138 FESEBAIi BEFOSTBB. �precisely as if no transfer had been made. But this state- ment of the law is based, among others, upon the foregoing cases, and it is clear that with the exception of the last two they do not support the text. In addition to these authori- ties I find that Judge Hoffman, In re Beadle, 6 Saw. 351, bas held in favor of the lien under circumstances similar to those in this case. The syllabus of the case states the facts and the ruling sufficiently, It is : "Where an insolvent made an assignment to trustees, with intent to hinder and delay bis creditors, which assignment was by this court subsequently adjudged void, and trustees conveyed the property to the as- signee in bankruptcy, held, that the latter took the property subject to the liens of creditors who had recovered and docketed judgments subsequently to the fraudulent convey- ance and before the commencement of the bankruptcy pro- ceedings." In the course of the opinion of the court this question is asked : "Could the judgment creditors, by docket- ing their judgments against the grantor, acquire a lien on the land without previously bringing their bill in equity to set aside the fraudulent conveyance?" and the answer given is: "The question must be settled by the law of this state; and it appears to have been settled, ever since the case of Hager V. Shindler, 29 Cal. 47, that a conveyance of this description may be treated by the judgment creditor as absolutely void, ab initia, and as if non-existent." But it does not appear that any question concerning the operation or effeot of the lien of a judgment arose or was decided in Hager v. Shindler. That was a case where the purchaser of real property at a sheriff's sale, upon an execution to enforce a judgment against one who had, prior to the judgment, conveyed the premises in question in fraud of his creditors, brought a suit to annul such conveyance as a cloud upon his title, and the court held that the suit could be maintained. Nothing was claimed under or by virtue of the lien of the judgment. Indeed, tha statement of the ruling in Hager v. Shindler by the court lu re Beadle shows this. It is: "In that case it was held that the purchaser of land at a sheriff's sale may maintain a bill to set aside and annul, as a cloud upon the title, a deed of the ����
