63. Chandler v. Hollingsworth, 3 Del. Ch. 99; Wallace v. Wallace, 137 lowa. 169, 114 N. W. 913; Leach v. Duvall, 8 Bush (Ky.) 201; Cranston v. Cranston, 4 Mich. 230, 66 Am. Dac. 534; Hach v. Rollins, 158 Mo. 182, 59 S. W. 232; Smith v. Smith, 6 N. J. Eq. 515; Pomeroy v. Pomeroy, 54 How. Pr. (N. Y.) 228; Youngs v. Carter, 10 Hun (N. Y.) 194; Arnegaard v. Arnegaard, 7 N. D. 475, 41 L. R. A. 258. 75 N. W. 797; Ward v. Ward, 63 Ohio St. 125, 51 L. R. A. 858, 81 Am. St. Rep. 621, 57 N. E. 1095; Brooks v. McMeekin, 37 S. C. 285. 15 S. E. 1019; Wilson v. Wilson, 32 Utah, 169, 89 Pac. 643: Gow v. Gow, 60 W. Va. 9, 53 S. E. 769; Jones v. Jones, 64 Wis 30, 25 N. W. 218.

Such a presumption appears to be reinforced by the fact that the particular conveyance is so framed, or the circumstances are such, that the grantor will still enjoy the use of the property for the term of his life. Stroup v. Stroup. 140 Ind. 179, 27 L. R. A. 523, 39 N. E. 864; Collins v. Collins, 98 Md. 473, 103 Am. St. Rep. 408, 57 Atl. 597; Littleton v. Littleton, 18 N. C. 327; Smith v. Smith, 6 N. J. Eq. 515; Brooks v. McMeekin, 37 S. C. 285, 15 S. E. 1019.

64. Jones v. Jones 213 111. 228, 72 N. E. 695; Alkire v. Alkire, 134 Ind. 350, 32 N. E. 571; Beechley v. Beechley, 134 Iowa, 75, 108 N. W. 762; Butler v. Butler, 21 Kan. 521, 30 Am. Rep. 441; Fennessey v. Fennessey, 84 Ky. 519, 2 S. W. 158, 4 Am. St. Rep. 210; Murray v. Murray, 90 Ky. 1, 13 S..W. 244. 8 L. R. A. 95; Aarnegard v. Arne-gard, 7 X. Dak. 475, 75 N. W. 797; See Tate v. Tate, 1 Dev. & B. Eq. ( 21 N. C.) 22.

The right to show that the case falls within this exception to the general rule of the invalidity of a fact that there was a legal or moral obligation upon the man to make such a provision as he made for allot her has also occasionally been regarded as removing the presumption of fraud.65 If, however, the prospective husband had actually made representations to his betrothed as to his ownership of the property, the conveyance thereof can in no case, it seems, be supported as against the wife.66

The fact that the prospective wife was not informed of the conveyance, that it was kept "secret," as it is usually expressed, until after the marriage, is frequently referred to as of primary importance in this connection, as indicating a fraudulent intention in the making of the conveyance,67 and there are occasional decisions to the effect that if she did learn of the conveyance before the marriage, yet nevertheless proceeded therewith, she cannot attack the conveyance on this ground.68 In two cases, however, the fact that she learned of the conveyance before the marriage took place has been held not to preclude her from asserting its invalidity.69 If she not only knows of, secret conveyance in contemplation of marriage, or within the exception involved in the cases cited in the next following note, appears to be what is meant by the occasional statement, as in Daniher v. Daniher, 201 111. 489, 66 N. E. 239, that the making of the conveyance presents merely a prima facie case of fraud, which may be rebutted.

65. Daniher v. Daniher, 201 111. 489, 66 N. E. 239; Champlin v. Champlin, 16 R. I. 314, 15 Atl. 85; Gregory v. Winston, 23 Gratt. (Va.) 102; Jenkins v. Rhodes, 106 Va. 564, 56 S. E. 332; Dudley v. Dudley, 76 Wis. 567, 8 L. R. A. 814; 45 N. W. 602.

66. Dunbar v. Dunbar, 254 111. 281, 98 N. E. 563; Dearmond v. Dearmond, 10 Ind. 191; Bookout v. Bookout, 150 Ind. 63, 49 N. E. 824; Hamilton v. Smith, 57 Iowa, 15, 42 Am. Rep. 39, 10 N. W. 276; Green v. Green, 34 Kan. 740, 10 Pac. 156.

67. Ante this section, note 63.

68. Cheshire v. Payne, 16 B. Mon. (Ky.) 618; Smith v. Erwin, 26 Ky. L. Rep. 760, 82 S. W. 411; McClure v. Miller, 1 Bailey Eq. (S. C.) 107; Fletcher v. Ashley, 6 Gratt. (Va.) 322 per Brooke, J.

69. Cook v. Lee, 72 N. H. 56, 58 Atl. 511; Poston v. Gillespie. 5 Jones Eq. (N. C.) 258.

Sec. 220] but assents to, the conveyance, at the time of its execution, it is no doubt valid as against her.70 That the prospective wife was ignorant of the husband's ownership of the property disposed of by him before the marriage has been regarded as immaterial, her right of redress being based not on the disappointment of an expectation on her part, but rather on her deprivation of a right.71

Estates Arising From Marriage.

If the conveyance by the husband before marriage was on a valuable consideration, it can be avoided as in fraud of the wife only if the grantee participated in the fraudulent intention.72

There is to be found at least one decision to the effect, that a conveyance by an unmarried man may be regarded as invalid as against his subsequent wife even though, at the time of the conveyance, there was no treaty of marriage between them, or any idea of marriage, the theory being that there was an intention to defraud such person as he might thereafter marry.73 The soundness of such a view is decidedly open to question.74

That the conveyance by the husband was fraudulent as to his creditors does not give the widow a right to dower in the land, the conveyance being valid as against the grantor and those claiming under him.75

70. See Clark v. Clark, 183 111. 448, 75 Am. St. Rep. 115, 56 N. E. 82; Murray v. Murray, 90 Ky. 1, 8 L. R. A. 95; 13 S. W. 244.

7J. Chandler v. Hollingsworth, 3 Del. Ch. 99; Beechley v. Beech-ley, 134 Iowa 75, 108 N. W. 762; Hach v. Rollins, 158 Mo. 182, 59 W. 23?

72 Kelley v. McGrath, 70 Ala. 75; Freeman v. Hartman, 45 111. 57. See Brewer v. Connell, 11 Humph. (Tenn.) 52.

A lease for ten years was regarded as in fraud of dower in Wiley v. Wiley, 178 Ky. 501, 199

S. W. 47

73. Higgins v. Higgins, 219 111 146, 109 Am. St. Rep. 316, 76 N. E.

86; approved in Beechley v. Beech-ley, 134 Iowa, 75, 108 N. W. 762.

74. As opposed to such a view, see Nelson v. Brown, 164 Ala. 397, 137 Am. St. Rep. 61, 51 So. 360; Butler v. Kent, 21 Kan. 521, 30 Am. Rep. 441; Bliss v. West, 58 Hun (N. Y.) 71, 11 N. Y. Supp. 374; Tate v. Tate, 1 Dev. & B. 22; Coleman's Estate 193 Pa. 605, 44 Atl. 1085; Strathmore v. Bowers, 2 Brown, C. C. 345, 1 Ves. Jr. 22.