848 FEDEEAL EEPORTER. �Now, it is not pretended that at the time of the conveyances to the wife Thomas May contemplated embarking in any hazardous business, nor is it shown that he then had any intention to contract new indebtedness. Indeed, there is not a particle of evidence to show that any fraud was intended upon future creditors. Therefore, even if the conveyances to his wife were fraudaient as to then-existing creditors, they were good and valid as respects subsequent creditors. Snyder V. Christ, 39 Pa. St. 499 ; Monroe v. Smith, 79 Pa. St. 4.59 ; Harlan v. Maglaughlin, Pittsburgh L. J., May 19, 1 880. More- over, before Judson Lûtes made his first loan to Thomas May he was fully informed of the conveyances to the wife. As to him, therefore, there could be no fraud. Snyder v. Christ, supra; Monroe v. Smith, supra. �Most certainly a fraudulent conveyance is binding on the grantor and those claiming under him. Hence, if it ever so clearly appeared that the intentions of Thomas May were covinous as respects his then-existing creditors, yet as against him and a subsequent crediter, who became such with full knowledge of the facts, the estate conveyed to the wife was as absohitely hers as if the transaction was free from the taint of fraud. But one of the exceptions is that "the regis- ter erred in not finding that Marilla May held said land in trust for her husband, Thomas May, the bankrupt;" and a very earnest and able argument to show that such trust relationship existed was made by the learned counsel for the exceptant', who cited in support of the proposition Kelly' s Ap- peal, 77 Pa. St. 232. But in that case the court adopted th» theory pf a trust in the wife for her husband, because the wife never claimed the land, but permitted it to be taken in execution and sold as the estate of her deceased husband, and there was no evidence that the title was put in the wife to defraud her husband's creditors. Here, however, the very evidence upon which the exceptant relies to show the trust q,rrangement alleged, if accepted as true, establishes that the conveyances to Marilla May were in fraud of her husband's creditors, and that the intention was to withdraw the land from their reach — a purpose entirely inconsistent with any ����
