
    Hannah S. Longworth, Appellant, v. William H. Longworth, Defendant, and Mary A. Longworth, Respondent.
    
      Longworth v. Longworth, 160 App. Div. 908, affirmed.
    (Argued February 6, 1918;
    decided February 26, 1918.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered March 5,1914, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term and directing a dismissal of the complaint. This action was commenced by the wife of defendant William H. Longworth to obtain a decree setting aside a certain conveyance of two parcels of real estate made by her husband William H. Longworth to his sister, the defendant, respondent, Mary A. Longworth, on the theory that said conveyance was made while said William H. Longworth was acting under the influence of his sister, the defendant, respondent, was without consideration, was in contemplation of his abandonment of the plaintiff, which took place shortly thereafter, was for the purpose of putting his property where it could not be reached by any order that might be made requiring him to support the plaintiff, and that said conveyance was fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff. The trial court rendered judgment in plaintiff’s favor, as prayed for in the complaint, and set aside the deed of conveyance of which complaint was made. The Appellate Division reversed this judgment and dismissed plaintiff’s amended and supplemental complaints on the ground that the action was premature, in that the plaintiff should have followed the usual procedure to reach the property of the defendant William H. Longworth in support of her judgment of separation and to collect the alimony awarded by sequestration and an action, if necessary, by a receiver, and on the further ground that plaintiff had failed to prove that the defendant William H. Longworth was insolvent at the time he made the conveyance in question, or that he was without property after such conveyance.
    
      George Wallace, B. A. Mansfield Hobbs and Arthur C. Bostwick for appellant.
    
      Alfred T. Davison and James K. Foster for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Hiscogic, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddebáck, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.  