It is a general rule in the law of England and America that where a person is dealing with his own property, he may act as maliciously as he desires towards his neighbor, this rule being based upon the idea that since a person has an absolute right to deal with his property as he desires the motive with which he acts cannot affect that right.86 A few cases take a somewhat contrary view, but the overwhelming weight of authority is in support of the above stated principles.87

80 8 Cyc, 647; Robertson vs. Parks,

76 Md., 118.

81 Page vs. Parker, 40 N. H., 47.

That one of the defendants is cognizant of the fraud of the others is necessarily implied in an action of this nature.

82 Bradley vs. Fuller, 118 Mass., 236.

83 Page vs. Cushing, 38 Me., 523.

84 Corn vs. Sheriff, 8 Phila. (Pa.),

645. 85 Dorems vs. Hennessy, 176 III., 608.

86 A contrary view is held in practically all other countries, es-Eecially those whose law is based upon the Roman or Civil law.

87 Walker vs. Cronin, 107 Mass., 555; Wheatley vs. Baugh, 25 Pa. St., 528; Hare wood vs. Benton, 32 Vt., 737. This subject is very thoroughly discussed in an article by Robert L. Williams, in the Central Law Journal, Vol. 67, pp. 23-24 (July 10, 1908).