754 FBDEEAL EEPOBTEB. �veyanCes it was void as to the then existing debt to the Covington Kational Bank, and would be set aside and the lot sold, 8. DisTRrBTTi'ioif— Subsequent Cbeditors not Entitlep to Share in. (6) That subsequent creditors are not entitled to share in the pro- ceeds of such sale, but they will be distributed to pay oosts, the bank's claim without intereat, and the balance, if any, to the wife. �Kehr v. Smith, 20 Wall. 36, and statute 13 Elizabeth, c. 5, dis- tinguished. �Benton de Benton, for assignee. �C. Eginton, for Mrs. Hollister. �Baeh, D. J. This is a suit brought by the assignee in l)ankruptcy of Hadson Hollister to set aside two conveyances made to his wife, Mary H. Hollister, in January, 1874. �The faets proven in the record are briefly these : �Mary McConnell married Hudson Hollister on the tenth of June, 1850. Her father was then dead, and she had inher- ited one-fifth of his estate, consisting of land, negroes, and sorne money, estimated to be worth $50,000. �There was no antenuptial agreement; but it is clearly proven that Hudson Hollister, before he received any part of his wife's estate, promised her that if she would allow him to «ollect and use her money he would invest an equal amount in real estate for her use and benefit, and place the title in her name. This promise was frequently repeated and recog- nized by the bankrupt until the conveyances were made in 1874. Hudson Hollister received of his wife's guardiah! $3,202.08, and from the executor of her father's estate some more money, but the amount is not proveu. Mrs. Hollister was allotted, in tho division of her father's estate, six negroes, and had an interest in the homestead of her father and some lands in Carter, county. Two of the negroes were sold, and the proceeds collected by Hollister and used by him under the promise which he had made his wife. They brought $1,100, of which Bum $500 was collected probably in 1852 or 1853, and $600 in 1855 or 1856. Her interest in the homestead was sold in 1852 or 1853 for $1,000, and was ptobably collected and used by her husband under the promi^ Jse mentioned. There is some difference in the testimony ■whether this. land was paid for in money or negrces. It is, ����
