
    Phillips v. Rhodes et al.
    Construction — Evidence—Attorney and Client — Decision of the Court of Appeals Approved.
    The decision of the court of appeals in this case (2 Colo. App. 70) approved. It was there held, substantially, that:
    "When the parties to a conveyance of real estate are husband and wife, love and affection may be a sufficient consideration between the parties; but it is not a good consideration, nor does the deed pass title, when such result would be in fraud of existing creditors.
    The mere fact that the property was purchased at execution sale by the creditors for less than its estimated value is not evidence of a conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of her rights therein. .
    A client cannot maintain an action against her attox-neys for alleged fraud in securing a compromise of a disputed claim when it appears that but for the close attention of her counsel she would have received nothing, and that she agreed to the settlement after consultation with her father, even though she was a minor at the time.
    
      Error to the Court of Appeals.
    
    Mr. L. Walker,, for plaintiff in error.
    Mr. E. B. Kellogg, Messrs. Marsh, Voorhees & Marsh, Mr. H. E. Luthe and Mr. W. W. Cooke, for defendants in error.
   Per Curiam.

This suit was instituted to set aside certain conveyances of real estate. The history of the transaction is succinctly set forth in the statement preceding the opinion of the court of appeals in Phillips v. Rhodes et al., 2 Colo. App. 70.

The opinion of that court answers every proposition of law or fact necessarily involved in the action. A.t best, the cause of plaintiff in error rests upon disputed questions of fact, which were determined against him at the trial upon conflicting evidence. It would be contrary to the well established practice for this court to disturb the findings of the trial court under these circumstances. For this reason, in addition to those assigned by the court of appeals, the judgment of that court is affirmed.

Affirmed.  