Price v. Pitzer

Stewart, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The deed reliedupon by the appellants by its terms and provisions, is evidently a mere contrivance on the part of the grantor, Bloomenour, to hinder and delay his creditors, and as to them void under the Statute of 13 Eliz., ch. 5. It does not profess to convey all his real estate to the trustees. However the fact may be, no terms to that effect are employed. ⁵²⁸ It provides for the retention by the grantor of all his real estate and household goods — -the rents of the real estate, if any, to be handed over to the trustees.

At his option he can rent the property, and pay over any rent collected; or he may retain it himself, and pay no rent. It also provides for the grantor to remain in pos- ■ session of his store room and stock of goods, with authority reserved to him to sell the goods for cash, until reduced to at least two thousand dollars less in value ; after which he is to go on with the business under the direction of the 'trustees. The deed confers no authority’upon the trustees to make ■ sale of any of the property so long as he may carry on the business under the proposed arrangement, to their satisfacfaction. The practical arrangement contemplated by the provisions of the deed, is, by virtue of its authority, to enable Bloomenour to continue his business of merchandising, without interference on the part of his creditors, until the ■debts are all paid in the manner indicated by him in the deed.

If a bold scheme like this, to hinder and delay his creditors, and to make their rights of enforcing payment of their claims subordinate to the mode and process of payment, provided by the 'debtor, and grantor in the deed, is ■not in palpable and unquestionable violation of the provisions of the Statute of Elizabeth, and absolutely void as to his