580 FEDERAL REPORTER. �by virtue of the sheriff'B deed heretofore spoken of. It is claimed by the defendants that the after-acquired title, in John B. Hymer from Eogers, enures to their benefit by force of the warranty deed made to them ; while the complainant insista that in equity it should be held to support his deed. Had the deed by Eogers, the consideration whereof was paid by complainant Arnold, been made to him instead of Hymer, no dispute could have arisen as to the title. Uuder the statutes of Missouri conveyances made to defraud creditors are declared void. The decisions of the supreme court of Missouri, construing these statutes, are to the effect that a conveyance creates a resulting trust in favor of the grantor; that the property so conveyed may be sold under execution. To permit the title conveyed by Eogers to Hymer to support the deed made by Hymer to his minor children, for the pur- pose of defrauding his creditors, would be to uphold a con- veyance which the law declares void. Equity favors a con- struction tending to carry out the evident intention of the parties, allowing the complainant the benefit of the purchase money paid by him, curing a possibly mistaken view which may have obtained concerning the effect of the conveyance from Eogers to Hymer, The deed from Eogers to Hymer is therefore held to support the one made by Hymer to com- plainant rather than the one to his minor children. The decree in favor of Arnold is based upon this view. �The attorney for defendants admits that there may be an equity in favor of complainant, to the extent of the amount of the purchase money paid by him to Eogers, because com- plainant made this payment before he had actual notice of the deed made by John B. Hymer to these defendants ; as- suming that it has been proven that the casual conversation between John B. Hymer and his wife was overheard by com- plainant, in which the wife insisted that the balance of the one thousand dollars ($1,000) purchase money, after pay- ment of debts, should be invested for her and the children, because the father had made the deed to them. At the time that this conversation oecurred the legal title to the land was in Eogers, and was sometime after acquired by complainant ����
