KIPP v. HANNA.—2 BLAND. 29

veyance; that the being at all indebted, raised such a legal pre-
sumption of fraud, as could not be repelled by any consideration
arising from the amount of the debts, or the extent of the prop-
erty conveyed, or the circumstances of the party. But, in those
cases, other circumstances rendered it unnecessary to take into
consideration the value of the property conveyed, in. comparison
with the then amount of the debts and estate of the grantor, as an
evidence that the voluntary conveyance had been made with an
intention to defraud creditors, Shaw v. Standish, 2 Vern. 326;

Jones v. Marsh, Forrest, 64; Russel v. Hammond, 1 Atk. 13; Walker
v. Burrows, 1 Atk. 93; Stileman v. Ashdowen, 2 Atk. 481; Middle-
come v. Marlow, 2 Atk. 520; White v. Sansom, 3 Atk. 412; Town-
shend v. Windham, 2 Ves. 10; Stephens v. Olive, 2 Bro. C. C. 90;
Battersbee v. Farrington, 1 Swan. 113; Richardson v. Smallwood, 4
Cond. Chan. Sep. 262.

It is laying down the doctrine much too large, to say, on the one
hand, that all voluntary conveyances are void, if the grantor be at
all indebted at the time; and, on the other, that they are good, if
he be not at the time actually insolvent. The true rule, by which
the fraudulency or fairness of a voluntary conveyance is to be
ascertained, in this respect, is founded on a comparative indebted-
ness; or, in other words, on the pecuniary ability of the grantor,
at that time, to withdraw the amount of the donation from his
estate, without the least hazard to his creditors, or in any material
degree lessening their then prospects of payment. Litsh v. Wilk-

inson, 5 Ves. 387; Peigne v. Snonden, 4 Dexau. 591; Tunno v. Treze-
rant, 2 Desau. 270.

Where a parent, who was worth at the time seven or eight
thousand pounds, and in prosperous circumstances, made a gift to
his daughter of a piece of property worth no more than seven hun-
dred pounds, the conveyance, although merely voluntary, and
without any valuable consideration, was deemed valid. Jacks v.
Tunno. 3 Desau. 1. On * the other hand, where a father,
who had not been legally declared insolvent, but was in em- 34
barrassed and sinking circumstances, made a voluntary convey-
ance of a considerable proportion of his property to his child, it
was deemed void against his creditors; Croft v. Townsend, 3 Desau.
231; Broadfoot v. Dyer, 3 Mun. 350; Chamberlayne v. Temple, 2
Rand, 384; and so too, where such a conveyance was made by one
not then indebted; but with a view to his becoming indebted, it
was deemed fraudulent. Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 481; Rich-
ardson v. Smallwood, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 262. For it has been
long settled, that when a man, being greatly indebted to sundry
persons, makes a gift to his sou, or one of his blood, without con-
sideration, but only of nature, the law intends a trust between
them; Twyne's Case, 3 Co. 81; and this rule is the same both at
law and in equity. Russel v. Hammond, 1 Atk. 14. It is this pre-