9 Mass. 390 | Mass. | 1812
The question in this case is, whether the deed from Ebenezer to Henry Proctor is to be considered fraudulent as against the demandant. At common law, a fraudulent conveyance could only be avoided by him who had a prior interest or claim.
The recognizance in this case has no such effect, in creating a lien on the conusor’s land, as statutes merchant and staple, and recognizances in nature of these, in the English law. The statute of this commonwealth,
Then is the deed in this case void, considering the demandant as a creditor ? — It was a voluntary conveyance, but it was not a fraud
The action stood continued for advisement; and at this term, the Court ordered the demandant to be called,
Demandant nonsuit.
3 Co. 83.
Cro Eliz. 445. — Roberts, 371.
1782, c. 21.
Cowp. 711.
[Sexton vs. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. 229. — Hildreth vs. Sands, 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 35. Anderson vs. Boyd, 18 Johns. Rep. 515. — Ed.]