
    Farrow, et al. vs. Teackle.
    „„.I“!untl'ry S°1* ami annul" f¿t añaSyof<im»
    was _ necessary to maté naisiee^arti""'^ hiuittatiauoer^ m »
    Appear from Chancery. The bill of the complainant, (now appellee,) stated that (7. ¿arrow, one of the ants, (and one of the appellants,) on the I Oth of October 1805, purchased of Guest, Atterbury Co. of the city of Haiti-•more, goods, &c, to the value of $1537 72, for which he gave them his promissory note payable to them, or order, six months after date, which note was by them, for a valuable consideration, endorsed to the complainant. That Farrow, on the 21 st of November 1806, purchased of L. D. Teackle, of Princess Anne, other goods, &c. to the value of glOOO, for which Farrow executed his bond to Teackle, payable on or before the 1st of January 1808, ■which bond was afterwards, on the 28th of May 1807", for a valuable consideration, assigned to the complainant agreeably to law. That Farrow, instead of applying the proceeds of the said goods, &c. to the extinguishment of the debts which bad been created by their purchase, invested the same in certain lands then belonging to J. Fleming, which lands Farrow, on the 25th of June 1807, caused to be conveyed to his children, Juliana and Mary, infants under the age of five years, which said conveyance was further assured to them by deeds dated the 2d of July 1808, and the 21st of March 1809. That Farrow, regardless of his promise and obligation, made no provision whatever for the payment or performance of either, but with intent to defraud the complainant, made application to the court of Somerset county for the benefit of the insolvent laws of this state, That (he complainant caused suits to be instituted on the promissory note and bond, upon which judgments were obtained against Farrow. The bill prayed for a subpoena to Farrow, and his two children, Juliana add Mary, to appear, &c. and then, and there answer the premises, and abide by such decree as shall be made, &c. The infants answered by their guardian appointed for that purpose by the court, and which is not necessary to be stated. Farrow by his answer admitted the purchase of the goods, and .his note and bond therefor. That on the 16th of November 1805, he purchased of •/. Fleming a tract of land, for which he paid the whole amount of the purchase money in the ensuing year. That the said land was conveyed to his daughters, as stated ih the bill; but he denies that the same was done with the intention to defraud, but was done to prevent his wife, from whom he had separated, from claiming dower therein. That L. D. Teackle had undertaken, by the agreement exhibited, to pay the debt to G. A. & Co. and that he always believed the debt bad been paid, until the suit was brought to recover the amount from him. That he did not become insolvent until 1810, and that his insolvency was occasioned by losses which took place long after the said conveyance. That L. D. Teacldc and G. A. fy Co. have also become insolvent, and he believes the assignments of the note and bond have been made to the complainant by a fraudulent collusion between the complainant, L. D. Teackle and G. A. & Co. Testimony was taken under a commission, and the cause argued, &c.
    Kilty, Chancellor, (December Term 1815,) Decreed., that the several deeds of conveyance from J. Fleming to Juliana M. Farrow, and Mary J. Farrow, the defendants, be cancelled, vacated and annulled, and made of no effect, as fraudulent and void; and that the equitable interest of C. Farrow, the defendant, of and in the lands mentioned in the said deeds be sold, &c. From which decree the defendants appealed to this court.
    The cause was argued before Chase, Ch. J and Buchanan, Johnson, and Dorsey, J.
    Magruder, for the Appellants,
    contended, 1. That the proper parties had not been made; that the assignors of the bill and bond, and the trustee of Farrow, who had become an insolvent debtor, should have been made parties. He referred to Coale vs. Mildred, 3 Harr. & Johns. 278. 2- That voluntary conveyances are valid against creditors, unless they can prove that sufficient property was not left to pay the debts. He cited New!, on Cont. 384. Hamilton vs, Greenwood, 1 Bay's Hep. 173. Miff. Plead. 114. 3. The bill does not contain sufficient matter. If relief is claimed on the ground of fraud, fraud must be alleged. Here it is not alleged. He referred to Jarnés vs. MKer-non, 6 Johns. Rep. 543.
    
      J. Bayly, for the Appellee.
    This proceeding is under the act of 1794, ch. 60, s. 10, by creditors. All the necessary parties are before the court. The facts set forth in the bill, if true, establish a fraud, for fraud is an inference of law from facts and circumstances. The consideration in the deeds are not meritorious. It must be natural love and affection. Farrow's object was to defraud his wife of her dower. Before his divorce he married again, and had the children to whom he had the land conveyed. If was a convéyance to an adulterous illegitimate offspring. He referred to Greenhow vs. Coults, 4 Hen. Sr Munf. 485. Hamilton vs. Russell, 1 Cranch: 309. The trustee need not be a party. The property was riot in him, but in the children, and the conveyance to them, as bétween them and the father, was valid, and therefore, if on a sale there should remain a surplus, such surplus is not tobe paid to the father or his trustee, but to the children. If the property is sold under a decree of the chancellor, then the thistee appointed by him supersedes the other tiustee — He is to sell, arid the chancellor to distribute — Cuibono then make the trustee a party? What is to pass, over which he has any control, and what is he to receive?
   DECREE AFFIRMED.  