Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 5.djvu/768

756 FEDERAL REPORTBR. �asking that the property be subjected to the payment of the debts of the bankrupt pro rata. �The bank waa ruade a party, and in a cross-bill insista that these conveyanees were voluntary, and are fraudaient and void as to its debt, and insists that it should be paid its entire debt out of the proceeds of the property, -^^hen sub- jected and sold. �Mrs. Hollister and her husband have answered the bill and cross-bill, They deny that the bank debt was a subsisting one when the conveyanees were made, January, 1874, and insist that Hollister was in fact the surety of Leathers in the original debt, and that it was paid at its maturity by Leath- ers, with the proceeds in part of another note discounted for the same amount. They insist that the execution of the last note was the creation of a new debt, and not the continuance of an old one. They deny that the conveyanees were volun- tary and without consideration, and allege they were exe- cuted for a valuable consideration. This consideration is alleged to be the estate whioh the bankrupt received from his wife, and the promise made before he received it to invest an equal amount for her benefit in real estate, placing the title in her. They allege in an amended answer that there was an antenuptial agreement, but as there is no proof of this, it may be dismissed from the case. �There are four questions arising, and which have been argued by counsel : First, hàs a court of equity jurisdiction ? Second, is the debt proven by the Covington National Bank the same debt existing at the time of the conveyanees ? Tkird, if so, were they made for a valuable consideration, or were they merely voluntary? Fov/rth, if these conveyanees, or either of them, are voluntary, and hence fraudulent and void, shall the proceeds of a sale be divided pro rata between ail of the bankrupt's debts, or shall the bank's debt have prefer- ence ? �We shall consider these questions in their order. Mrs. Hollister bas the legal title, and the suit is to set aside the conveyanees to her because they are fraudulent and void. The remedy at law is not, we think, adequate or plain. The ����