
    John Brown et al., Resp’ts, v. Joseph H. Townsend et al., App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 9, 1889.)
    
    1. Fraudulent conveyance—Grantee cannot hold as security for JUDGMENT SUBSEQUENTLY PURCHASED.
    A fraudulent grantee who paid no consideration is not entitled to hold, the land as security for a judgment against the grantor subsequently purchased by her.
    2. Same—Grantee entitled to allowance for taxes, etc., on accounting FOR RENTS.
    Where the judgment in an action to set aside a conveyance directs that in case of a deficiency the defendant account for rents received, it should, also contain a provision that on such accounting she he credited with sums-paid for taxes, repairs, etc.
    Appeal from judgment setting aside a coñveyance as fraudulent as to creditors.
    In December, 1883, defendant Townsend, being insolvent, conveyed his real estate to one B., who, in part payment therefor, conveyed real estate to defendant Ann E. Chubb, who paid no-consideration therefor.
    In February, 1884, John Morton and others recovered judgment against Townsend, which judgment was purchased by said. Ann E. Chubb in March following.
    In February, 1885, the plaintiffs recovered judgments against-Townsend,' on which executions were returned unsatisfied.
    This action was then begun to set aside such deed, and judgment was rendered granting such relief, and directing that the property be sold and the proceeds applied on the plaintiffs’ judgments, and that if the proceeds be insufficient, the plaintiffs, have 'judgment against Ann B. Chubb to the amount of rents-which she may have collected and not turned over to the receiver.
    Appellants claim that the proceeds should be first applied to the payment of the Morton judgment.
    
      if. O. M. Ingraham, for app’lts; Daniel B. Thompson, for resp’ts.
   Pratt, J.

The claim of the appellant that Ann Chubb should be allowed to hold the land in dispute as security for the Morton judgment, or for the $4,000 paid therefor, seems to be answered by .the opinion of Earl, J., at page 492 of 113 N. Y.; 23 N. Y„. State Bep., 282,-to the effect that such protection will not be allowed. The one case cited in support of such claim was overruled.

The judgment below is, however, erroneous in not providing* that Ann Chubb, on her accounting for rents received by her, be credited with such sums, if any, as she may have paid for taxes,' interest or incumbrances, repairs, and any other necessary expenses for the preservation and maintenance of the property.

No other error is found, and with such modification as is required to protect appellant’s rights in the respects pointed out above, the judgment must be affirmed, without costs of appeal.

Barnard, P. J., and Dykman, J, concur.  