578 FUDSBAL BEPOBTEB. �the report goes. The report does not show that there was in reality any liability whatever jresting upon the stockholders of that corporation. It says that he was unacquainted with the Company and knew nothing of the legality of its organi- zation, and was unwilling to incur liability as a stockholder. His fear may bave been wholly vain. Without some liability to be avoided there could be no real fraud in undertaking to avoid it. And, if there had been, it would not have affected tbose to whom he had made transfer, and probably not their obligation to convey at his request. Tbose entitled to the duty might bave held him to it, but that would not change the condition of this surety. He does not appear to bave lost control of the property to the detriment of the surety in any way. �Judgment on the report for the plaintiff for the amount of the notes, after deducting the threefold interest applicable, whichjOn amendment of the report, is found to be $28,895.40. ���Aenold V. Hymbe and others. �(Circuit Court, W. D. Missouri. February 6, 1881.) �L Gkantob and Grantbe — Pbiob Fbaudolent Cohvbyancb — Pub- �CHABEB AT ShBBII'B8 SALB— SUBSEQUENT CoNVETANCB TO GbANTOB. �Hymer fraudtilently conveyed the land in coatroversy to his minor children, by deed of warranty, in September, 1861. The same land was subsequently attached by the creditors of Hymer, and sold at sherifE's sale to Bogers for the sum of $451. Hymer subsequently conveyed the same land to Arnold by deed of warranty, dated No- vember 30, 1863, in consideration of $1,000. Afterwards, May 7, 1864, Hymer procured a deed from Rogers for the sum of $451, the pur- chase money having been advanced by Arnold. 3dd, there being presumptive evidence that part of the $1,000 recelved from Arnold had been invested for the beneflt of the wife and children of Hymer, that the deed from Rogers to Hymerenured to the beneflt of Arnold. —[Ed. �In Equity. �Routt <& Hardwick, for complainant. �Dunlap e Freeman, for defendants. ����
