The opinion of the Court was delivered by
The decree of the Circuit Court herein is full and comprehensive.
The appellants have failed to shake it. For the reasons therein stated that judgment is affirmed.
Footnote.—As to. the running of the statute of limitations against actions to set aside fraudulent conveyances, see note in 4 Am. & Eng. Ann. Cases 1098; also, Eigleberger v. Kibler, 10 S. C. Eq. (1 Hill Eq.) 113; Shannon v. White, 27 S. C. Eq. (6 Rich. Eq.) 96; Croft v. Arthur, 3 S. C. Eq. (3 DeS.) 228; Means v. Feaster, 4 S. C. 249; Richardson v. Mounce, 19 S. C. 477; McLwe v. Ashby, 28 S. C. Eq. (7 Rich. Eq.) 430; Ljott v. DeGrafenreid, 31 S. C. Eq. (10 Rich. Eq.) 346; McSween v. McCown, 23 S. C. 342; Harrell v. Kea, 37 S. C. 369, 16 S. E. 42. As to the effect of public records as notice which will set statute of limitations running against action based upon fraud, see Lott v. DeGrafenreid, 31 S. C. Eq. (10 Rich. Eq.) 353; Súber v. Chandler, 18 S. C. 526, and note in 22 L. R. A. (N. S.) 208.