one of the execution defendants, it is not necessary to make his codefendants parties when, as to them, all the legal remedies have been exhausted. Hodge v. Gray, 110 Mich. 654 (68 N. W. Rep. 979). The statute authorizing assignees to bring suits to set aside prior conveyances of the assignor made in fraud of creditors, and in certain cases where the assignee fails to bring such action, authorizing the creditors to sue in the name of the assignee, does not authorize an action to be brought by creditors in the name of the assignee to set aside a conveyance made by the assignee himself. Kyes v. Merrill Furniture Co., 92 Wis. 32 (65 N. W. Rep. 735). A person acting as a mere conduit through whom a husband makes a fraudulent conveyance to his wife is not a necessary party to an action to set it aside. Wilson v. Spear, 68 Vt. 145 (34 Atl. Rep. 429). A vendor who conveys to the wife of his vendee is a necessary party to an action to set aside the deed as a fraud upon the latter's creditors. Wilson v. Spear, 68 Vt. 145 (34 Atl. Rep. 429). The abstract allegation in a complaint that a conveyance was made with the intent to hinder and delay creditors is not sufficient; the facts from which such intent

may be inferred should be alleged. Coal City Coal & Coke Co. v. Hazard Powder Co., 108 Ala. 218 (19 So. Rep. 392).

Sec. 361. As to who is a creditor. A wife, who has a claim for alimony in a case pending for divorce, is a creditor, within the purview of the statute of frauds, and may maintain a bill to attack a transfer made for the purpose of defeating her claim for alimony. Hall v. Harrington Colo. App. (44 Pac. Rep. 365). Citing, Gregory v. Filbeck, 12 Colo. 379 (21 Pac. 489); Mitchell v. Sawyer, 115 Ill. 650 (5 N. E. Rep. 109); Morrison v. Morrison, 49 N. H. 69; Bouslough v. Bouslough, 68 Pa. St. 495; Turner v. Turner, 44 Ala. 437; Dugan v. Trisler, 69 Ind. 553; Bailey v. Bailey, 61 Me. 361; Hinds v. Hinds, 80 Ala. 225.

Sec. 362. Setting aside-Practice and remedies. In an action to set aside a fraudulent conveyance, a finding that defendant" had property at the time or since the making of the deed complained of" is not sufficiently definite to entitle defendant to relief. Montana Lumber & Mfg. Co. v. Gerhold, 17 Mont. 558 (44 Pac. Rep. 87). Where a debtor corporation is insolvent and all its property is in the hands of a receiver, it is held that in a suit in equity brought under the Illinois Rev. Stat., ch. 32, § 25, for the purpose of dissolving and closing up the business of such corporation, a creditor may contest in equity a transfer of property made by such debtor without showing a return, nulla bona, of an execution against the debtor. Blair v. Illinois Steel Co., 159 Ill. 350 (42 N. E. Rep. 895; 31 L. R. A. 269). In Kentucky it is held that deeds made with intent to defraud creditors are void as to such creditors who may disregard the conveyance and sell the land upon execution as land of the vendor and a purchaser at such sale may obtain the land by suit in ejectment or by having the deed set aside as fraudulent. Fuller v. Pinson, 98 Ky. 441 (33 S. W. Rep. 399). In Pennsylvania a proceeding in equity to set aside a fraudulent conveyance is not the usual practice. Ordinarily the creditor reduces his claim to judgment, levies upon and sells the property in question and then contests the title of the fraudulent vendee in an action of ejectment; but in a case where the debtor was dead, it was held

Houseman v. Gross-
In an action to set

that a creditor's bill to subject the land fraudulently conveyed to the payment of debts was sustained. man, 177 Pa. St. 453 (35 Atl. Rep. 736). aside a conveyance by a husband to his wife, for fraud, a finding by the court that "he was unable to find " that the wife paid any consideration and that the grantor so conveyed the land "for the reason that he thought the same would be safer in her hands than in his own, from attachment by his creditors," is sufficient to show the grantor's intent to defraud his creditors and negatives the payment of any consideration by the wife. Wilson v. Spear, 68 Vt. 145 (34 Atl. Rep. 429). Under the Alabama Code, §§ 1735, 3544, it is held that " a simple contract creditor may file his bill to reach and subject assets of his insolvent debtor which have been either fraudulently conveyed or in respect of which a suit has been commenced, or decree or judgment suffered, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors; at least, whenever the effect of the prosecution of the suit or of the decree or judg ment, is shown to be hinderance and delay of such creditors, and a fraud upon their rights. A pending creditors' bill, filed by complainant, for himself and all other creditors who may join therein, is no bar, before decree rendered, to another bill, filed subsequently, by another creditor of the same debtor, who was not a party to the first proceeding." Alabama Iron & Steel Co. v. McKeever, 112 Ala. 134 (20 So. Rep. 84). Judgment creditors may have execution sale of lands fraudulently conveyed without waiting to set aside the conveyance. Willard v. Masterson, 160 Ill. 443 (43 N. E. Rep. 771).

