Where there is transfer of title as well as of possession this section has no application. Walklin v. Horswill, 24 S. D. 191; 123 N. W. 668.
An assignment accomplished by immediate change of possession is not fraudulent. Wright v. Lee, 10 S. D. 263; 72 N. W. 895.
Filing chattel mortgage is equivalent to actual delivery and continued change of possession. Reichert v. Simons, 6 Dak. 239, 42 N.W. 657.
Possession may be by agent and that agent may be the vendor. Grady v. Baker, 3 Dak. 296; 19 N. W., 417.
An assignment free from fraud in its inception is not invalidated by subsequent fraudulent acts. Wright v. Lee, supra.
A conveyance with the sole object of securing an honest debt is not fraudulent. Paulson v. Ward, 4 N. D. 100; 58 N. W. 792.
A conveyance is not fraudulent because the husband is indebted at the time of conveyance. Kelly’s Appeal 77 Pa. St. 232.
Indebtedness or even insolvency is no obstacle or hindrance to a transfer in good faith of property for a debt due the wife. Lehman v. Levy, 30 La. Ann. 745.
A conveyance by a husband to his wife in consideration of money borrowed from her without notice of fraudulent intent is good as against other creditors. Hagen, v. Robinson, 94 Ind. 138; Thompson v. Feagin, 60 Ga. 82. :
In an action of quia timet the question of title between the parties may be fully litigated and determined and a decree rendered assigning the title to the real estate, or any part of it, to the party entitled thereto. Dolen v. Black, 67 N. W. 760; Snowden v. Tyler, 31 N. W. 661; Baus- man v. Kelly, 36 N. W. 333; Eagen v. McDonald, 153 N. W. 915.
Grace, C. J. This action was brought to have a certain deed executed and delivered by the defendant Andrew Person to his wife, Edla R. Person, declared fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff, a creditor. The action was tried to the court without a jury. It made findings’ of facts. conclusions of law, and an order for judgment in defendant’s favor. Judgment was entered in pursuance to the order, and this appeal is from the judgment and a trial de novo in this court requested.
The debt which is the basis of the plaintiff’s cause of action is a judgment recovered by it against the defendant and others, on or about December 17, 1919.
The complaint contains the usual and necessary allegations in a cause of action of this nature. The defendants answered separately, alleging
