were pressing for their money, which was due, and $20,000 additional would soon be due; that this taking of title in Mrs. M. P. Sarratt's name was a naked effort to circumvent and defraud the De Loaches; that both Sarratt and his wife consciously lent themselves to the perpetration of this fraud upon the De Loaches; that it was a pretense and a sham, this claiming by A. A. Sarratt that the cash portion paid the master on the Woolbright purchases was from the money he held belonging to his wife. Now, if the conclusion of the circuit judge that the Chullahoma tract of land was owned by A. A. Sarratt, and not by his wife, Mrs. M. P. Sarratt, was correct, then the 98 acres sold to S. A. Walker for $2,000 was the property of A. A. Sarratt, and not that of his wife. Hence, under that supposition, the $2,000 was A. A. Sarratt's; and for him to put it in the purchase of the Woolbright tract of land in part, and have the titles put in his wife, while he owed large sums of money, would have been either an actual or moral fraud on the one side, or a constructive or legal fraud on the other side, depending upon the intention of the parties thereto. But we have just held that the 98 acres sold to S. A. Walker off of the Chullahoma tract of land was the property, at the time of such sale, of Mrs. M. P. Sarratt. Therefore, when A. A. Sarratt received the $2,000 as purchase money, he held the same for his wife, there being no proof of a gift to him of that money by his wife; and it made no difference where he placed it, whether as a deposit in a bank, or as a loan to other parties, or in the purchase of property; as between himself and his wife, it was her money. Therefore, if he paid a part of that money, with the consent of his wife, in the partial payment of his wife's purchase of the Woolbright tract of land, it was a legitimate transaction. We cannot perceive upon what ground the circuit judge places his conclusion that Mrs. M. P. Sarratt either knew of her husband's insolvency, or that she lent herself to the scheme to practice a fraud upon the De Loaches. Certainly there is not a word of the testimony in the whole case which indicates that Mrs. Sarratt knew one thing of Mr. A. A. Sarratt's condition financially. On the contrary, it was charged in the complaint that she knew of Sarratt's insolvency at that time, and also that she lent herself to the perpetration of this fraud upon the De Loaches; but her sworn answer is direct, positive, and emphatic in its denial of such charges in the complaint. So, to begin with, we have this positive denial in the sworn answer. Then A. A. Sarratt 80 swears in his answer. Also A. A. Sarratt so testifies. Where is there any one who rises up to deny these sworn denials of these charges? A court must be governed by the testimony. Granted that a chancellor may, as a jury sometimes does, refuse to believe a witness. Where is there any attack anywhere upon the purity of soul of this wife and mother, Mrs. M. P. Sarratt? And every witness

who is sworn testifies to the high character for honesty and truth which is borne by A. A. Sarratt. It would be a bold conclusion to say that either Mr. or Mrs. Sarratt could not be believed, and, as we understand it, the circuit judge bases his findings and conclusions upon the fact, as he found it, that A. A. Sarratt was the owner of the $2,000 received by him from S. A. Walker for the 98 acres of land. We hold, therefore, that the plaintiff has no claim upon this Woolbright tract of land. Besides, we are not so sure but that, as to this tract of land,-the Woolbright tract,-the defendants' plea of the statute of limitations, in that six years have elapsed from the filing of the complaint on the 26th day of March, 1896, to the date when the deed to this tract of land from the master was recorded, to wit, December, 1889, should have been sustained. The charge of the complaint is an actual, moral fraud. There is no charge in the complaint that the same has been first discovered by the plaintiff within the six years, etc. This is not the case of a legal or constructive fraud. The decisions in Suber v. Chandler, 18 S. C. 526, Miller v. Hughes, 33 S. C. 538, 12 S. E. 419, and Meinhard v. Youngblood, 37 S. C. 238, 15 S. E. 950, and 16 S. E. 771, go very far to support the doctrine that, in the absence of a denial of knowledge until within six years before suit commenced, a complaint to set aside actual, moral fraud must be begun within six years of the commission of the alleged fraud to avoid the statute of limitations.

(c) As to 185.7 acres purchased by Mrs. M. P. Sarratt when A. A. Sarratt's 1,200 acres of land, bought by him of the De Loaches, were sold by the master under the decree in foreclosure against A. A. Sarratt on the 4th January, 1892, the circuit judge admits that at first he was doubtful whether, under the facts in the case between the De Loaches and A. A. Sarratt, the master had made his report in writing of the sale of 185.7 acres to Mrs. M. P. Sarratt at the price of $2,050. Therefore, when, thereafter, on motion of the attorneys for the De Loaches, this sale, so reported by the master, was confirmed, this would not estop the present plaintiff, Mrs. Elizabeth De Loach, from showing that such sale was really made to A. A. Sarratt, and not to Mrs. M. P. Sarratt, and that the money paid, as being derived from a loan for that purpose to Mrs. Sarratt by one Daggett, was really the money of A. A. Sarratt. The circuit judge finally held the plaintiff was not so estopped, and we agree with him in that conclusion. This is an allegation of actual fraud, and the law and equity allow muchvery much-to be done in order to uncover that business "cancer," if the word will be pardoned. When this investigation is gone into, what do we find? That A. A. Sarratt stood at the sale of these 1,200 acres of land, and bid upon each of the six tracts into which the 1,200 acres had been divided; the De Loaches bidding against him. They bid

off five of the six tracts, and Sarratt bid off this one. He consulted his attorney, Maj. William Munro, telling his attorney that he knew this 185.7 acres to be fully worth the $2,050 he had bid it off for, and that, if he could borrow the money, he would like to own it. His attorney told him that it would be useless for him to borrow money to pay for this land, for, as soon as he paid for it, the De Loaches would sell it under their judgment for the deficiency of their debt. He then consulted his wife, Mrs. M. P. Sarratt, and she agreed to receive a surrender of his bid, and take the title, borrowing the money from one Daggett to make the cash payment. There is no testimony that Mr. Daggett did not lend her this money. In fact, there is not a scintilla of testimony in contradiction of the sworn answer of Mrs. M. P. Sarratt and to that of her husband or of his testimony on this point. Legally she was competent to buy this land. By the constitution she was made fully competent to do so. The De Loaches have been paid for this land in full once. They should not be allowed to be twice paid unless A. A. Sarratt is by this means hiding his property from the judgment they hold against him. We see no evidence of any such fraud. (d) We will next inquire into the King tract of land, containing 365 acres, and the Thompson Mill place, containing from 90 to 98 acres. It will be recalled that this King tract was purchased by A. A. Sarratt in 1879 or 1880; that he bargained it and conveyed it to John B. Foster in 1883, but that Foster, not being able to pay for it, reconveyed it to A. A. Sarratt in the year 1885 or 1886; also that A. A. Sarratt held a mortgage on one moiety of the Thompson Mill tract, executed by John R. Jefferies, and also held a mortgage on the other moiety of said Thompson Mill tract, which was executed by one Kendrick. Both mortgages had the condition broken, were foreclosed, and at the foreclosure sale A. A. Sarratt became the purchaser in 1889. Now, in April, 1890, A. A. Sarratt, being already indebted to one J. J. Magness in the sum of $1,000, induced said Magness to increase his debt to $1,500, and also become his indorser for $3,000 to one A. N. Wood by giving to said Magness a mortgage on the King tract of land and the Thompson Mill tract to secure the $1,500, and also to secure him as his surety on the $3,000 loaned to A. A. Sarratt by A. N. Wood. Both these debts matured in 1891 (12 months from April, 1890) and the mortgage was recorded. Default was made on the $3,000 debt, but the $1,500 was paid before maturity. In the fall of the year 1891, A. N. Wood foreclosed his mortgage, which was a Scottish mortgage; that is, a mortgage with a power of attorney to the mortgagee to sell upon default. At such sale Mrs. Mary P. Sarratt became the purchaser of both tracts of land at the price of $3,000, having borrowed the $3,000 from her brother, William F. Walker (who,

It seems from the testimony, was a man of means), and gave him a mortgage on her lands to secure such loan. The circuit judge lays stress upon the fact that J. J. Magness was a brother-in-law of A. A. Sarratt. What is more natural than for a kinsman to help 8 man when he needs help? Frequently such a source is all that a man in trouble has. A. A. Sarratt was fortunate in having such a well to do kinsman, as Mrs. M. P. Sarratt was in having an unmarried brother, who, well off in this world's goods, was willing to lend her money. It is very evident though, that neither kinsman went very far with either Mr. or Mrs. Sarratt without the security of a mortgage. We cannot view these matters as did the circuit judge.

(e) We will next consider the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the circuit judge as to the 1,307 acres of land said to have been conveyed by A. A. Sarratt to his wife, as follows: 665 acres in the year 1889, and 642 acres in the year 1891; such deeds being unrecorded. The language of the decree is as follows: "As to the two unrecorded deeds executed by A. A. Sarratt to his wife some time in the years 1889 and 1891, respectively. notice was duly served upon him to produce them. As executor of his wife, he is the custodian of said papers, but failed to produce them. The entries made in the tax duplicates for Union county, by authority from statements in the return made by Sarratt, show that such conveyances were made." (Italics ours.) These conveyances, which were voluntary, and entirely without consideration. made at a time when Mr. Sarratt was overwhelmingly in debt, and hopelessly insolvent, were certainly, as soon as J. E. and Elizabeth De Loach had exhausted their legal remedy by the return of nulla bona to their executions, absolutely void and fraudulent as to them, both at common law and under the statute of Elizabeth, and must be vacated and set aside. Suber v. Chandler, 18 S. C. 526. But, if the deeds had been executed upon the consideration of a bona fide indebtedness from Mr. Sarratt to his wife, that could not have given validity to the deeds in view of the established fact that the purpose of the deeds was to shield the property of A. A. Sarratt from his creditors, and thereby defeat their just demands. Younger v. Massey, 39 S. C. 120, 17 S. E. 711; Lowry v. Pinson, 2 Bailey, 328. We have given the pleadings, testimony, decree, and arguments in this cause the very closest scrutiny in order that we might correctly apprehend the issues herein involved and the testimony adduced to elucidate such issues; but we must say, in rising from their study, we are unable to understand upon what grounds such a conclusion of the circuit judge is based, for it is our duty to remark that there is nothing in the testimony of a single witness as to these two supposed tracts of land, one alleged to have been conveyed in the year 1889. and the other in the year 1891. No witness has ever seen such tracts of land. No trace

has ever been given whereby it might be inferred that A. A. Sarrett had ever bought or inherited such tracts of land. No one has ever seen or heard of a deed to said lands from A. A. Sarratt to Mrs. M. P. Sarratt. The only ground upon which the circuit judge can justify his inference that two such deeds -one for 665 acres, in 1889, and one for 642 acres, in 1891-were ever made is that the auditor of Union county, in making up his tax duplicate for the years 1889 and 1891, refers to such an acreage in land as coming from A. A. Sarratt to Mrs. M. P. Sarratt, and the circuit judge infers that such language must be used in the original returns made by A. A. Sarratt for those years 1889 and 1891, respectively. We have hereinbefore held that the circuit judge was in error in resorting to such secondary evidence as to the contents of the returns for taxation made by A. A. Sarratt in view of the fact that due diligence had not been made in securing such original returns, for it was in testimony by the auditor himself that he had been too busy with his official duties to give more than three or four hours' search among the returns which were in his possession, but were lying in mingled confusion on the floor of one of the rooms of his office as auditor. How the circuit judge was able to announce that such deeds were voluntary and without consideration, when he never saw the deeds themselves, or heard any testimony as to their contents, we are unable to see.

Lastly, we will consider the exceptions relating to the findings of fact and conclusions of law by the circuit judge touching the personal property mortgaged to Carroll & Carpenter in 1891 to secure advances not to exceed the sum of $2,500 to enable A. A. Sarratt to conduct his planting operations. The mortgagees, in their testimony, plainly announced that they knew of the De Loach and wife's action against Sarratt. They saw that he was in trouble, and therefore they were unwilling to make him any advances in provisions and supplies unless he secured them by a mortgage on his personal property. Was this not a businesslike conclusion? It seems so to us. It was no part of the duty of this firm to advance supplies to Sarratt to enable him to make money for the De Loaches, or any one else. They had a right to demand a mortgage of this personal property as a condition precedent to the making of such advances. Their mortgage was duly recorded. When Mr. Sarratt failed to pay his debt to them, they had the right, in the first place, to take the property, as it was personal, for the title was in them after condition broken. But they acted very fairly. They advertised the sale of the property. Many people gathered to the sale, but no one would bid. Whose fault was this? Certainly not that of Carroll & Carpenter or Sarratt, so far as the testimony discloses the conduct of these parties. The result was that, there being no bidders, Carroll & Carpenter, as mortgagees,

1. A debt owing by a husband is sufficient consideration to support a conveyance by the wife.

2. There is no laches in failing to collect a debt not barred.

3. Eleven thousand dollars of debts by a woman in ordinary circumstances at the time of making voluntary conveyances cannot be regarded as so inconsiderable as not to defeat the conveyances.

4. Where a conveyance purports to be for valuable consideration, the burden to disprove it is on one attempting to set the conveyance aside.

5. A complaint to set aside a conveyance alleged want of consideration on information and belief only, which was distinctly denied by the answers of the grantor and the grantee, and the conveyance purported to be for valuable considerations. The grantee testified that his wife loaned the grantor, her mother, certain insurance money, amounting to more than the property conveyed, which the latter promised to repay, and at the time of the conveyance told witness it was to repay the loan made by his wife. Held, that the showing was insufficient to defeat the conveyance.

6. Creditors of the grantor could not complain that the conveyance was made to the husband individually, and not as administrator of the wife's estate; she being then deceased. 7. Knowledge of an attorney is not binding on his client where it was acquired while acting as attorney for others.

8. The rule requiring mortgaged land to be sold to pay prior liens in the inverse order of its alienation does not apply to voluntary conveyances.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Charleston county; James Aldrich, Judge.

Bill by Ella G. Steinmeyer and others against Eliza R. Steinmeyer and others. There was a decree for plaintiffs, and they and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

The following is the decree of the court below:

"Plaintiffs instituted their action on February 4, 1897, against the defendants, to set aside certain alleged voluntary conveyances, and to subject the property so conveyed to the satisfaction of a judgment in favor of plaintiffs and against Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer, defendant. The action comes before this court upon the report of G. H. Sass, master, and numerous exceptions thereto taken by nearly all of the parties. Plaintiffs recov

ered a judgment in this court against Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer on November 23, 1896, in the sum of $3,268.28. On January 31, 1897, $40 was paid on the judgment. Execution was duly issued, and the same returned nulla bona on January 27, 1897. The conveyances, mortgages, assignments, and transfers sought to be set aside are: (1) An assignment by Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer to Wallace M. Plowden, dated May 19, 1898, of a bond and mortgage; (2) a conveyance from Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer to A. Matilda Steinmeyer, dated October 27, 1893, of realty; (3) a mortgage from A. Matilda Steinmeyer to George R. Whitridge, dated June 25, 1894, of the realty referred to in No. 2; (4) a conveyance from Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer to Carrie A. E. Steinmeyer, dated May 8, 1894, of realty; (5) a mortgage of said realty from Carrie A. E. Steinmeyer to Thomas Della Torre, dated November 10, 1896.

"I will group the exceptions, and take them up by reference merely. The first series charge that the master erred in not holding that the cause or causes of action upon which the judgment of plaintiffs rest was a mere gratuity, and could not be enforced as against other and later gratuities of Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer.

