
    Maxwell v. Rucker.
    1. A ground of a motion for a new trial complaining of the admission of evidence, oral or documentary, can not be considered unless the evidence ' objected to is set forth; either literally or in substance, in the motion itself, or is attached thereto as an exhibit.
    2. The evidence warranted the verdict.
    Submitted July 18,-
    Decided December 13, 1906.
    Equitable petition. Before Judge Wright. Floyd superior •court. September 28, 1905.
    
    A fi. fa. in favor of William Rucker and against Leonard Maxwell was levied on land to which the wife of the defendant, Fannie Maxwell, interposed a claim. In aid of the levy, the plaintiff in fi. fa. filed an equitable petition in which he alleged that pending the suit in which he obtained his judgment against Maxwell, he and his wife confederated, in order to hinder and prevent the •collection of plaintiff’s demand, in a fraudulent attempt to place the property levied on beyond the reach of creditors; that Maxwell had purchased the land from J. H. Reynolds and B.' I. Hughes and had paid the purchase-price therefor, but caused a conveyance of it to be made to his wife, though he was at the time insolvent and the claimant had notice of this fact, and took as a mere volunteer and with the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff. The evidence bearing on the issue thus raised was conflicting.
    
      
      Lipscomb & Willingham and C. E. Carpenter, for plaintiff in error. W. S. Rowell and F. W. Copeland, contra.
   Evans, J.

(After stating the facts.) The question of practice dealt with in the first headnote is well settled. Hall v. Davis, 122 Ga. 252; Johnson v. Thrower, 123 Ga. 706, and cit.

2. The claimant was the wife of the defendant in fi. fa. The evidence authorized a conclusion that the husband paid for the property levied on, hut directed a conveyance to be made to the wife after the plaintiff commenced the suit which eventuated in the judgment upon which the fi. fa. was issued; and that at the time he caused this conveyance to be made to his wife, he had no property other than his interest in the land so combed. The verdict finding the property subject to the fi. fa. was therefore supported by the evidence. Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.  