28 KIPP v. HANNA.—2 BLAND.

After which, under a decree to account, passed by consent on
the 21st of July, 1826, the auditor reported accordingly; to which
report the defendants excepted; and the case having been set
down for hearing, was brought before the Court.

BLAND, C., 8th August, 1829.—This case standing' ready for
hearing, and having been submitted without argument by the
plaintiffs' solicitor, and no one appearing for the defendants, ac-
cording to the role, before the close of the sittings of the term, the
proceedings were read and considered.

From the position taken by the plaintiffs, it becomes necessary
to inquire what were the circumstances under which Alexander B.
Hanna conveyed this property in trust for the benefit of his wife
and children. His trade, pursuits, and pecuniary condition, are
not clearly described in the pleadings; nor has it been distinctly
set forth what was the value of this donation to his wife and
children, compared with the whole property he then held, and the
amount of the debts he then owed. But taking the pleadings and
proofs together, it appears, that Alexander B. Hanna was by trade
a boot and shoemaker; and, on the 22d of July, 1817, exclusively
engaged in that calling; that he held some property, at that time,
is certain; but the particulars and value of it are not clearly shewn.
About that time he lent money: but the lending of money is, in
itself, no clear evidence of his solvency to that or any other
amount. It appears that in the year 1818, he held lots of ground,
which he sold for 81,300; and that, on the 22d of July, 1817, he .
owed debts, which are still unpaid, to the amount of 81.267. It is
in proof, that the mortgages were satisfied by money, or means
provided by Alexander B. Hanna, alter he became embarrassed,
and a short time before he obtained the benefit of the insolvent
laws. A part of the money lent by Niles, the witness, was paid
by him to Warner, the trustee. From the deposition of Niles, and
from other testimony, it appears, that the donation thus formally
made, by the conveyance of the 22d of July, 1817, by Alexander
B. Hanna, to his wife and children, was not cleared of all incum-
brance, and perfected, until he had fallen into difficulties, and was
upon the eve of applying for the benefit of the insolvent laws.
Alexander B. Hanna says in his answer, that the consideration of
* the conveyance of the 22d of July, 1817, was the fortune
33 of his wife, and an agreement that it should be settled on
her for her separate use, but there is no proof to that effect.

There are many cases, reported iu the books, which speak in
general terms of a voluntary conveyance of property for the benefit
of a wife and children being void against creditors, where it ap-
pears that the grantor was indebted at the time. From which it
seems to have been inferred, that the being indebted, at all, at the
time, in any sum, however small, was sufficient to-vacate the con-