512 HI6H COURT OF CHANCERY.

been largely indebted at the time, and the parties claiming under
it having failed to show other property owned by the grantor,
sufficient to pay his debts; and, being moreover convinced,
from the evidence and circumstances of the case, that the
grantor had not, independent of the property so conveyed, suf-
ficient to pay the demands of his creditors. I do not, however,
mean to be understood as deciding, that creditors, impeaching
a voluntary conveyance made by their debtor, are bound to
show, affirmatively, that the debtor has by the conveyance strip-
ped himself of the means of paying his debts; because, I think,
the parties claiming under the deed, are required to show that
the grantor did not so disable himself, and that a sufficient fund
remained to satisfy the claims of his creditors; and that, there-
fote, the facts of this case are even stronger than would be re-
quired to bring it within the less stringent principle laid down
by the Supreme Court, and established by the other cases re-
ferred to.

The next inquiry has reference to the bill of sale of the 18th
of April, 1834, and which purports to be made for a noonied
consideration of $3500.

The original answer of the grantee, Phillips, to the averments
and interrogatories of the bill in reference to the execution of
this bill of sale, and the time and manner of paying the consid-
eration expressed in it, and also in other respects, being
evasive and unsatisfactory, the complainant excepted thereto,
tad after argument, the exceptions were sustained, and the de-
fendant, by an order passed on the 29th of October, 1846, was
required to put in a full and sufficient answer, by a day limited
for that purpose.

And it appears by the answer filed in obedience to this order,
that he was absent from the United States, on a voyage to
Brazil and Buenos Ayres, from a day prior to the 27th of
March, 1834, to the 15th of January, 1835, so that he was
not and could not have been present, when either the deed of
trust or bill of sale was executed. The answer, in responding
to the inquiry respecting the time and manner of paying die
consideration expressed in the bill -of sale, says, "it was duly