Schuman ex rel. Hesen v. Peddicord

Robinson, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. The appellant, a married woman, united with her husband in an assignment of property for the common benefit of their creditors; and this hill is filed by the wife, to set aside the assignment as fraudulent, because it does not upon its face embrace the entire property of the grantors. Whether the assignment is liable to the objection now urged against it, is a question not necessary to be decided here, for if it be conceded that it does not embrace all the property of the grantors, real and personal, and is therefore void under the statute of 13 Elizabeth ; it is nevertheless binding on the grantors. Steuart vs. Iglehart, 7 G. & J., 132 ; Freeman vs. Sedgwick, 6 Gill, 28 ; Dorsey vs. Smithson, 6 H. & J., 61 ; Chessman vs. Exall, 6 Exch., 341; Cushwa vs. Cushwa, 5 Md., 44 ; Newson vs. Douglass, 7 H. & J., 417 .

The statute of Elizabeth was passed for the protection of creditors, and it declares accordingly that all conveyances, &c., with “intent to delay, hinder or defraud” creditors shall he void. Its provisions, however, do not in any manner affect the rights of the parties to the conveyance, and these must therefore be determined by the principles of the common law. By the common law it is well settled that no one shall be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. In such cajses the maxim of “ in pari delicto ” applies, and the grantee is permitted to retain the property not from any merit of his own, but because the law will not lend ⁵⁶³ its aid. to a party seeking to set aside Ms own fraudulent act.

Nellis vs. Clark, 4 Hill, 424 ; Stewart vs. Kearney, 6 Watts, 453 ; Murphy vs. Hubert, 16 Penna., 50. But although a fraudulent conveyance is binding on the grantor, yet it is declared