Cited by

See Henry v. Hinman, 25 Minn. 199, 201 (1878) (concluding that under common law when a debtor transferred property that left him insolvent, the transfer created “a clear prima-facie case of an intent to defraud creditors — one which requires strong evidence to overcome”); see also Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341, 341, 347 , 64 N.W.

In Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , , the question involved was whether the transfer was made with the intention of defrauding grantor’s creditors.

In Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , 64 N.W.

y, or obligation, as a fair equivalent therefor, and in good faith, property is conveyed or an antecedent debt is satisfied, or (b) Avhen such property, or obligation is received in good faith to secure a present advance or antecedent debt in amount not disproportionately small as compared Avith the value of the property, or obligation obtained.” The court was of opinion that Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; Hunt v. Ahnemann, 94 Minn. 67 , , and National Surety Co. v. Wittich, 184 Minn. 44

Prior to the act the rule prevailed as laid down in Underleak v. Scott, 117 Minn. 136, 141 , , and in Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , .

Williams v. Kemper, 99 Minn. 301 , ; Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; 27 C. J. 600, 606.

The effect of a transfer in consideration of future support was considered in Henry v. Hinman, 25 Minn. 199 ; Tupper v. Thompson, 26 Minn. 385 , ; Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; McCord v. Knowlton, 79 Minn. 299 , .

Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; Leqve v. Stoppel, 64 Minn. 152 , ; Einolf v. Thomson, 95 Minn. 230 , , ; Begin v. Begin, 98 Minn. 122 , ; Lansing v. Gregory, 128 Minn. 496 , ; Thysell v. McDonald, 134 Minn. 400 , ; Lovell v. Beedle, 138 Minn. 12

Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; Anderson v. Lindberg, 64 Minn. 476 , .

Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; Anderson v. Lindberg, 64 Minn. 476 , ; Bump, Fraud.

In Watherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , , it was said that, if the debtor retains property sufficient for the payment of all his debts, he has a right in good faith to provide for his future support by a conveyance of a portion of his property, but if, in fact, 'the conveyance is made to defraud creditors, it is void as to them, although othe

Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; Leqve v. Stoppel, 64 Minn. 152 , .

Whthe the case of Einolf v. Thomson, 95 Minn. 230 , , , is not precisely in point here, the rule there stated, supported, as it is, by Donahue v. Donahue, 53 Minn. 460 , , and Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341, 346 , , governed the trial court in its consideration of this case, which rule is as follows : “The general rule deducible from the authorities is that, where a child after arriving at majority continues to reside as a member of the family with a parent, or with one who stands in the rela

Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; Anderson v. Lindberg, supra.

And see Donahue v. Donahue, 53 Minn. 460, 461 , ; Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341, 346 , .

It also appearing they were not made with an intent to defraud creditors, it follows under the doctrine established in Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , , that said contract and deed were not void as against plaintiff.

See also for a discussion of the principle involved, Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , .

We also think that plaintiff’s counsel has failed to set forth sufficient facts to bring his case within the provisions of said section 4218, assuming, as we do, that this section was properly construed in the recent case of Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , ; and upon the correctness of this construction, if it be questioned, see Bump, Fraud.

Several are stated in the recent case of Wetherill v. Canney, 62 Minn. 341 , .