480 ;  Curtis  v.  Fox,  47  N.  T.  299.  This  rule  holds  good  as  to
persons  who  had  dealt  with  the  husband  previously,  and  gave  him-
credit  without  knowledge  of  the  transfer,  where  it  was  clear  there
was  no  fraudulent  intent.  Oarr  v.  Breese,  81  N.  Y.  584.  See
Brockway  v.  Fleming,  22  Week.  Dig.  430,  holding  that  an  existing
indebtedness  alone  does  not  render  a  conveyance  fraudulent  and
void  as  against  creditors  unless  there  is  an  intent  to  defraud,  and
this  is  especially  the  case  where  the  balance  of  the  property  is
sufficient  to  pay  the  debts  of  the  grantor,  on  the  authority  of  Jack-
son V.  Post,  15  Wend.  588  ;  Phillips  v.  Wooster,  36  N".  Y.  412;
Bank  of  U.  S.  v.  Housman,  6  Paige,  526 ;  Dunlap  v.  Hawkins,
69  N.  Y.  342.  A  debtor  conveyed  without  consideration,  certain
real  estate  to  a  third  person,  with  a  view  to  having  the  title  vested
in  his  wife,  to  whom  it  was  conveyed  by  such  third  person  ;  the  prop-
erty remaining  to  the  debtor  was  entirely  insufficient  to  pay  his
debts.  Held,  that  the  evidence  was  sufficient  to  sustain  a  finding
that  the  conveyance  was  made  for  the  purpose  of  hindering,  delay-
ing and  defrauding  creditors.  Cole  v.  Tyler,  65  N.  Y.  73.  A  hus-
band may  convey  directly  to  the  wife  property  which  is  the  result
of  her  earnings  ;  such  deed  will  be  sustained  in  equity.  Mason  y.
