
    FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — EVIDENCE.
    [Hamilton (1st) Circuit Court,
    1905.]
    Jelke, Giffen. and Swing, JJ.
    German Nat. Bank of Newport v. W. A. Young, Jr., et al.
    Presumption in Favor of Bona Fide Character of Conveyance.
    The burden of proof as to the fraudulent nature of a conveyance rests upon those seeking to have it set aside, and any doubt as to the Bomb’ fide character of the transaction must be resolved in favor of the defendants.
    Error to Hamilton common pleas court.
    John Nichols and Matt Herold, for plaintiff in error.
    C. B. Matthews and C. E. Schell, for defendant in error.
   GIFFEN, J.

We entertain no doubt that the conveyance from Robert O. Young to his father, William A. Young, was made in good faith and for full value. Whatever doubt exists concerning the conveyance made by Doctor William A. Young, Jr., to his wife, must be resolved in favor-of the defendants, as the burden of proof that it was fraudulent rested upon the plaintiff, and it was not, as claimed by counsel, incumbent upon the defendants to show the good faith of the transaction.

We think the plaintiff has failed to prove by a fair preponderance of the evidence the allegation of fraud. The transfer from Doctor Young to his wife of his equity in the Spring Grove avenue lot was not a gift, but upon the consideration that she pay the taxes and sewer assessments, which she afterwards did.

Judgment affirmed.

Jelke and Swing, JJ., concur.  