"George E. Steinmeyer died testate about 1872. The plaintiffs are the widow and child of testator, and the devisees of his will. John H. Steinmeyer, Sr., the father of testator, and the brother of testator, John H. Steinmeyer, Jr., were the executors of this will. At first John H. Steinmeyer was the managing executor, but John H. Steinmeyer, as we shall see, in due time took an active part in the management of the estate. As such executors they collected and held $10,000 on an insurance policy on the life of testator, and other assets of the estate. John H. Steinmeyer, Sr., executor, wasted the assets of the estate, and was short in his accounts to the extent of $4,828.25. John H. Steinmeyer, Jr., discovered this shortage of the assets caused by his father, and called the matter at once to his attention. Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer, the wife of John H. Steinmeyer, Sr., joined her husband in a bond for said shortage on August 1, 1881, payable to John H. Steinmeyer, Jr., as executor of the estate of George E. Steinmeyer. This bond is payable one year after date. On April 22, 1890, Mrs. Eliza R. Stein. meyer secured the payment of this bond by her mortgage on certain realty on the west and south side of Beaufain street, in Charleston, and described in the complaint. By indorsement on said mortgage, under seal, dated 9th of February, 1893, Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer declared and acknowledged that there was then due on said bond $4,828.25, with interest from 1st January, 1892, at per cent. per annum, and that there is no discount or set-off against the same, or any part thereof. On April 29, 1873, John H. Steinmeyer, Sr., as an individual, and in his own right, executed and delivered his bond, conditioned for the pay

ment of $4,973.33, and a mortgage of realty to secure the payment of the same, to the executors of N. Nathans. This bond was for the credit portion of the purchase money of realty in Charleston purchased by John H. Steinmeyer, Sr., from the executors of N. Nathans. The mortgage covered the premises so purchased. John H. Steinmeyer, as executor of George E. Steinmeyer, and with the money of that estate, purchased his aforesaid bond from the executors of Nathans. For said bond be paid in cash, from the assets of his son's estate, $5,336.44, the full amount then due on said bond. The executors of Nathans assigned this bond in blank to the executors of the estate of George E. Steinmeyer. This was on April 21, 1874. On the same day (April 21, 1874) the executors of N. Nathans, by indorsement on said mortgage, acknowledged payment in full of the 'within mortgage debt,' and declared the same fully satisfied and discharged.' The satisfaction, duly executed, was not recorded until April 9, 1878. When John H. Steinmeyer, Jr., executor, discovered the facts just stated, he called upon his father for security. Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer again came to the relief of her husband, and, in the place of the Nathans bond, she executed and delivered her own bond for $5,336.44 to the executors of the estate of George E. Steinmeyer. This bond is dated September 3, 1881; and, to secure it, Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer on the same day executed her mortgage to said executors, conveying the property which she subsequently, in April 1890, mortgaged to secure her bond of August, 1881, herein before referred to. John H. Steinmeyer, Sr., died in 1883. On June 17, 1893, the State Trust Company of New York began an action in the United States circuit court for the district of South Carolina against the National Land Improvement & Manufacturing Company, John H. Steinmeyer, Jr., as executor of estate of George E. Steinmeyer, and others, for foreclosure, injunction, and a receiver. Complainants held a junior mortgage on the property covered by the aforesaid two mortgages, the property of the estate of George E. Steinmeyer; and John H. Steinmeyer, as executor of that estate, was made a party, as representing these mortgages. This suit culminated in a decree under which the mortgaged premises were sold at public auction on April 24, 1894, to Hugh Ferguson for $12,000. He declined to comply with his bid, because of alleged defects in the title to the property sold. The matter was referred to a special master, and he made a report thereon. This report was never acted upon by the court. The court did make a consent decree or order, to which Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer, though not a party to the action, attached her consent for a resale of the property upon certain terms. It was duly advertised and sold. A portion of the mortgaged premises consisted of 'water lots.' Ferguson's objection to the title was that there could be no individual property in such lots. Under the consent order and ad

vertisement, only the right, title and interest of the parties to the action were sold. At the resale on June 11, 1896, plaintiffs bid in the property for $10,000, which amount, with other small payments, was credited on the debt due by Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer to the estate of George E. Steinmeyer, and left a deficiency due thereon. Both of the aforesaid bonds and mortgages were assigned by the surviving executor of George E. Steinmeyer on April 23, 1894, to plaintiffs, as a part of their interest in the estate. This assignment was made pending the suit in the United States court. On November 23, 1896, plaintiffs recovered judgment in this court against Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer for $3,268.28, as before stated. The deficiency due upon the bonds as aforesaid was the cause of action.

"Defendants contend that the bonds and mortgages aforesaid, given to make good her husband's devastation, were without consideration,-mere gratuities,-and that this court should not set aside a later gratuity in favor of the judgment, based upon the carlier gratuities, especially in the absence of fraudulent intent. The plaintiffs are not the donees of Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer. She has given them nothing. The bonds and mortgages in question were not given to the estate of George E. Steinmeyer as gratuities. On the contrary, they were given as the evidences of debts due that estate, and to secure the payment thereof. It was wrong in John H. Steinmeyer to use the money of the estate, and in doing so he made himself debtor thereto. His son and co-executor knew this; hence, his demand that his father should make the shortage good. It was for the relief and good of her husband that Mrs. Steinmeyer secured the shortage by the giving of her bond and mortgage. This bond and mortgage was accepted by executors, not as a gratuity to the estate, but as evidence of a debt thereto. The money of the estate was gone,-used by John H. Steinmeyer, Sr. He owed it to the estate, and Mrs. Steinmeyer, under her hand and seal, bound herself and property therefor. If plaintiffs get all of their money, they will get it as devisees of George E. Steinmeyer, and not as a bounty from Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer. When John H. Steinmeyer, Sr., bought, as executor, his bond from the executors of Nathans, and caused them to satisfy the mortgage given by him to secure it, he did what was not lawful. He might just as well have taken that much cash from the estate in his custody, and given his unsecured personal bond to the executors. In this, as in the former instance, the action of his wife was for his relief,-to secure his debt to the estate,and was in no sense a gratuity to the estate. She received consideration for her bonds and mortgages, too, because, by her acts, her husband was not pressed, the estate gave up the Nathans bond, and Mrs. Steinmeyer, if she did not get that bond, enabled her husband to get it, and she was allowed time in which to pay her bond and mortgage. Mrs. Steinmey33 S.E.-2

er's liability is, to say the least, that of a surety; and if her conduct was that of a donor, in any possible sense of the word, her bounty was extended to her husband, not to these plaintiffs. This construction is untenable, and these exceptions are overruled.

"Some objection was raised to the admission of testimony by the master, not to impeach, but to show the real consideration of, the judgment. The correctness of his ruling (and I think that it was correct) is now of no consequence, as the admission has not injured the parties objecting thereto.

"I will next consider the assignment of the bond and mortgage by Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer to Wallace M. Plowden. In 1883 Wallace M. Plowden and his wife, a daughter of Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer, bought, in their joint names, a plantation in Clarendon county from James McDowell. They gave their joint and several bond for the credit portion of the purchase money, dated January 5, 1883, conditioned to pay $3,270 and interest; and on the same day, and to secure said bond, they executed a mortgage upon the premises. Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer in May, 1883, went to live with Wallace M. Plowden and his wife. in their home in Clarendon, and remained there until June, 1891. Mrs. Plowden died in April, some two months before her mother left Mr. Plowden's home. Mrs. Steinmeyer remained with the Plowdens for eight years, and was kindly and considerately cared for by them. She had her maid there all these years. She also carried her sick son there, and he, after six months' sickness, died there. She also took an old and decrepit family servant to the Plowdens, who occupied a room in their house, and she lived there for four years. The Plowdens cared for all. While there, Mrs. Steinmeyer caused large quantities of groceries and some dry goods to be sent to the Plowdens home, and they were used by the family. Mrs. Steinmeyer went to the Plowdens upon the joint invitation of her daughter and her husband. She went as an invited member of the family, and nothing was said about board. She paid none, and none was asked. The groceries and dry goods were not purchased for the Plowdens and delivered as in satisfaction of board for her and hers, but seem to have been furnished by her as a member of the family. I wish to say just here that Mr. and Mrs Plowden, who were poor, did all that a devoted daughter and son could do for an old mother in need of their care and sympathy. Mrs. Steinmeyer considered herself in good financial circumstances, and, being a woman of generous impulses, it was only natural that she should make presents to her daughter and her family. On January 14, 1885, and while she was living with the Plowdens, the aforesaid bond and mortgage of the Plowdens was 'for value,' assigned by James McDowell to Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer. On May 19, 1891, Mrs. Eliza R. Steinmeyer, 'for divers good and valuable considerations, the receipt of which I