8IHUS r. MOBSK. 829 �not defend her title neither could he; but in the present case there was nothing, so far as the proof shows, to affect Barth ■with notice of any defect or latent equity in her title, except the fact that, at the time he was negotiating with lier, her hushand was insolvent, and had probably been so for a con- siderable time previens. Granting that this was sufficient to have put him upon inquiry, wbat could he have learned? Both Mr. and Mrs. Morse then asserted that her money had been paid for the property, and they now, when they have less interest in the matter, solemnly swear to it, and the husband's creditors have been able to produce no direct evidence to dis- credit their statements. �Circumstanoes amounting to mere suspicion of fraud are not to be deemed notice, and where an inferenee of notice ia to aflfect an innocent purchaser it must appear that the inquiry suggested would have, if fairly pursued, resulted in the discovery of the defect, where the title of the wife does not come through a conveyance from the husband, and is in form perfect, although impeachable by his creditors. I kriow of no case in which the title of a purchaser from her, having no knowledge of the weakness of her title, has not been upheld ; and in the present case, without some authoritative decision, in the face of the affirmative testimony in support of the payment by her of the consideration of the deed to her, I should not feel justified in setting aside her conveyance to Barth. Sedivick v. Place, 12 Blatoh. 174, affirmed, 95 U. S. 3; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Branch, 133; Anderson v. Roberts, 18 Johnson's Eep. (N. Y.) 515 ; Ledyard v. Butler, 9 Paige, �The fact that in the purchase of the property by Barth he secured a debt due to him by the husband does not render the conveyance by the wife to him assailable. If the property was hers, and she chose to appropriate any part of it to the payment of any particular creditor of her husband, it is not a matter by which his assignee in bankruptcy or creditors are afïected. Stewart v. Platt, Sup. Ct. U. S., October 7, 1879, reported in 12 Chicago Legal News, 201. �Bill dismissed. ����
