
    PURCHASER.
    No. 1.
    HOY against WRIGHT ET AL.
    
      Washington,
    
    1817.
    A conveyance from A. lo B. fraudulent and void, as against creditors, shall not defeat the title of a subsequent bona fide purchaser, without notice of the fraud.
    IN this case, the President, Directors, & Co. of the Ver* mont State Bank, attached the whole township of Montpelier, as the property of Gove, and others, and sold thé Store, in question, to the plaintiff, as the property of Gove, on the execution ; prior to the attachment, Gove had deeded the store to one Langdon, which conveyance was probably fraudulent, and afterwards, and before the levy of the execution, Langdon-had deeded to Gove, and Gove had deeded to defendants who were bona fide purchasers.
   The Court decided, the attachment of a whole township/ though good, to hold the property which was apparently th<f property of Gove, was not notice to the defendan ts that the plaintiffs intended to contest the right of Langdon, to this particular piece of property, to wit, the store in question ; nor would the conveyance of Langdon to Gove, after the attachment, as aforesaid, enure to the benefit of the attaching creditor ; although, if Gove had sold the store to the President, &c. and afterwards purchased it of Langdon, Gove, and alt persons claiming under him might be estopped from contesting the title of the President, &c.

Note — Furnished by Nathaniel Chipman, Esq. In this case Wright contracted with Lcmgdon for the purchase, but it was agreed that Langdon should release to Gove and theri Gove convey to Wright, so that Gove was a mere instrument, as will appear by the case*  