BURDIOK V.Qlhh. �McCrart, C. J. The complainant, as assignee in bank- ruptcy of Potter Gill, bringa this bill in equity to set aside a oouveyance of certain real estate made by the bankrupt to bis -wife, the respondent Sarah Gill, and to subject the same to the payment of the debts of the estate. The petition in bankruptcy was filed in the district court on the eighteenth of April, 1878. On the second day of January, preceding, he made the eonveyance in question to bis wife. It is con^ ceded that the eonveyance was voluntary. It is also con- ceded that there are no creditors now complaining whose debts were contracted prior to the eonveyance, and the sole question in this case is whether isaid eonveyance was fraud- ulent and void as to subsequent creditors. �1. Was the eonveyance from the bankrupt to bis wife made with intent to defraud subsequent creditors ? This is the first inquiry. The following are the badges of fraud relied upon to establish the affirmation of this proposition: Very soon after the eonveyance, Gill commenced disposing of his property with intent to defraud his creditors. He sold off his stock of furniture, and, according to his declara- tions, he sold it at less than oost. He destroyed or secreted his books of account. He bought largely, for tiine, but sold very rapidly, so that when the assignee took possession, on the twentieth of May, 1878, the goods oii hand inventoried only $244, while the claims proved, and which must have been contracted within the preceding 90 days, amounted tO $2,700. He is shown to have made several sales, the pro- ceeds of which he fails to account for. About the sixteenth of April he sold a farm and received $675 cash on the pur- chase money. This proof is sufficient to show the fraudulent intent of Gill, and it is fair to infer, from all the facts and circumstances, that the eonveyance to his wife was a part of his general plan and scheme of fraud. The time that elapsed between the date of the eonveyance and the first of the admittedly-fraudulent acts, is so short as to afford a clear presumption that they all belong to and form part of a con- epiracy. It wUl not be presumed that the gift to his wife ��� �
