34 KIPP v, HANNA.

the other hand, where a father, who had not been legally declared
insolvent, but was in embarrassed and sinking circumstances
made a voluntary conveyance of a considerable proportion of his
property to his child, it was deemed void against his creditors; (f)
and so too, where such a conveyance was made by one not then
indebted; but with a view to his becoming indebted, it was
deemed fraudulent, (g) For it has been long settled, that when a
man, being greatly indebted to sundry persons, makes a gift to his
son, or one of his blood, without consideration, but only of nature,
the law intends a trust between them; (h) and this rule is the
same both at law and in equity, (i) It is this presumed trust that
affords the evidence of an intended fraud against creditors; be-
cause it is perfectly evident, that a man who is greatly indebted,
cannot, nor ought not, to be allowed to reserve for his own use, or
to give away his property to the prejudice of his creditors—and
consequently no donation can be permitted to stand against them,
where it is at all doubtful, whether or not the remaining property
of the grantor will be sufficient to satisfy all his debts, (j) although
the fact of the grantors being totally insolvent at the time, would
be conclusive evidence of the fraudulent character of the convey-
ance; yet his being at the time indebted in some small amount,
compared with his property and circumstances, and the value of
the donation, would not, of itself, and alone, affect the validity of
the conveyance; because every man must be indebted for the
common bills of his house, though he pays them every week, (k)
In the case under consideration, it appears that Alexander B.
Hanna was a tradesman, in no very extraordinary affluent circum-
stances; his household furniture formed a considerable part of his
estate, even according to his own reckoning; and, counting up his
whole fortune, the house and lot, in controversy, formed a large
and important portion of it; yet with debts, then due and still
unpaid, amounting to between twelve and thirteen hundred dollars,
he made this voluntary conveyance of that very large and important
portion of his estate, in trust for the benefit of his wife and chil-
dren; which donation, however, he had not finally perfected, by

(f) Croft v. Townsend, 8 Desau, 231; Broadfoot v. Dyer, 3 Mun. 350; Cham-
berlayne v. Temple, 2 Rand. 384.—(g) Stileman v. Ashdown, 2 Atk. 481; Rich-
ardson v. Smallwood, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 262—(A) Twyne's case, 3 Co. 81.—(i)
Russel v. Hammond, 1 Atk. 14.—(j) Walker v. Burrows, 1 Atk. 93; Taylor v.
Jones, 2 Atk. 602.—(k) Lush v. Wilkinson, 5 Ves. 387; Kidney v. Coussmaker, 12
Ves. 155; Nunn v. Wilsmore, 8 T. R. 529.