
    
      Brady vs. Ellison.
    
    BRADY was- sued by Worsley, and was'apprehensive of a-, recovery: EUison represented to him that the plaintiff was likely to recover — and that Brady and Ellison agreed that Brady shouid convey to Ellison his land* rvhich Ellison should re-convey, if Worsley should! not obtain judgment;-but if he-should, that then he should convey- to, Erady’s children. — ■. Worsley was non-suited, and Ellison refused to recover the land..
   Per curiam.

Vi Worsley was a creditor, the conveyance intended, to defeat him, was a fraudulent conveyance ;• and an as-sumpsit By Ellison to restore the lands, was'void. The act o-f Assembly says, the contract shall be valid between the debtor and his-grantee ;• and1 why? — To deter the debtor from the attempt,, by placing him in- the power of the grantee.. This, obstacle to the attempt would be completely removed, if the plaintiff could- legally bind himself to restore the property or its value, and the debtor could practise a fraud on his creditors without the least risque : for after he had succeeded in defraudr. ing his creditors, the law would interefere in his favor, and en-, force the returning of his property by the vendee.

If Worsley, however, was not a creditor, then the conveyance-is not fraudulent — and there is no legal objection.to the contract^ w.bi,ch the plaintiff has sued o'

Yerdict for- the plaintiff»,  