80 HOYE v. PENN.

county, to his children; that is to say, by a deed of the 22d of
March, 1792, he conveyed one parcel thereof to his three sons,
Benny, Robyy and Zachius, as joint tenants, of whom the two first
are the survivors; and by another deed of the 7th of May, 1792,
he conveyed another parcel to his two sons, Charles and William,
as joint tenants; and, by a third deed of the 24th July, 1792, he
conveyed the residue of his real estate to his children, Betsy Penn,
William G. Penn, Sarah Penn, and Caleb Penn, as joint tenants;
that the defendant Waters had conveyed all his real estate, being a
tract of land in Anne Arundel county, to his brother-in-law, the
defendant, Evan Gaither, that those conveyances were made with-
out any valuable consideration, in fraud of these plaintiffs, after they
had given their bond to Edward Gwinn; and in fraud of other
creditors; that Ignatius Pigman was not a resident of this State ;
and that Charles Penn, senr., was dead insolvent. Whereupon the
plaintiffs prayed, that they might, by substitution, stand in the
situation that Edward Gwinn would have been in; that the de-
fendants might respectively pay and contribute in satisfaction of
the money the plaintiffs have paid, such sums as might be proper;
and, that the plaintiffs might have such other and further relief as
was suited to the nature of their case.

The order warning the absent defendants to appear and answer
was published as required. The defendants, Benny Penn, William
G. Penn, and Elizabeth Penn, put in their answers; and the infant
defendants, John Penn, Lucy Penn, Ann Penn, Greenbury Penn,
and Sarah Penn, answered by their guardian; Caleb Penn died,
and his interests survived. By consent of parties, commissions
were issued, and testimony taken and returned. It was admitted,
that the late Charles Penn, senr., had executed the bond as a
surety of Ignatius Pigman, and it was agreed that the auditor
should state an account of the sum due to the plaintiffs, subject
to all exceptions. Pursuant to which agreement the auditor
calculated the interests upon the amount of the judgments up to
the 11th of July, 1810, making an aggregate amount then due
of £1,394 0s. 5d.

1st May 1811.—KILTY, Chan.—The Chancellor has considered
the arguments of the counsel on each side in their notes in writing;
and has examined the proceedings in the suit. Several grounds
of defence are taken; first, that Pigman was in prosperous eir-
cumstances at the time he purchased the goods from Gwinn, aad
remained so more than seven years after. It does not appear how