EEBBINa V. RI0HABB3. '^4A5 �troversy, and at the time he couveyed it to hîs daughterSj he was solvent, and not indebted, and the property thus^settled upon his daughters was no more than a reasonable provision for them, not disproportionate to his means, taking intoyiew his situation. �Second. The proof does not establish the allegation of the complainant that the conveyanoe to the daughters was made with intent to def raud subsequent creditors. �Third. The assignee insists that Eichards furnished the money used in improving the farm, and in paying ofif encum- brances, after the title had been vested in his daughters. The weight of evidence is against this claim, as is clearly shown by the opinion of the district judge. Suppose, however, Eichards did furnish money to his daughters, or use money for their benefit in the way suggested, would that fact render invalid the original conveyance from him to his daughters? If that conveyance was in itself hona fide, free from fraud, and in ail respects valid, a subsequent contribution by the father, for the purposes named, would not change its charac- ter. The fact of the making of such contributions would be evidence tending to show fraud in the original transfer, but not by any means conclusive. If the original conveyance was made in good faith, while the grantor was solvent and free from debt, it was valid and must stand, even though other property may have been fraudulently given or conveyed to thë same parties at a subsequent period. In such a case the remedy would not be by a bill to set aside the original conveyance, but by proper proceedings to recover the prop- erty Bubsequently transferred, Thus, in Clarke v. Wliite, 12 Pet. 178, the supreme court say: "If the person against whom fraud is alleged should be proved to bave been guilty of it in any number of instances, still, if the particular act sought to be avoided be not shown to be tainted with fraud, it cannot be affected with the other frauds, unless in some way or other it be connected with or form a part of them." Page 194. �Fourth. It appears that Mr. Eichards, the grantor, aftejr executing the deed to his daughtors, took the same to the re- ����
