Cb FEDEJBAL BKFOBTEB �1878 at 16 to 20 cents on a dollar, thereby loslng about $3,000, maklng in all a loss of about $15,000, all subseciuent to the date and record of said con voy- ance." �The answer of Francis H. Jarvis is not so f ull and detailed as that of his wife. It denies all fraudaient purpose and intent in making the deed; denies that he was then insolvent ; and alleges "that he was then worth and possessed of more than $12,000, over and above all liabilities, not including this homestead estate now in question ; that his wife received from her father, from year to year, large sums of money for her own use, which she used for the support of the family, upon the belief that he would see that she was fully protected for the future by a transfer of the premises in question ; and he believes that if all these sums had been put at intereat they would have exceeded the value of the premises." He admits his indebtedness to the two creditors, as set forth in the bill, and that they are still anpaid, but he alleges — �"That as late as 1875 and 1876 lie ofEered to pay each of them all their dues, but that they each informed him they preferred to hold his notes and recoive their interest, which he continued to pay them up to 1876 ; that he always in- tended and believed he was fully and amply able to pay each of said parties the f ull amount due to them on demand until he became unable to do so on account of a loss of all the property owned by this respondent from 1872 to 1877.» �In the argument in defence it is urged "that the husband became indebted to his wife for the sums she from time to time received from her father, and which were applied by her to the support of herself and children, and that this indebtedness eonstituted a good and valu- able consideration for this con voyance to her." No suc h claim ia made by the wife in her answer. She says the deed was made to her "in pursuance of repeated promises of her husband that he would settle the premises upon her for her share of the property, which she had helped to accumulate." This, in other words, is nothing more than an assertion of a gift to her of the promises, or rather an agree- mcnt how he would dispose of his estate ; but it is not an averment that she loaned him the sums of money she received from her father, or that she expended them for the common benefit, under a promise that he would repay her therefor, and that this deed to her was thus made in discharge of such liability to her. Taking the whole answer, all that can be gathered therefrom is that there was an understaud- ing befcween her and her husband that on his death she should have all of his estate for the use of herself and children, and that when ��� �
