Early Legislation against Fraudulent Conveyances.
137
the common law, the conclusion could scarcely be equity had existed prior to the statute, and had not doubtful, — the common law took care of the rights been taken away by it; the statute had only given of creditors; for purchasers it had no help. But a more clear and extended remedy.1 Again, it is held in some States that where a debtor, in fraud a hundred years ago Lord Mansfield, in some re spects a hundred years ahead of his time, thought of his creditors, pays for property and procures that the principles of the common law, as then the title to be made to another, the transaction is understood, were such towards fraud as to have not within the statute of 13th of Elizabeth,9 but enabled it to attain every end proposed by the two that equity will treat the transaction as invalid on statutes of Elizabeth; 1 and if that was a somewhat common-law grounds.3 sanguine statement, it was a very good prophecy, "Nor have the courts of law in like recent times assuming the later growth of the common law gen stopped with asserting the common-law jurisdic erally to be fair evidence of what would have tion; they too have acted upon the assertion both proved to be its expansiveness in dealing with the in England and in this country.4 In the case first kind of fraud under consideration. cited an information had been filed on behalf of "It is not necessary to take Lord Mansfield the Crown, praying the benefit of a judgment of narrowly. By the ' common law ' he probably did outlawry and that a certain deed by the outlaw not mean the law administered in the courts of might be set aside as fraudulent and void against law alone and unaided, though he was ever draw the Crown. This was a matter clearly without the ing equity that way. The common law as a whole, statutory law; but the jurisdiction was sustained as whether administered by courts of law or courts of being founded upon the common law. equity, would meet the requirements of society, — "Thus stands the case of fraudulent conveyances that was probably his lordship's meaning; if not, apart from the statutes of Elizabeth. It js believed the statement was too wide even as a prophecy. that upon this evidence one cannot go far wrong in Modern equity, in the technical sense, has certainly asserting that where statute, liberally interpreted, had its share in establishing a common-law doc fails, a remedy still exists by the common law ' as trine in regard to fraudulent conveyances, and that now understood ' (in the language of Lord Mans in cases beyond the reach of jurisdiction at law in field), whether by a suit at law or in equity, for every case of ' endeavor to alter rights by wrong any view. "One or two illustrations may be given. A man fully evading the law in a matter in which the per named Attwood executed a voluntary mortgage to son to be wronged is not a party.' 5 And that his sisters to secure a past debt, and was allowed may have some special significance for the newer to retain the title deeds to enable him to give a States of the Union, and for the Territories, and for first mortgage to a creditor who was pressing him yet newer and remoter lands in which the Englishwith suit. Attwood deposited the deeds with this speaking race is planting itself, where legislation creditor, but afterwards, without the creditor's con may be wanting or imperfect; for it is to be remem currence, obtained them again, and with them made bered that the ' expansiveness of the common law ' a mortgage to the plaintiff, without notice, for a sum means not only growth from a germ, but adapta larger than the amount due to the sisters. On a bility of the growing principle to new surroundings question of priority, it was held that the sisters and to new systems of government. America has must be postponed to the plaintiff. The case fell attested this on a scale large enough." without the statute of 27th Elizabeth, unless the 1 Hcrrick v. Attwood, 2 De G. & J. 21. theory of the ' equity of the statute' could be in 3 Edmonson v. Meacham, 50 Miss. 34; Crozier v. voked. This the court was inclined to apply; but Young, 3 T. B. Mon. 157; Gowing v. Rich, 1 Ircd. 553. Lord Cranworth declared that if the case did not
- Edmonson r. Meacham, supra.
4 See e. g. Richards r. Attorney Gen., 1 2 Clark & F. fall within the statute at all, so that the sisters could not maintain ejectment for want of a legal title, 30; Iludnal v. Wilder, 4 McCord, 294. 5 The author's definition of Circumvention, a term that would not affect the case. The jurisdiction of including, inter alia, fraudulent conveyances, under 13 Eliz. c. 5. 1 Cadogan o. Kcnnett, 2 Cowp. 432, 434.
