KIPP v. HANNA. 33

the conveyance of the 22d of July, 1817, was the fortune of his
wife, and an agreement that it should be settled on her for her
separate use, but there is no proof to that effect.

There are many cases, reported in the books, which speak in
general terms of a voluntary conveyance of property for the benefit
of a wife and children being void against creditors, where it
appears that the grantor was indebted at the time. From which it
seems to have been inferred, that the being indebted, at all, at the
time, in any sum, however small, was sufficient to vacate the con-
veyance; that the being at all indebted, raised such a legal pre-
sumption of fraud, as could not be repelled by any consideration
arising from the amount of the debts, or the extent of the property
conveyed, or the circumstances of the party. But, in those cases,
other circumstances rendered it unnecessary to take into considera-
tion the value of the property conveyed, in comparison with the
then amount of the debts and estate of the grantor, as an evidence
that the voluntary conveyance had been made with an intention to
defraud creditors, (c)

It is laying down the doctrine much too large, to say, on the
one hand, that all voluntary conveyances are void, if the grantor
be at all indebted at the time; and, on the other, that they are
good, if he be not at the time actually insolvent. The true rule,
by which the fraudulency or fairness of a voluntary conveyance is
to be ascertained, in this respect, is founded on a comparative in-
debtedness; or, in other words, on the pecuniary ability of the
grantor, at that time, to withdraw the amount of the donation from
his estate, without the least hazard to his creditors, or in any mate-
rial degree lessening their then prospects of payment, (d)

Where a parent, who was worth at the time seven or eight thou-
sand pounds, and in prosperous circumstances, made a gift to his
daughter of a piece of property worth no more than seven hun-
dred pounds, the conveyance, although merely voluntary, and
without any valuable consideration, was deemed valid, (e) On

(c) Shaw v. Standish, 2 Vern. 326. Jones v. Marsh, Forrest, 64. Russel v.
Hammond, 1 Atk. 13. Walker v. Burrows, 1 Atk. 93. Stileman v. Ashdown, 2
Atk. 481. Middlecome v. Marlow, 2 Atk. 520. White v. Sansom, 3 Atk. 412.
Townshend v. Windham, 2 Ves. 10. Stephens v. Olive, 2 Bro. C. C. 90. Batters-
bee v. Farrington, 1 Swan. 113. Richardson v. Smallwood, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 262.
—(d) Lush v. Wilkinson, 5 Ves. 387. Peigne v. Snowden, 1 Desau. 591. Tunno
v. Trezevant, 2 Desau. 270.—(e) Jacks v. Tunno, 3 Desau. 1.

*