32 HOYE v. PENN,

the debt might have been satisfied, and the complainants relieved
from their engagements.

It is also contended, that there was an intention to defraud at
the time the conveyances were made. This point is not very clear
on considering the time; which was in the year when the bond to
Gwinn became due; and on adverting to the evidence of Benja-
min Ray, and George May. But the Chancellor considers them
as voluntary conveyances, which, though founded on a good and
meritorious consideration as to his children, and grand children,
were not bona fide as against creditors, but were a badge of fraud
in legal contemplation; and so strong a one as not to require any
further proof of the intention, the grantor being indebted at the time.
A third ground is, that the deeds were made to confirm gifts
before made to the children, or in consequence of their being settled
on the lands which their father had intended to give them. On
this ground the Chancellor does not percieve, from the evidence,
any acts or declarations, that would have obliged Charles Penn, the
father, to make the conveyances; and even if he had gone so far
as to make them, and had kept them in his own power, it would
not have bound him.

The other ground, of the payment having been made to Deakins,
is not supported by the testimony.

The Chancellor is, therefore, of opinion, that the complainants
are entitled to relief against all the defendants; but the manner,
and the proportion in which they ought to contribute, he has not
considered; nor the specific manner of granting the relief; both
which will be determined, on the counsel for the complainant pre-
paring a decree.

Nathan Waters, and Evan Gaither were named as defendants in
the bill. There are no answers by them, and it is not perceived
how they are disposed of, although Evan Gaither's will is among
the papers.

After which, the case was again brought before the court by the
plaintiffs, who asked for instructions as to the form of the final
decree.

18th September, 1811.—KILTY, Chan.—The Chancellor has again
examined the papers in this suit. It appears that Penn and Waters
were equally liable; whether as principals in the bond to Gwinn,
or as sureties. Waters, was not taken on the writ against him,
but his property might have been made liable.