
    John Bennett versus The President, Directors, and Company, of the Bedford Bank.
    A voluntary conveyance to a son of the grantor, for the consideration of love and good-will, the grantor not being in embarrassed circumstances, will be good against future creditors.
    This was a writ of entry sur disseisin, in which the said Bennett demanded seisin and possession of an undivided moiety of a tract of land, of which the tenants became possessed by force of the extent of an execution thereon, which issued upon a judgment duly recovered by them against Robert Bennett, father of the demandant.
    From the report of the present chief justice, who sat in the trial of the cause at an adjourned session of the Court, holden here in May last, it further appears that the said Robert, before and until me 9th day of March, 1802, was seised of the land demanded . and that he on that day, by his deed of bargain and sale, &c. granted and conveyed the same to his son, the now demandant; the only consideration for said conveyance being love and goodwill ; and that he, by sundry deeds, executed before and after that time, conveyed other parcels of real estate to others of his.children for the same consideration.
    f * 422 J * At the time of making the said conveyance to the demandant, the said Robert was indebted to several persons in considerable sums of money, but not equal in amount to the value of his property, and his credit was good for such debts as he usually incurred, without any collateral security, although he was dilatory and negligent in the payment of his debts.
    The debt, upon which the tenants recovered their said judgment against him, did not exist until several years after the said conveyance to the demandant; and there was, at the time of the trial of this action, real estate belonging to the said Robert, more than sufficient to pay all his debts.
    It was insisted at the trial, by the counsel for the tenants, that, being indebted when he made this conveyance, it was void against his creditors, subsequent as well as precedent.
    But there being no circumstances of secrecy about the conveyance, and the demandant having taken possession under the same soon after it was made, the judge directed the jury that, unless they" found the father was an embarrassed man when he so conveyed to his son, the conveyance was good against all subsequent creditors ; and a verdict was returned for the demandant.
    A new trial was moved for, on the ground that his being indebted made the conveyance inoperative, or that the jury ought, from the evidence, to have found that he was embarrassed, and to have returned their verdict for the tenants.
    
      Holmes for the demandant.
    
      Whitman for the tenants.
   Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The title of the demandant is by deed from his father, Robert Bennett, dated March 9, 1802, acknowledged and recorded; and he entered and took possession under the deed soon after its execution and delivery.

The title of the tenants is by judgment and execution against the same Robert Bennett, recently levied upon the same land, the debt upon which the judgment was rendered [ * 423 ] f having accrued several years after the conveyance was made from the said Robert to his son.

It is found by the verdict that the said Robert was not an embarrassed man when he made his deed: there were no circumstances of secrecy, or any evidence of trust in the conveyance. On the contrary, it appears that, about the same time, he executed other conveyances of other parcels of his land to divers of his children ; and that he retained, and still has, sufficient real estate to pay all his debts.

Under these circumstances, there can be no pretence that the conveyance was fraudulent against creditors; certainly not against the tenants, who did not exist at that time as creditors of the grantor. And although the conveyance was voluntary, there having been no valuable consideration, it is good against all persons but such as were creditors at the time.

Judgment according to the verdict. 
      
      
         Parker vs. Proctor & Al. 9 Mass. Rep. 390. — Drinkwater vs. Drinkwater, 4 Mass. Rep. 354. — Ricker vs. Ham & Al. 14 Mass. Rep. 137. — Bohn vs. Headly, 7 H. & J. 257. — Jackson, ex Dem. Stewart, vs. Town, 4 Cowen, 599.—Jackson, ex Dem Cary, vs. Parker, 9 Cowen, 73. — Chamberlaine & Al. vs. Temple, 2 Rand. 384. — Goodwin vs. Hubbart, 15 Mass. Rep. 210. — Davis vs. Paines, Admr. 4 Rand. 332. — Blow vs. Maynard, 2 Leigh. 30. — Bean vs. Smith, 2 Mason, 252.
     