gb FEDERAL REPORTER.
G.? lFRAUDfILE.NT· 'CONVEYANOES—WHAT CoNsrfrnrns—CoNsmnmmoN.
The grantee in a conveyance of real property by an insolvent debtor hav-
irgg paid at least three-fourths `of its cash value therefor, by the redemption
0 certain wheat-warehouserreceipts of the grantor, concerning which he was
then liable to a criminal prosecutsomand the discharge of certain obligations
. on which he was surety. held, that the circumstances do not warrant the con-
{ clusion that the conveyance was made or takenwith intent to hinder, delay.
· , or defraud creditors} ` ‘
'TL SAME. · . _
A conveyance by an insolvent debtor of a block of brick buildings for the
alleged consideration of the surrender of six notes of, the grantor for the
principal sum of $16,000, payable to the grantee, which notes are in fact with-
out consideration. »Held, that the conveyance was voluntary. and therefore
fraudulentas against the creditors of the grantor}
‘ (Syllabus by the Court.) f , -
  Suit to Enforce Judgments. , - ¤
O'. E.- S. Wood and George IL Williams, for plaintiff. V
Eltrl O. Bronaugh and L. Flinn, for defendants Crawfords and Pearce.
. J. K. Weatherford and Charles E. Wolverton, for defendants Goltra, Wal-
den, Liles, and Baltimore. _
A DEADY, J. This suit is brought by the plaintiff`, a citizen of Illinois,
against James A. Foster, John A. Crawford, William Crawford, and
Ashby Pearce, citizens of Oregon. The plaintiff sues as the assignee and
owner of two certain judgments against the defendant Foster, and to set
aside, as fraudulent, three certain conveyances executed by Foster to
John A. Crawford, William Crawford, and Ashby Pearce, respectively.
‘ William H. Goltra, E. Walden, John R. Baltimore, and J. S. Liles, cit·
izens of Oregon, and judgment creditors of Foster, are also made parties
defendant. _ _
t » It is alleged in theibill that on and prior to February 6, 1884, Foster
” was indebted- to Sibson, Church & Co. in the sum of $13,034.96, which
claim was on July 15, 1885, assigned to Sibson, Quackenbush dz Co.,
who on March 8, 1886, obtained judgment thereon for $14,066.72, in
the circuit court of Linn county, Or., which judgment was then docketed
therein, and on March 15th an execution issued thereon and was returned
unsatisfied; that on June 11, 1886, Sibson, Quackenbush & Co. sold
and assigned said judgment to the plaintiff', who now owns the same.
That on March 8, 1886, Noon dz Co. obtained a judgment in said cir-
. cuit court against Foster, on a promissory note and account for goods,
in the sum of $1,920.35, which judgment was then docketed therein,
and on March 15th an execution issued thereonand was returned unsat-
isfied; and that on J une 19th Noon & Co. sold and assigned said judg-
ment to the plaintiff, who now owns the same.
That when said debts were contracted, on which said judgments were
obtained, Foster was the acknowledged owner of the following real prop-
'As to what constitutes a fraudulent conveyance and what is sufficient proof of fraud
to cause a conveyance to be set aside, see Stoddard v. Rowe, (Iowa,) 39 N. W. Rep. S4,
and note`; Satterdeld v. Malone, 35 Fed. Rep. 445, and note; Bernard v. Myroleum C0.,
(Mass.) 17 N. E. Rep. 887, and note.`