ABNOLD V. HYMKR. 579 �Kbekel, D. J. John B. Hymer, father of the defendants, in 1861, and while in debt beyond bis ability to pay, con- veyed by warranty deed the tract of land in controversy in this suit to his three minor children, the youngest two years old, and the eldest six years old, stating in the deed the con- sideration to be $150 ; but by the defendants admitted to have been on account of love and affection. The deed, soon after its execution, was put upon record by the grantor. At the time of the execution of the deed the grantor waa in possession of the land, the children to whom he had conveyed being with him, and the possession was continued up to the time of the sale and conveyance by Hymer to complainant. In 1862 a number of the creditors of Hymer brought suit, by attach- ment, against him, and had the land in dispute seized, alleg- ing as ground for attachment that the conveyance by him to his children was fraudaient, and made to hinder and delay his creditors. In due time judgment was obtained in the at- tachment Buits, and the land in controversy sold, Eogers becoming the purehaser thereof, paying $451 therefor. The deedto Eogers is dated October 26, 1863, and was duly re- corded. On the thirtieth day of November, 1863, John B. Hymer sold the land he had conveyed to his minor children to the complainant, for and in consideration of $1,000, gave a warranty deed therefor, and delivered possession to him, and the said Arnold has held the same ever since. John B. Hymer, after the making of the two deeds mentioned, on the seventh day of May, 1864, at the suggestion of Arnold, and by his aid, obtained a deed from Eogers, the purehaser on sheriff's sale, the consideration being $451, the same Eogers had paid. �It is an undisputed faot that Arnold paid Eogers for the land. John B. Hymer, as stated, has made two warranty deeds to the land in controversy, — the first, a deed of gift to his minor children, the present defendants, dated September 11, 1861; the second, to Merrett S. Arnold, the complain- ant, in consideration of $1,000, dated November 30, 1863. The question, who has the better right to the land in contro- versy, under these conveyances ? must depend upon the effect given to the deed from Eogers, in whom the title was vested ����
