2 FEDERAL nnroaran. .
ron. Subsequently an execution was issued on the judgment, and, to
prevent a levy upon the property of the defendants, Gaynor, Bartlett,
and Moore paid and satisfied the judgment, Gaynor and Bartlett then
assigned to the complainant, Moore, all demands and rights of action ·
growing out of the judgment and payment thereof which they had against
the defendant Robert,A., Baker, and allright and claim which they had
jointly or severally"fo1"•:€•5nt1·ibution from Baker, on account of the pay-
ment of the judgment. The bill then charged that the defendant Rob- .
ert A. Baker, as one of the judgment defendants in the suit brought by
the city, was liable for,_and ought to have paid, one-sixth of the suin
of"§37p,732.34,ijbut that he had not paid any part thereof; lil'l8.t,i`iI1,jl1B· _
ticeand equity, he was liable to the cdmplainant in this suit, and should
pay him one-tenth of the sum last mentioned, with interest, the same
being the contributive share that herought to pay to the complainant,
as representing his own interest and the interests of Gaynor and Bartlett,
which had been assignedwto the A complainant; The bill then alleged
that the defendant Robert A. Baker was, and had long been, wholly in-
solvent; that ·he and hiswife, the-‘-defendant O;~·Este11e Baker, had re-
moved out of the state of-Wisconsin,. and were non—residents of the state;.
and that in 1881, which was prior to the recovery of the judgment against
the sureties of, Pierron, he had, in contemplation of’insolvency,and in
fraud of creditors, and in pursuance, of a fraudulent schemeto Vest in
_ his wifethe title of certain property which he then owned, so that cred-
itors could not reach `it, conveyed certain real estate, described in the
bill, to his son Robert C. Baker, whdconveyed thesame to the defend-
ant,O. Estelle Baker; and that, sincthat time, this property has been
held by Baker’s wife, for his use   benefit. It was alleged that these.
' conveyanceséwere without consideration`, and were made for the sole pur-.
pose of hindering and defrauding creditors, and that, in justice and eq- ,
uity, the lands so conveyedbught to be applied by the defendant Ba-°
ker, by `way of contribution,  satisfaction of the iaemmi of his co-sure-
ties,and' be made subject to the flien of the judgment recovered Qby the
city, for the purpose of enforcingsuch contribution. It was also alleged
that Baker is the owner of certain other premises inthe city of Fond du
Lac, which he has claimed _as a' homestead; but that his alleged home-
stead right therein has been lost` by his abandonment thereof, and by the,
removal of himself and his _family out of the state of Wisconsin. The
prayer of the bill was thatthe defendant Bobert»A. Baker be required
to pay to the complainant the sum of $3,773.23, his contributive share_
of the judgment aforesaid; that the conveyances mentioned, executed by.
  to his son, and by the latter to the defendant C. Estelle Baker, be
adjudged fraudulent; that thelands therein described be decreed to be
subject to sale to satisfy the complainants demand; that the complain-
ant be subrogated to the rights of the city of Fond du Lac under the judg-
ment recovered by 'itagainst the sureties of Pierron,   to the defendant
Robert A. Baker; that Baker be adjudgedto have lost and forfeited his
homesteadright in that portion ofthe premises in whichhe has hereto-
fore claimed such right; that the complainant be adjudged and decreed