
    SOUL, Recr. et v. CLEARY et.
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 8729.
    Decided Oct. 29, 1928.
    (Hughes P. J., and Justice, J. of the 3rd Dist., sitting.)
    First Publication of This Opinion.
    Syllabus by Editorial Staff.
    DEBTOR AND CREDITOR — Real Estate.
    (510 Db)
    (210 F2) Conveyance of real estate for consideration long past, and without present consideration, grantor being- insolvent, is fraud upon creditors and will be set aside.
    Vickery & Vickery, Cleveland, for Soul.
    Gaughan & Collins, Cleveland, for Cleary, et.
    HISTORY: — Action in Common Pleas by Soul, Receiver against Cleary, et al., to set aside deed. Heard on . appeal. Decree for plaintiff. No action in Supreme Court prior to date of this publication.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS.
    This is an action brought by the plaintiff to set aside a deed made by the husband of the defendant Mrs. Cleary upon the ground that it was made in fraud of creditors. There is no question raised by the evidence nor claim made by the plaintiff that the consideration which is claimed to have been paid by Mrs. Cleary to her husband for the property involved was grossly inadequate. The claim of the plaintiff is based solely- upon the theory that whatever indebtedness Mr. Cleary owed to his wife was of long standing, and that there was no present consideration made for the deeds. It is apparent throughout the evidence that' Mrs. Cleary had made advances to her husband and had become his creditor for amounts due her under her several agreements with him in reference to the conducting of his business, but it is also quite clear that at the time the conveyances herein complained of transferring his interest in the properties, there was actually no present consideration paid to him by her for the same, although at the time he was insolvent.
   HUGHES, PJ.

Under these circumstances, notwithstanding the sympathy which is elicited for Mrs. Cleary because of the losses occasioned by the unsuccessful business operations and other dis-sipations of the family funds by her husband, the law looks upon such a transaction as a fraud upon creditors, and hence the judgment must be for plaintiff, the costs to be paid out of funds derived from the sale which must follow this judgment.

(Justice, J., concurs.)  