
    Palmer vs. Melson, executor.
    In. a suit on promissory notes which specified that their consideration was for rent, the defendant could not protect himself by pleading that Lis wife was the grand-daughter of the payee of the notes; that being greatly indebted, she conveyed her land to her grandfather to avoid, the payment of her debts; that when defendant marriedher she was living on the land, and defendant gave the notes sued on, but that there was no consideration for them, because-the deed was fraudulent and void. Whether tho deed was fraudulent and void as to creditors or not, it was good between the parties, and tho defendant, having attorned to the grantee and given the notes sued on for rent, could not deny his landlord’s title; and such a plea was demurrable.
    April 27, 1886.
    Landlord, and Tenant. Estoppel. Deeds. Fraud. Before Judge 'Willis. Talbot Superior Court.' September Term, 1885.
    Beported in the decision.
    J. H. Martin, for plaintiff in error.
    Willis & Mathews, for defendant.
   Blandeord, Justice.

Melson sued Palmer on several promissory notes, the consideration of which, as therein specified, being for rent.

Palmer filed his defence, which was, in substance, as follows: That his wife was the grand daughter of Melson,. the payee in the notes, and that she, being greatly indebted, conveyed her land to her grand father to avoid the payment of her debts; that when defendant married her, she-was living on the land, and he, defendant, gave the notes sued on to Melson, but that there was no consideration; as the land belonged to his wife, the deed which she had made to Melson was fraudulent and void.

Upon demurrer, the court struck this answer, and defendant excepted and assigns error thereon.

The deed, whether it be fraudulent and void as to creditors, is good between the parties, as the grantor attorned to the grantee as his tenant; and when Palmer intermarried with, the grantor and rented the land from Melson, the grantee, and gave these notes for the rent, he will not be heard to deny his landlord’s title, but he is estopped from so doijig. So we think the court did right in strildng the defence tef plaintiff in error.

Judgment affirmed.  