KIPP v. HANNA. 35

clearing it of all incumbrances, until after he became much em-
barrassed in his pecuniary affairs, and just before his legally
avowed insolvency. I am, therefore, perfectly satisfied, that this
deed of the 22d of July, 1817, must be deemed altogether fraudu-
lent and void as against the creditors of the defendant Alexander
B. Hanna.

These plaintiffs represent, as well those who were creditors of
Alexander B. Hanna at the time he executed the deed of the 22d
of July, 1817, as those who had become so since that time, and
prior to his obtaining the benefit of the insolvent laws. Upon the
principle, that an estate obtained by fraud can only be vacated by
him who has the prior right; (I) it has been settled, as a general
rule, with some few exceptions, that no creditor can have a voluntary
conveyance set aside, on the ground of its having been made to
his prejudice, unless he was a creditor at the time the conveyance
was made. But it has also been long well established, that where
a voluntary conveyance has been vacated for the benefit of those
who were creditors at the time, all subsequent creditors may be let
in to participate of the funds, (m)

Hence, in this case, although there are only a portion of the
creditors, represented by these plaintiffs, at whose instance this bill
could have been originated and sustained for vacating this deed of
the 22d of July, 1817; yet on its being annulled, all the others
must be allowed to come in and partake of the benefit of the de-
cree; and the proceeds must be apportioned among them in due
course of distribution, according to the provisions of the insolvent
laws.

The bill also claims an account of the rents and profits of this
property during the time it has been thus unlawfully withheld from
these plaintiffs, under the pretext of this fraudulent conveyance.
This right to rents and profits, it is evident, arises as a necessary
consequence of the judgment, that this deed of the 22d of July,
1817, is void, as against the creditors represented by these plain-
tiffs; from whose use, the property has been unjustly withheld from
the time Alexander B. Hanna applied for the benefit of the insol-
vent laws; at which time all his property vested in these plaintiffs,
and ought to have been surrendered and delivered up

———————————————————————————

(I) Twyne's case, 3 Co. 83.—(m) Walker v. Burrows, 1 Atk. 98; Lush v. Wil-
kinson, 5 Ves.386 n.; Kidney v. Coussmaker, 12 Ves. 156 n.; Richardson v. Small-
wood, 4 Cond. Chan. Rep. 262,