440' FEDBBiL REPOBTER. �nothing of, and had not heard of, fais fatHer being surety for Abel in the bond to complainant. Complainant is entitled to reacb the interest secretly reserved by Thomas K. out of the property transferred, but it doea not follow that the con- veyance is void in favor of creditors under the statutes of this state. �Section 4716, Compiled Laws of Michigan, declares that the question of fraudulent intent shall be deemed a question of faot and not of law. Section 4717 provides that the statute, declaring every conveyance made with intent to hin- der, delay, or defraud creditors or other persons void, shall not be construed to impair the title of a purchaser for a val- uable consideration, unless it shall appear that he had previous notice of the fraudulent intent of his grantor, etc. The statutes of fraud of Elizabeth have been generally con- strued in substantial harmony with the laat provision, but quite dififerently from the import of the first-mentioned pro- vision, which is not contained in the older statutes of fraud. The federal courts, under the statutes of Elizabeth, hold as a matter of legal presumption that a deed made by a debtor, which, on its face conveys absolutely, but out of which he reserves to himself some interest or benefit, is fraudulent and void; and, as the law makes the presumption, the court must determine, as a matter of legal construction, when the pre- sumption is rebutted. -Hamilton v. Russell, 1 Grandi, 309, 316, �Under the Michigan Statute the question whether a con- veyance ie made with intent to defraud creditors is, in the first instance, a question of fact; and if aprimafacie case, or one which raises a presumption of fraud, is made out, the question whether it is rebutted is also a question of fact. This case presents a question of the validity or invalidity of a deed of conveyance governed and controUed by the laws of the state. In a trial at law, the jury, and not the court, would have to deal with the question of fraud. Sitting in equity, the court performa the duties of court and jury. It cannot be held in this case, as in Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. 78, ��� �
