ATK1NSON VS. PHILLIPS. 5tg

and fully paid by the respondent to said Spindler, by advances
froia time¹ fo titae ma'de, and by a claim for board from said
Spindler and his family, furnished by this respondent"—"that
said advances and board were supplied to said Spindler by this
respondent, personally, prior to the execution of said bill of
sale," &c.

This bill of sale, then, which conveyed to the grantee all the
household and kitchen furniture of Spindler of every kind and
description, without reservation or exception, ,was executed in
the absence of Phillips, the grantee, without the slightest solici-
tation on his part, and, as confessed in the answer of Phillips,
to secure in part a claim due him, from Spindler, for the board
of himself and family. It professes upon its face to have been
executed for a monied consideration of three thousand five
hundred dollars; and there is, moreover, a receipt at the foot
of the instrument for that sum. That the sum of $3500 was
not paid in cash, stands confessed by the answer, and we have
no means of knowing what proportion was so paid; the
answer being silent upon the subject. Now, it is certainly
worthy of remark, and calculated to arouse suspicion, that a
man who swears that he was at that very time engaged in a
large and prosperous business, and worth, and possessed of
property, independent of that contained in these instruments,
exceeding in value more than four times the amount of his
debts, should, without solicitation, and in payment of a claim
against him, partly for the board of himself and family, convey
away, absolutely and unconditionally, all his household and
kitchen furniture; and this ground of suspicion is certainly not
weakened by the fact that the grantee in this conveyance is his
father-in-law, who, so far from insisting upon such conveyance
for his security, was absent from the country at the time.

That Spindler was hopelessly insolvent at the date of this
conveyance, and when the defd of the preceding mofath of
March, was executed, I am thoroughly convinced from the evi-
dence. It would be a consumption of time to go into a minute
analysis of the proof upon (hi» point, and I deem it sufficient
to say, that upon a very careful examination of it, I do not see