ATKINSON VS. PHILLIPS. 515

purpose to benefit his family at the expense of his creditors.
The deeds, then, in my judgment, were made to delay, hinder
and defraud them, and must be vacated and the property sold
for their benefit, unless the remaining ground of defence is a
good one, and that rests upon the effect of the sale by the
sheriff to Phillips, under executions upon judgments against
Spindler .recovered by the General Insurance Company, in the
year 1834.

It is supposed, by the counsel for the defendants, that this
purchase by Phillips, at the sale made by the sheriff, gives him
every thing necessary to perfect his title, whatever may have
been the infirmities of the original deed, unless it can be shown
that the sale was collusive and fraudulent, which is denied in
the answer, and contested in the argument.

I do not deem it necessary to investigate the question of
fraud, as charged on the one side, and disputed on the other,
because I think it very clear, that even assuming the fairness
of this part of the transaction on the part of Phillips and Spind-
ler, the fate of the case must depend upon the original integrity
of the deed of March, 1834, and that the title of Phillips to
hold the property conveyed thereby, against the creditors of
Spindler, can draw to it no aid from the sheriff's sale.

The deed of March, 1834, though in my opinion, fraudulent
and void as to creditors, was clearly good in(er partes, and of
course, Spindler was thereby divested of any interest in the
property conveyed, other than the merely contingent life estate
reserved to him by the instrument itself, and when Phillips pur-
chased at the sale made by the sheriff, upon an execution is-
sued upon a judgment against Spindler, he acquired and could
acquire nothing more than that contingent right, and the con-
tingency not having happened, upon which the title of Spind-
ler to the beneficial interest in the property for life, was to arise,
it would seem to follow necessarily, that this purchase is
wholly ineffectual to clothe the purchaser with any rights which
can be asserted against the creditors.

These views dispose of the grounds of defence taken in
the answers, and wged in the argument, and, in my judgment
show them to be untenable.