1787-11-20 (static/transcriptions/1787/11/393.jpg)

in Demattos’s Case,) it is void. Suppose it was, to pay all his Creditors rateably.” If there were no Assent of his Creditors, or Composition, it would be void.
If this is a fraudulent act, it is void.
Mr. Davies also relied much on Twyne’s Case (Pasch: 24 Eliz:) 3 Rep: 81, which as he observed had nothing to do with Bankr: Laws, and was determined when those laws were yet in their infancy, and before the Courts of Law had been much employed about them. The second reason, and of the strongest, given in that case for determining a conveyance of all the debtor’s goods to a creditor to be fraudulent within the stat: 13 Eliz, was that – “The Donor continued in possession, and used the Goods as his own; and by reason thereof he traded and trafficked with others, and defrauded and deceived them.
Plf Nonsuited