| 
1. Droit Civil Francais, tom. 5. Des Donations entre vifs, sec 4, and 5 and n. 1.
2. Droit des Gens, liv. 5, ch. 3, s. 10, note 6.
3. 2 Blacks. Com. 442.
4. Antrobus v. Smith, 12 Vesey, 39.
5. Jenk. Cent. p. 109. case 9. Bracton de acquirendo rerum Dominio, lib. 2. p. 15, 16.
6. Flower's case, Noy's Rep. 67. Irons v. Smallpiece, 2 Barnw. & Ald. 551.
7. 1 Maddock's Ch. Rep. 176.
8. Pearson v. Pearson, 7 Johns. Rep. 26.
9. Fink v. Cox, 13 Johns. Rep. 145.
10. Hawkins v. Blewitt, 2 Esp. Rep. 663. Noble v. Smith, 2 Johns.Rep. 52.
11. Hooper v. Goodwin, 1 Swanston, 486.
12. Code, lib. 8, tit. 56. De revocandis Donationibus, l. 10. Ibid. l. 8. Code, lib 3. tit. 29. De insufficiosis Donationibus. Puf. Droit des Gens., Par. Barbeyrac, tome 2, 43, note.
13. L. N.Y. sess. 10. ch. 44.
14. Bayard v. Hoffman, 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 450.
15. This sentiment is strongly inculcated and sententiously expressed by Cicero, (De Off. 1. 14.) Videndum est igitur, ut ea liberalitate utamur, quae proxit amicis, noceat nernini. Nihil est enim liberale, quod non idem justum.
16. 3 Johns. Ch. Rep. 481.
17. Den v. DeHart, 1 Halsted's Rep. 450.
18. Jackson v. Seward, 5 Cowen, 87.
19. Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheaton, 229. Hinde v. Longworth, 11 ibid. 199. Thompson v. Dougherty. 12 Serg. & Rawl. 448. Parker v. Procter, 9 Mass. Rep. 390. Bennet v. Bedford, 11 Ibid. 421. Meserve v. Dyer, 4 Greenleaf, 52.
20. Reade v. Livingston, 3 Johns Ch. Rep. 501, 502. Bennet v. Bedford Bank, 11 Mass. Rep. 421. Damon v. Bryant, 2 Pickering, 411. But according to the case of Meserve v. Dyer, 4 Greenleaf 52, a deed cannot be impeached for fraud, by a person who was not a creditor at the time of the conveyance; and a party whose claim at the time rested in damages for a tort, and which damages had not been ascertained, admitted, and made certain by judgment, was not such a creditor. This case contradicts the conclusion to be drawn from the language of the other cases; (for it was not a direct ground of decision in any of them;) and as far as it denied to the claimant the benefit of his character as a creditor at the time of the conveyance, it is not is harmony with the cases of Fox v. Hills, 1 Conn. Rep. 295. and Jackson v. Myers, 15 Johns. Rep. 425. The reasoning of the court on the principal point, was reserved for another case involving the same question, and which is not yet reported. In this state of the authorities, we must consider the general question involved in them as remaining to be definitively settled in our American jurisprudence.
21. Atherly on Marriage Settlements, 220. 1 Roberts on Fraudulent Conveyances, 421, 422.
22. 4 Johns. Ch. Rep. 450.
23. 5 Johns. Ch. Rep. 280.
24. 20 Johns. Rep. 554.
25. 1 Hopkins, 59.
26. Swinb. 18. Drury v. Smith, 1 P. Wms. 404. Blount v. Burrow, 1 Vesey. jun .546.
27. Dig. 39. 6. s, 3, 4, 5, 6.
28. Inst. 2. 7. l. Code, 8. 58. 4.
29. Dig. 39. 6. 2. and 27. Inst. 2. 7. t. Vide Dig. lib. 39. tit. 5. De Donationibus, and tit. 6. De mortis causa Donationibus, for the Roman law at large on the subject.
30. Prec. in Ch. 300.
31. 1 P. Wms. 404.
32. 3 Atk. 214.
33. 1 P. Wms. 440.
34. 3 P. Wms. 356.
35. Hill v. Chapman, 2 Bro. 612.
36. 2 Vesey, 431.
37. Str. 955.
38. 2 Vesey, jun. 111. 4 Bro. 286.
39. Bunn v. Markham, 7 Taunton, 224.
40. 3 Atk. 214.
41. Wells v. Tucker, 3 Binney, 366.
42. Dig. 39. 6. 17.
43. Voet Com. ad Pand. 39. 5. sect. 20. Pothier, Traite des donat entre vifs, sect. 3. art. I. sect. 2. Toullier's Droit Civil Francais, tom. 6. p. 733.