
    BANK OF THE UNITED STATES v. ENNIS AND SANDIGE.
    Post nuptial settlement — fraud—trust—transfer of by trustee.
    A post nuptial voluntary settlement made by a debtor for his wife and children is void as to previous creditors, though it may be good as to subsequent creditors; but if made with a fraudulent design, it’ is void as to all creditors.
    A trust created in land for a married woman and her children, at her death, vests in the children.
    605] *A conveyance by the trustees of the trust property to the father of the children, is not per se fraudulent, although ho is in debt or insolvent, he holds in trust for the children.
    If such trust is legally created, no act of the trustee can affect the interest of the beneficiaries of the trust.
    In chancery. The bill seeks to sell in satisfaction of a judgment at law against Ennis, lot No. 126, in Cincinnati, which has been levied upon, but will not be sold, because the title is in Sandige, though he holds it in trust for Ennis, who is insolvent.
    Ennis, in his answer, admits the judgment, levy, and his insolvency. He insists that some years since, before he contracted the debt to the plaintiff, he had received a piece of land and much other property from his wife’s father as her portion of his estate, ' and finding himself in sinking circumstances conveyed the land to Sandige in trust for his (Ennis’s) viije and children. Afterwards by agreement of all concerned, the land was sold, and the proceeds invested in lot 125; after which, his wife died, and Sandige, to rid himself of the trust, conveyed to Ennis in trust for Mrs. Ennis’s four children. This investment was made before the debt to the complainant was contracted. He alleges that he holds only in trust, and denies all fraud. To this there is a general replication,
    
      Storer, for the complainant, and
    
      Hammond, for the respondents,
    relied on 8 Wheat. 229.
   WRIGHT, J.

A post nuptial voluntary settlement, made by a debtor for his wife and children, is void as to previous creditors, but as to subsequent ones, is valid, the consideration being held good and valuable. But if a conveyance is made for that purpose with a fraudulent design, then it is void as to subsequent creditors also.

A trust created in land for the wife and her children, vests in the children at her death. A conveyance by the trustee of the trust property to their father, in trust for them, is not per se fraudulent, though he is in debt. Nor is such conveyance made in honest execution of a trust, to be avoided by proof that the father when he took the trust was indebted and insolvent. If the trust estate is valid at its inception, no act of the trustee can affect the intei’est of the cestui que trust.

The complainant then agreed that the bill be dismissed.  