KIPP v. HANNA. 27

Paid Jacquin, to secure the payment of the sum of $1346 50;
after which Boyreau conveyed it to the defendant Frederick G. L.
Burking, to secure the payment of $663; after which Boyreau
reconveyed it to the defendant Alexander B. Hanna; that on the
22d of July, 1817, the defendant Alexander, being largely indexed
to sundry persons, and intending to defraud his creditors, and to
secure this chattel real for the benefit of himself and family, fraud-
ulently, and without a sufficient and lawful consideration, made a
conveyance thereof to the defendant William Warner, in trust, for
the separate use of his wife, the defendant Sarah, during her life,
and after her death to his five infant children, the defendants Sarah
Hanna, Jr. Mary Hanna, Andrew Manna, John Hanna, and Robert
Hanna; that on the 26th of December, 1818, the defendant Alex-
ander, applied for the benefit of the insolvent laws; and these
plaintiffs were, on the 11th of February, 1819, appointed his trus-
tees, and so became entitled to all his property, in trust, for the
benefit of his creditors; that the defendant Jacquin, on the 28th of
December, 1819, applied for the benefit of the insolvent law; and
the defendants Hall and Tyson, were appointed his trustees; that
both of the liens, or incumbrances, of the defendants Jacquin and
Burning, have been fully satisfied with money, provided by the
defendant Alexander; but have been kept on foot the better to
conceal his fraud: and that the defendants Andrew Hanna and
Frederick G. L. Burhing do not reside in this state. Whereupon
the bill prayed, that the chattel real might be delivered up, and
sold for the benefit of the creditors of the defendant Alexander,
discharged from all incumbrance; that the defendant Warner,
might account for the rents and profits; and that the plaintiffs
might have such other relief as was suited to the nature of their
case.

An order of publication was passed, warning the absent defen-
dants to appear and answer on or before the 31st of July, 1821,
which was published as directed.

The defendant Alexander B. Hanna, on the 2d of December,
1820, put in his separate answer in which he said, that he had
conveyed the property to the defendant Warner, as stated in the
bill, for the purpose of securing to his wife her separate fortune,
amounting to about $5,000, which he had received and agreed to
settle on her; that he was then in good and solvent circumstances,
and owned effects sufficient to pay all his debts, leaving a very
considerable surplus, without the property so conveyed; that he