
    John Iley and wife and others, vs. Jacob Niswanger.
    
      Voluntary conveyances of a man’s whole property, made when he was largely indebted, were held void as to a subsequent creditor, though he had notice of the conveyances.
    
    Heard at Laurens, June, 18e4, before Chancellor í)esaussure.¡
    
    The complainants in this case alledge in their bill that their father Richard Hodges, by several deeds of gift executed on 24th December 1819, gave to them certain negroes, the subject of the present suit, which deeds were recorded in the register’s office, on the 22d January following. That some/ time afterwards, Mr. Richard Hodges sold ali the negroes.to the defendant Niswanger, who bought with a full knowledge of the existence of the deeds? and. without the privity or consent of any of the complainants. That the defendant according to agreement with the said Hqdges discharged the .debts then due by him, amounting to about $‘1200, had agreed to .pay him ,f 1092 ata future period. They pray that the defendant may be ordered to deliver up the negroes, upon being reimbursed all that he paid out in dischargr g such debts of Hodges ás existed at the time of the gift, with interest.
    The defendant in his answer admits the facts alledged by complainants, does not deny his knowledge of the existence of the deeds at the time of his purchase, blit contends that Hodges feeing indebted at the time, the gift was void, and he therefore claims cot only what he paid out in discharging such debts as existed at the time of the gift, but also all debts paid by him for Hodges, which were contracted after the execution of the deeds, together v\ ith a large store account made afterwards by Hodges with himself.
    It was ordered at February term 1824, by the consent of the parties, that the negroes should be sold, and that tbe commissioner should ascertain and report the amount paid by defendant for Hodges, in discharge of debts which existed at the time of the gift, and also the amount paid by defendant for and settled with Hodges, for debts contracted after the gift.
    The commissioner reported at June term, 1824, that the debts due by Hodges at the time of the gilt, with interest up tó time the money becomes due for the negroes, amounted to the sum of $1,718,87§. That the debts contracted since amounted to $481,03.
    
    It appeared from the report that as much as $34.0,93 of the latter sum was on a.book account, contracted by Hodges with the defendant after his purchase.
    Chancellor Desaussure. — The only question in this case is as to $481. Richard Hodges made certain voluntary deeds of gift to his daughter, bearing date 24th December 1819. There were certain debts contracted by him prior to these deeds, which it is admitted must be paid out of the property so given by deed, as there is not sufficient without resorting to that. •The sura of $481 it appears was contracted subsequent to the deeds .to Niswanger the defendant, who claims to be paid.
    It is objected that the deeds though voluntary will take precedence. The rule on the subject generally is that voluntary deeds, made bona fide of a moderate share of man’s estate, and made without contemplation or probability of insolvency, shall be permitted to take effect, in preference to debts contracted subsequent to such deeds. If the subsequent creditor however' can shew antecedent debts, sufficient in amount to" afford reasonable evidence of a fraudulent intent, that will so far defeat the voluntary settlement or deed, as to let in the subsequent creditors for payment out of the settled property. See 2 Madd 501. In the case we are considering, the donor made voluntary gifts of the greater part of his personal property to his daughters, and he was indebted at the time very largely. I think then that these deeds cannot stand against subsequent debts.
    But it is said that the defendant Niswanger knew of these deeds before he gave f ie credit. If he did, he knew that they were voluntary and void as to creditors, if the donor was considerably indebted, as he really was. It is further urged that the .debt was contracted for whiskey, tobacco, &c. and ought not to be allowed. That objection does not come under the present investigation. If it be an unjust demand, it must be contested in another way. The commissioner has reported it to be due^ and it must be paid out of the proceeds of sales of the negroes included in the deeds. Costs to be paid out of the sales of the property, so however that each party, complainant and defendant, shall bear one moiety of the costs.
    The complainants appealed on the grounds.
    That the gift ought not to be considered fraudulent aud void as to subsequent creditors; or if void as to subsequent creditors generally, it ought not to be so considered as to this particular defendant and his account.
    
      P. Farrow, for appellants,
    admitted that the debts due at' the time of the conveyance must be paid out of the property, but contended that the voluntary conveyances could not be con sidercd fraudulent as to the defendant, regarded either as a subsequent purchaser or subsequent creditor, he having full notice of them. Cited 5 Ves. 386, 12 Ves. 155, 2 Eq. Rep. 264,1 N UM‘C, 340.
   Chancellor Desaussure.

The appeal in this case is? qrought up on two grounds; first, because the gifts made by Iley to his children ought not to be considered fraudulent and void as to the subsequent creditors;' second, if the gift should be. considered fraudulent and void as to subsequent creditors ge-, nerally, the defendant himself, under the circumstances is not entitled to protection as to his own account of $340 it being of an improper nature. On the first ground, we are of opinion that the voluntary gift of the whole of his estate by Iley to his children, when he was indebted to the amount of the value of his property, cannot be sustained, even against subsequent bona fide creditors, See 3 John C. C. 481, a most clear and important case on this subject. On the second, we think there is reason to doubt the fairness and correctness of NisewangePs account.. It is therefore ordered and adjudged that the decree of the circuit court be affirmed, so far as regards the voluntary deeds in question. But that it be referred to the commissioner to examine and report particularly as to the nature and extent of the account ofNisewanger against the complainant Iley.

Chancellors Gaillard, Waties, Thompson and James, coiv-■Hirrcd.  