508 HIfiff COURT OF CHANCfiRY.

tors of the said Spindler. The first of these deeds is dated on
¹ the 27th of March, 1834, by which, for the nominal considera-
tion of ten dollars, Spindler conveyed to Phillips, his father-in-
law, a large and valuable real estate, situate in the city and
county of Baltimore, to be held in trust for the separate use of
the wife of said Spindler, (the daughter of Phillips,) during
her life, and upon certain other trusts expressed in said deed.

The other conveyance bears date on the 18th of April of the
same year; whereby, as alleged by the bill, for the pretended
consideration of thirty-five hundred dollars, Spindler absolutely
and unconditionally conveyed to the aforesaid Phillips all his
household and kitchen furniture. It is alleged by the bill, that
the consideration expressed in this instrument was not in fact
paid, and that both conveyances were executed for the purpose
of defrauding the creditors of the grantor, who was at the time
largely indebted to various individuals and corporations.

The bill further alleges, that on the 13th of January, 1836,
Spindler, being indebted as aforesaid, and being the owner by
assignment of a Judgment recovered in Baltimore County Court
against Jonathan Manro, with a like fraudulent intent, assigned
such judgment to the use of Hugh Birckhead, who had large
dealings with Phillips, and that the money, when received on
said judgment by Birckhead, was by him passed to the credit
of said Phillips; and then prays that this money also may be
accounted for by Phillips.

The answer of Spiftdler and wife to this bill, denies the fraud
charged, and insists upon the fair intent and purpose of this
deed, and that the consideration expressed in each of them was
true aad bona-fidc. It does not deny the fact of Spindier's large
indebtedness at the titoe the conveyances were executed, but
avers that he was then engaged in a large and prosperous busi-
ness, was possessed of property of more than four times the
amount of his debts, and that the deed was executed with the
view of securing a provision for his family, in the event of ad-
versity in business, and at a time when such a provision was
not only justifiable, but laudable and prudent. This answer
also denies, altogether, the assignment of the judgment to Birck-