416 FEDERAL REPORTER. �said ' that no man shall set up his own iniqaity as a defence any more than as a cause of action.' Here that is attempted to be done, but the defendant cannot be allowed to be heard in this matter." �In Walton v. Bonham, 24 Ala. 513, (N. S.) the court say: "The appellant proves that the deed to the children was made to defraud creditors, and sets up the fraud of his intestate in order to defeat the deed, and thus sustain the title to com- plainants. This cannot be done. The law holds the deed void as against creditors and purchasers, but it can only be 80 declared when it is attacked for the fraud. Here the deed is not assailed by the purchaser. He assumes, as he bas a right to do, that it is honest, and a court of justice mil not allow the party who made it to say that it was fraudaient; to do 80 would be against good morals, and the grantor, under such circumstances, not being permitted to impeach his own deed, his administrator cannot do so." �In Drinkwater v. Drinkwater, 4 Mass. 356, Parsons, G. J., declared "that a conveyance to defraud creditors is good against the grantor and his heirs, and is void only as to creditors ; for neither the grantor nor his heirs, claiming under him, can avail themselves of any fraud to which the grantor was a party to defeat any conveyance made by him. The intention of the law in establishing this principle is effect- ually to prevent frauds by refusing to relieve any man or his heirs from the consequences of his own fraudulent acts. If creditors have been injured by the fraud they are entitled to relief: as to them a fraudulent conveyance is void." �In 2 Philips on Evidence, 184, it is stated : "An instrument may be avoided on the ground of fraud, but the objection is not to come from one who is a party or privy to it, for no one can allege his own fraud in order to invalidate his own deed." The same raie is affirmed in Bump on Fraudulent Convey- ances, 437, and is sustained by a very large number of authori- ties found in the notes. �In no state has this rule been more distinctly recognized than in Maine. In Nichols v. Patten, 18 Me. 238, Shepley, J., says: "The statute of 13 Eliz. c. 6, provides that only ����
