26 HOYE v. PENN.—1 BLAND.

and the other obligors the sureties; yet they all appear as princi-
pals in the condition of the bond.

Suits were not brought on the bond until April, 1795; but such
forbearance is not unusual, and does not affect the right of the
obligee. And the sureties, if they thought proper to pay off the
bond, might have had it assigned to them, and have brought suit
against the principal. The judgments, against Pigman and against
Charles Penn, were obtained at October Term, 1796, with a stay
of execution till the 1st of January, 1797. The judgment against
Pigman was removed in February, 1797, as appears by the record,
although the writ of error bond is left blank as to the dates; and
admitting, that this bond was executed by Deakins and Stoddart
to oblige Pigman, there is nothing suspicious in the transaction;
and it appears also, that a similar bond was executed, about the
same time, by Charles Penn, with the same sureties. Edward
Gwinn died before November, 1798, at which time his administra-
trix had appeared, and the judgment was affirmed. There is
nothing to shew, that she was disposed to favor Pigman; and it
is presumed, that she would have recovered the money from him
or Charles Penn, by execution, if in her power. But suits were
brought against the executor of Deakins and against Stoddart on
the appeal bonds, and judgments obtained thereon at May and
October Term, 1801, against them as sureties for Penn, as well as
for Pigman. The money was paid by them on the 1st of May,
1802, and the judgment against Pigman only was assigned to
them. This was the commencement of their claim against Charles
Penn, or his heir or representatives, and they tiled the present bill
in July, 1802. It appears by the testimony of Benjamin Ray, that
executions were issued against Pigman, and Penn, which were
both served, so that there was no neglect on the part of Gwinu to
pursue his legal remedy, supposing, that he was obliged so to do,
which was not the case. If Pigman had been possessed of visible
property, a resort to it would have been preferable to a suit on the
writ of error bond. And as to Penn it is to be observed, that the
conveyance of his lands in 1792, prevented their being taken on
the judgment, and affirmance in 1796 and 1798, by which
32 *the debt might have been satisfied, and the complainants
relieved from their engagements.

It is also contended, that there was an intention to defraud at
the time the conveyances was made. This point is not very clear
on considering the time; which was in the year when the bond to
Gwinn became due; and on adverting to the evidence of Benja-
min Ray and George Eay. But the Chancellor considers them
as voluntary conveyances, which, though founded on a good and
meritorious consideration as to his children, and grandchildren,
were not bona fide as against creditors, but were a badge of fraud
in legal contemplation, and so strong a one as not to require any