
    Hamilton and Lambright, Trustees for Holman, against Greenwood and others.
    SPECIAL action on the case, to try the property of a r ... 7 , , , , 3 , , ‘T-. negro wench M mail, and her children, settled on Mrs. Holman by her husband, at a time when he was supposed to have been considerably in debt. Mr. Holman, the husband, in October, 1775, in order to make a provision for his wife, settled the negro in question and four others, on her and to her heirs for ever, &c« in the usual form* The t i ¶ ¶ ° ** o ■.» , deed was recorded m .1776. At the time this settlement was made, it appeared that Holman had 12 or 15 negroes, a stock of cattle, and household furniture, &c. to a considerable amount. That there had been a' difference between them, and in order to reconcile matters, the deed in question was made.
    
      Every vahm-tar’l <Ieu,i <>f settlement, husband'*' on fratJ¡¡uféntWt ^“sstu,0^ the husband the time the setllementwas made. Fraud proper fo/Si stauoes*
    
      On the part of the defendant it came out, that Holman afterwards (as his wife and himself did not live on the best of terms) made a mortgage, dated 1st of April, 1777, of this negro wench and some others, to defendants, in order to secure a debt he owed them ; which mortgage was regularly recorded in May, 1777. It was also alleged and proved, that this debt due to the defendants, was contracted previous to the deed of settlement on Mrs. Holman. So that the question was
    Whether the deed of settlement, so made in favour of Mrs. Holman, was void against the defendants, who were creditors previous to the date of the settlement.
    Ward, for defendants,
    relied on the statute of 13th Eliz. relating to fraudulent conveyances. Twine’s case, 3 Co. 80. and 1 Atk. 13. and contended that the deed was void as to the defendants ; and more especially, as the debt was bona fide contracted previous to the date of the deed.
    
      Read, contra,
    argued, that the deed could not be void, unless if had been done for the express purpose of defraud-big creditors ; and there was no evidence of any such intent. That Holman had other property at the time of making this provision for his wife, and much more than would have paid off the defendants, had they pressed for their debt. That a deed made for the advancement of a man’s family, was not fraudulent under 13th Eliz. merely because he happened to owe money at the time of making the deed. That the prospects of Holman then might well have warranted it, though adversity might have afterwards overtaken him : and in fact, it appeared that he had made several imprudent bargains afterwards, which had reduced him to insolvency before his death.
   By the Court,

unanimously. Fraud or not fraud, under the whole of the circumstances, is a matter very proper for t?he consideration of a jury. There is no point clearer, than where a deed is made for the purpose of defrauding creditors, whatever the pretence may be, wherever such Intent can he traced out, it is fraudulent, and ought to be , , ■, , , r set aside. But to say that no voluntary deed, made lor the support and advancement of a part of a man’s family, is good, because a man happened to be embarrassed at the time such deed was made, would be carrying the matter much further than the principles of law or justice would warrant. In the present case, the deed appears evidently to have been made for the support of the wife, especially as there had been differences between them. There is no secret trust in it 5 or that the property should ever revert to Holman. It is absolute and unconditional, and appears to have been recorded soon after its execution, which was notice to all the world. The statute of Elizabeth does not go to voluntary conveyances, merely because they are voluntary ; but to such as are fraudulent. A fair, voluntary conveyance may be good against creditors, notwithstanding Its being voluntary. The circumstance of a man’s being in debt at the time of making such a deed, may be an argument of fraud ■ but then the grand question in every such case is, whether the act done is a bona fde transaction, or whether it is a trick to defraud creditors ? If there is any trust for the use of the grantor, it is fraudulent j Cotap, 434, 5. but in this case there is none. It is also laid down by Lord Mansfield, Coup. 436. that a settlement was not fraudulent, because there were creditors at the time it was made, if the transaction %vas a fair one. He also lays it down in Cotup. 710, 11. that a custom lias prevailed, and leaned extremely to construe voluntary settlements fraudulent against creditors ; but if the circumstances of the transaction shew that it was not fraudulent at the time, it Is not within the statutes, though no money was paid.

Jury found for the plaintiffs to the amount of the value of the wench and children.  