Sec. 363. Setting aside fraudulent conveyance-Recovery of value of lands from fraudulent grantee-Statute of limitations-Jury trial-Competency of witnesses. Under the provisions of the Ohio Rev. Stat., § 6139, "the administrator of an insolvent estate is a trustee for the creditors of his decedent with respect to lands conveyed by said decedent in fraud of his creditors, and he may maintain a suit to subject them to the payment of the demands of such creditors, unless the rights of a purchaser in good faith from the fraudulent grantee have intervened. Such administrator may maintain

an action against the fraudulent grantee to recover the value of the lands, if the latter has conveyed them to an innocent purchaser. The time within which such action may be brought is not fixed by the general statute for limitation of actions, but by the special provision of said section, which permits it to be brought within four years from the death of the fraudulent grantor. On the trial of issues of fact joined in an action so brought to recover the value of the lands, either party is entitled to demand a jury. The action to recover the value of lands so conveyed involves the validity of a deed,' and the grantee is competent to testify generally under the provisions. of §§ 5240-5242 of the Revised Statutes." Doney v. Clark, 55 O. St. 294 (45 N. E. Rep. 316). West Virginia Code, ch. 74, § 2, and ch. 107, § 14, require that a creditor who assails the conveyance of a husband to his wife on the ground of constructive fraud, because voluntary, must commence his suit within 5 years from the time of the conveyance. Mc Cue v. McCue, 41 W. Va. 151 (23 S. E. Rep. 689).

Sec. 364. Exhausting legal remedies. A creditor cannot invoke the aid of a court of equity to reach property fraudulently conveyed until he has exhausted his remedies at law by suing out an execution, and having a return of nulla bona made thereon by the proper officer. Neubert v. Massman, 37 Fla. 91 (19 So. Rep. 625). This rule was held not to apply to an action by creditors of a partnership, against the administrator of a deceased partner to enforce the payment of a partnership debt out of his estate and to set aside fraudulent conveyances made by him. Claflin v. Ambrose, 37 Fla. 78 (19 So. Rep. 628). The rule is modified by statute somewhat in Alabama. McLaren v. Anderson, 109 Ala. 571 (19 So. Rep. 982). In West Virginia it is held that in the absence of fraud a simple contract creditor cannot subject an equity of redemption to sale until he has acquired a lien thereon in some manner required by law. Johnson v. Riley, 41. W. Va. 140 (23 S. E. Rep. 698). A creditor who seeks the aid of a court of equity by creditor's bill, is not bound to show by judgments and fruitless executions that he has no adequate legal remedy. Ryan v. Spieth, 18 Mont. 45 (44 Pac. Rep. 403). Citing

Turner v. Adams, 46 Mo. 95; Postlewait v. Howes, 3 Ia. 365; Bank v. Harvey, 16 Ia. 141; Bottsford v. Beers, 11 Conn. 569; Payne v. Sheldon, 63 Barb. 169; Thurmond v. Reese, 3 Ga. 449 (46 Am. Dec. 440); Cornell v. Radway, 22 Wis. 251; Sanderson v. Stockdale, 11 Md. 563. Alabama Code, § 3544, giving the "creditor without a lien" the right to apply to a court of equity to reach property fraudulently conveyed by his debtor applies to a judgment creditor without a lien. Wooten v. Steele, 109 Ala. 563 (19 So. Rep. 972; 55 Am. St. Rep. 947).

Sec. 365. Removal of fraudulent conveyances as obstructions to an execution sale of land. It is held that where, after the rendition and docketing of a judgment against a debtor in whose name the title to certain land is of record, he executes a conveyance of the property to another in which he fraudulently recites that he merely held the title in trust for the grantee who had always been the beneficial owner of the premises, such recital does not constitute an apparent obstruction to the enforcement of the judgment lien such as will give the judgment creditor a right of action for its removal. Cornman v. Sidle, 65 Minn. 84 (67 N. W. Rep. 667). The court say: "There is no doubt of the right of a creditor who has a judgment lien on land to maintain an action to remove an apparent obstruction to the seizure and sale of the property on execution. The most common examples of such obstructions are fraudulent conveyances or incumbrances of the property prior to the docketing of the judg ment, by which it is made to appear that the judgment either never became a lien on the land, or, if it did, that it was subordinate to some other lien. An obstruction in the legal sense of the word, which will entitle a judgment creditor to maintain an action for its removal, does not include everything which the debtor or some one else may say or do that may deter bidders at the sale."

Sec. 366. Setting aside-Proof necessary. A party who attacks a conveyance as fraudulent as to creditors must establish all the facts requisite to make it thus fraudulent either in fact or in law. "The law in no case presumes