V MARKET NAT. BANK v. HOFHEIMEB. 15
ules are boncfidc, except of the four hereafter to be mentioned; and
that the holders of the bona jide claims, and the trustee, T. S. Gar-
nett, had no notice of the fraud affecting the four exceptional claims.
Soon after the execution of the deed, a bill was filed in this court
by Edward Henshaw & Co., a beneficiary under it, against Hofheimer,
Son & Co. and Garnett, trustee, on behalf of complainants and of all
other creditors named in Schedules A and B, praying, among other
things, that the trust should be administered under the supervision
and control of this court. In that suit there were several consent
decrees; among others one entered on November 26, 1883, making a
distribution of a portion of funds in hand among the creditors of
Class A. But there were excepted and withheld from this distribu-
tion the sums that would have been due to Isaac Gutman, Isaac Mo-
ritz, Henrietta Samuels, and L. W. Roberts, the aggregate of whose
claims acknowledged and provided for by the deed was $42,024; and
whose dividends, withheld by the decree, would have been about $31,-
209 in amount. To the decree of partial distribution entered in the
suit brought by Henshaw & C0., just mentioned, the complainants in
the present suit, by their counsel, consented.
The dividends of these four persons—Gutman, Moritz, Samuels,
and Roberts—were withheld in consequence of the Bling of the bill in
the present suit. This bill charges that the deed of assignment under
consideration was fraudulent in respect to the debts, or pretended
debts, for which it provided in favor of those four persons, and was,
as to those debts, a deed to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors. The
suit was brought under section 2 of chapter 175 of the Code of Vir-
ginia, which authorizes creditors at large to bring suits in equity just
as creditors by decree or judgment may do in other jurisdictions.
The bill makes Gutmau, Moritz, Samuels, and Roberts parties defend-
ant. These persons have answered, and in their answers admitted
of record that the debts were not due to them, and waive all claim
under the deed. Among the agreed facts in this case is the conces-
sion that the deed was, as to the four exceptional claims, fraudulent;
that these four persons were parties to the fraudulent intent; and
that the deed was made to hinder, delay, and defraud creditors. ,
None of the creditors of Hofheimer, Son & Co., mentioned in the
`Schedules A and B, have made assault upon the deed on the ground
of the latent fraud which it contained. They all claim under it, and
· none of them have repudiated it. Nor has any other creditor of this
defendant firm assailed the deed, except the three complainants and
the three petitioners in this suit. The fraud of the deed was detected
and has been unearthed and assailed in court by them alone, so far
as the proofs and pleadings in this cause speak upon the subject.
The complainants in this cause contend that, having by their vigi-
lance, and at their own cost and risk, saved from distribution in pay-
ment of notitious debts, the fund now in the hands of the truste_e
amounting, I believe, to a principal of $31,209, they are entitled to