J BUFORD v. cook. 21
It is not necessary that the language of the certificate be identical with
that of the form given by the statute. It is only necessary that it con-
forms to it in eifect. The certificate under consideration conforms to the
form in the statute in all the necessary elements, and this is all that is
required. " It is a substantial compliance in everything material." See
Tod v. Baylor, 4 Leigh, 513; Siler v. McOlanach<m, 2 Grat. 294. None
of the exceptions to the commissioners report being sustained, the re-
port willbe confirmed.
A Non. In conformity with this opinion, a decree was rendered May 27,1886, in favor
of David E. James for $4,981.70, the amount ascertained to be due him by Commissioner
Honaker’s report, with interest on $2,225, part thereof, from October 26, 1885; and
awarding costs to defendant; and further directing a sale of the lands in the bill and
proceedings mentioned, unless McCormack should within 60 days thereafter, satisfy
the decree. From this decree McCormack appealed tothe circuit court, Bonn, J. This
ap eal being heard, the decree of the district court was affirmed, and a decree accord-
in§ly was rendered July 15, 1887; from which last decree there has been no appeal.
V · = Y » 1 Bnronn 11. Coox et al. t
li i _ i i A . (Circuit, Court, W..D. Iowa. August 31, 1888.) ‘
1; Fasunntnnr CONVEYANCES—WHAT CONBTITUTE—EVIDENCE-SUFFICIENUY. ¥
` In» a· proceeding by creditors’ bill to reach certain land which had been
conveyed to the debtor’s mother-in-law, the latter claimed that she was to be
l allowed a certain sum per year for services in the:debtor’s family, and that
she owned and had paid for the land in suit, but knew nothing about how or
when the purchase had been made, or a building thereon had been erected.
The proceeds of the only property she had, had been invested in other lands,
and her husband, during the last years of his life, having been disabled, had
contributed nothing to their support. The debtor had in fact furnished and
paid the money. cld, that complainant was entitled to a decree subjecting
such property to the satisfaction of his judgments.!
2. Burn. “
_ In a proceeding by creditors' bill to set aside certain mortgages as fraudu- °
V lent, it appeared that the mortgagee, who was the debtor’s banker, had be-
gun business with a capital of $10,000, and in six years. had taken mortgages
or advances to the debtor to the amount of $23,000. The debtor had previ-
ously been in embarrassed circumstances, and was carrying on a large agri-
cultural implement business, with warehouses and agents in different places,
in an extravagant and careless manner. As to a portion of the indebtedness,
its genuineness. was testified to by the mortgagee and debtor; and the former
offered to produce the account, but it was not called for As to the remain-
. der, a full itemized account was presented, and no item was shown to be
wrong. Held that, although some of the_debtor’s property might not have
‘ been accounted for by the mortgagee, and certain chattel mortgages taken -
as additional security might not be sustainable, the transactions could not be
, said to be fraudulent}
"In Equity. ` I V
_Creditors’ bill by James M. Buford, assignee, against John B. Cook,
Viola _E. Cook, Susan Smith, and W. L. Culbertson, to set aside fraudu-
lent conveyances. , ,
·  See, as to what is sufdcient evidence of fraudulent intent to cause a conveyance by
n. debtor tohe set aside, Neal v. Foster, post, 29, and note. _ ·
O