
    Gross v. Lange, Plaintiff in Error.
    
    
      1. No Dower in Land Fraudulently Conveyed by Husband before Marriage. A wife is not entitled to dower out of lands of her husband which, before her marriage, have been fraudulently conveyed to another, though the conveyance is subsequently set aside at tho instance of creditors.
    2. Case in Judgment. Certain lands of J were sold under execution against him and conveyed by the sheriff to C, J furnishing the purchase money. Plaintiff subsequently married J, when a conveyance was made of part of the lands in trust for her and the rest to the children of the marriage. Tho creditors of J afterwards instituted proceedings which resulted in the sheriff’s deed and the trust deed being set aside as in fraud of their rights, and tho lands being sold to satisfy their claims. On these facts, Held, that J’s widow was not entitled to dower in the lands.
    
      Error to Franklin Circuit Court — Hon. A. J. Seay, Judge.
    
    REVERSED.
    Action, for assignment of dower and damages for the deforcement thereof by the defendant. The facts are in the opinion.
    
      L. C. Krauthoff with John P. Martin for plaintiff in err
    Before the widow can be entitled to dower, the husband, or some other person to his use, must have been seized, either in fact or in law, of an estate of inheritance in the land during the coverture. Wag. Stat., § 1, p. 538 If, prior to the marriage, the land is either alienated by the husband or sold in satisfaction of a judgment rendered against him, the right of dower of his wife in tho land is thereby defeated. 1 Scribner on Dower, § 1, p. 556 g 29 p. 572.
    A conveyance of land without consideration, in fraud of creditors, is not absolutely void, hut only voidable it 
      is good as against the grantor and. Ins heirs. It can only be avoided by creditors, and by them only to an extent sufficient to satisfy their debts. It is not pretended that the title was passed out of Jeffries in fraud of his wife, or even in contemplation of marriage. The fraudulent deed was made nearly two years before plaintiff’s marriage with him; it was not avoided during the coverture. The wife could have no greater claim upon the estate than the husband himself, and no right of dower existed in her. 1 Scribner on Dower, § 7, p. 558; § 14, p. 563; Whithead v. Mallory, 4 Cush. 138. The plaintiff', as dowress, could not have maintained an action in a court of equity to set aside these deeds; this was personal to the creditors. Then she cannot secure indirectly what she could not have directly.
    
      J. G. Kiskaddon for defendant in error.
   Hough, J. —

This was a proceeding by the plaintiff for assignment of dower. On the 7th of September, 1864, A. W. Joffries was the owner of the land described in plaintiff’s petition. On the 3rd day of October, 1865, said land was sold under execution against said Jeffries, and was conveyed by the sheriff' to one Thomas Crow, A. W. Jeffries having furnished the purchase money. In January, 1867, the plaintiff married said Jeffries. On the 23rd day of March, 1870, Crow conveyed said property to the children of Joffries, and on the same day executed a conveyance of an undivided fourth of the same property to Louis Wehrmann in trust for the plaintiff herein, who was then his wife. On the 9th day of June, 1874, the circuit court of Franklin county, in a proceeding instituted by the creditors of said A.W. Jeffries for that purpose, set aside the deeds of Crow to the wife and children of Jeffries, and the deed from the sheriff to Crow, as having been made in fraud of the creditors of said Jeffries, and at a sale of said property to pay the debts of said Jeffries, the defendant, Lange, became the purchaser.

On these facts we are of opinion that the plaintiff is not entitled to dower in the lands purchased by the defendant. Jeffries was neyer seized of the lands in question during the coverture. Before his marriage these lands had passed to Crow by a conveyance which was good against him and his heirs, it having been made to hinder, delay and defraud his creditors. Had matters continued m this condition until the death of Jeffries, it is clear that plaintiff would not have been entitled to dower. Whithead v. Mallory, 4 Cush. 138. The subsequent conveyances by Crow for the benefit of the children of Jeffries and the plaintiff’, gave the plaintiff no additional right to dower in this land. When these conveyances and the deed to Crow wore set aside by the judgment of the circuit court as having been made in fraud of creditors, the property passed by them did not become assets of the estate of A. W. Jeffries for the payment of his debts and subject to the right of dower.

These conveyances wore not absolutely void, but were void only as to creditors, and such conveyances could only be avoided by them to an extent sufficient to satisfy their debts. Whatever remained after satisfying t'he claims of creditors belonged to the grantees in the fraudulent deeds, as those deeds were good as against the grantor. Whithead v. Mallory, 4 Cush. 138. The judgment of the circuit court giving the plaintiff dower- in this property must, therefore, be reversed.

All concur.  