the statute to file the bond has expired, has two remedies open to him. He may proceed upon the equity side of the court to have the trust carried out through the intervention of a receiver and the supervisory powers of a court of chancery, or he may, if no other creditor invokes the aid of chancery, proceed to enforce his claim against the property of his debtor by levy of attachment or execution, as if the attempted assignment had not been made. He is not obliged, because an attempted assignment has been made, but fails utterly for want of the filing of the required bond, to proceed to enforce the trusts of the assignment in a court of equity.” It is said that the language here used was obiter, but nevertheless it states the doctrine which was applied in the case of Kendall v. Bishop, supra. It must be declared as the settled law of this State that an assignment for the benefit of creditors, when fully perfected, cannot be set aside at the suit of an attachment or execution creditor, by proof of unlawful preferences, or of "any fraud in the matter of such assignment." Relief against such a fraud is ample, under sections 6 and 11 of the act, but when given it will be for the benefit of all concerned as creditors. To declare an assignment void on the ground that it gives a preference to A., so that B. may obtain a like preference by attachment, is not what the statute contemplated, if all its provisions be read together. This is not saying that such a construction of the statute is without difficulty. The apparent inconsistencies of the various provisions have been considered in former cases, and the effort has been in each case so to harmonize them as to secure, if possible, the beneficial results intended to be accomplished, viz., an equal distribution of an insolvent estate among creditors. Fuller v. Hasbrouck, 46 Mich. 78; Munson v. Ellis, 58 Id. 331. The judgment must be affirmed, with costs. The other Justices concurred. ADRIAN LAMPER V. JOHN H. ROBERTS. Arrest-Civil warrant-Sufficiency of affidavit. An affidavit for a civil warrant which sets forth that the defendant represented to the plaintiff that he was superintendent for a railroad contractor, and authorized to hire men and teams, and that he would pay $3.50 per day for the services of plaintiff and his team, and furnish transportation to the place where the work was to be done, where he would be furnished accommodations at $1 per day, and that in reliance upon such representations, which were averred to be false, plaintiff agreed to go to work at the price stated, and on arriving at the place designated was informed by a person claiming to be the contractor that defendant had no authority to hire men or teams, and that plaintiff would only be paid $2.25 per day, for which sum he worked for a time and then returned to his home, while not as clearly framed as is desirable, is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. Error to Kalamazoo. (Buck, J.) Argued November 20, 1890. Decided December 5, 1890. Case. Defendant brings error. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Osborn & Mills, for appellant, contended: 1. The warrant was authorized, if at all, under How. Stat. § 6832, subd. 3, but could not issue until such an affidavit as is required by section 6834 had been filed, which was not done; citing In re Teachout, 15 Mich. 346; Proctor v. Prout, 17 Id. 473; People v. McAllister, 19 Id. 217; Brown v. Kelley, 20 Id. 27; In re Stephenson, 32 Id. 60; Hackett v. Circuit Judge, 36 Id. 334; Badger v. Reade, 39 Id. 774; DeLong v. Briggs, 47 Id. 624; Meddaugh v. Williams, 48 Id. 172; Sheridan v. Briggs, 53 Id. 569. L. N. Burke, for plaintiff. GRANT, J. This suit originated in justice's court, where the plaintiff recovered judgment for $22. Defend 83 547 119 500 ant took a special appeal to the circuit court, where the judgment was affirmed, and defendant appeals to this Court. The only question involved is the sufficiency of the affidavit upon which a civil warrant was issued for the arrest of the defendant. The affidavit set forth that Roberts represented himself as the superintendent of one Fitzgerald, who was constructing a railroad in the county of Lake, and that he was authorized to hire men and teams for Fitzgerald; that he would pay $3.50 per day for the services of plaintiff and his team; that good and suitable shelter and accommodations for plaintiff and team at $1 per day would be furnished; that he would furnish transportation for plaintiff and team from Kalamazoo to Baldwin, in Lake county; that, relying on the truth of these representations, plaintiff agreed to go and work for the price and upon the conditions above stated; that, upon arriving at Baldwin, he was informed by the party claiming to be Fitzgerald that Roberts was not authorized to hire men or teams; that his contract could not be recognized, and that he would be paid only $2.25 per day; and that plaintiff worked a while and then returned. Other circumstances of an aggravating character are stated in the affidavit, but it is unnecessary to give them here. It is alleged that the representations made by Roberts were false and fraudulent. While the affidavit is not as well or as clearly framed as is desirable, yet we think it sufficient to give the court jurisdiction. If the allegations were true, a gross fraud has been perpetrated upon the plaintiff, and, according to the affidavit, the defendant was the party responsible for it. Judgment affirmed, with costs. The other Justices concurred. 83 549 113 180 83 549 JUDSON M. PEASLEE V. ISAAC COLLIER AND ANNA A. f147 41 COLLIER. Fraudulent conveyances-Husband and wife-Deed of homestead- This case involves the alleged fraudulent conveyance of a mortgaged homestead, and other land, by a husband to his wife, in consideration of the release of her dower in other real estate owned by him, and which he desired to dispose of, and of $200 claimed to be due her for improvements made upon the homestead; and it is held by a majority of the Court that the proofs fail to establish the fraud charged. Appeal from Kent. (Grove, J.) Argued November 21, 1890. Decided December 5, 1890. Bill in aid of execution. Complainant appeals. Affirmed. The facts are stated in the opinion. Sweet & Perkins, for complainant. Fletcher & Wanty, for defendants. CAHILL, J This is a bill filed in aid of execution. Complainant recovered two judgments against defendant Isaac Collier, which, with the taxed costs, amount to $515.01. Executions issued upon these judgments, and were levied upon lot 14 of Colton's subdivision of block number eight of Holbrook's addition to the city of Grand Rapids. The premises are claimed by the defendants as their homestead, and are subject to a mortgage of $1,250, but complainant alleges in his bill that the premises are worth more than $3,000. On April 8, 1889, defendant Isaac Collier conveyed the premises in question to his wife, Anna A. Collier, and complainant seeks to have this deed set aside as fraudulent. Defendants answered admitting that the premises were a homestead; state that they were mortgaged for $1,250 and interest; claim that they were not worth more than the homestead exemption and mortgage; deny all fraud; and allege a full consideration for the deed from Isaac to Anna A. Collier. The facts gleaned from the record show that the judgments recovered by complainant against defendant Isaac Collier were for groceries furnished to his family. Defendant Isaac Collier had spent most of his time for a year and more in Battle Creek, where he was engaged in the insurance business, but his family occupied the homestead in Grand Rapids. He was possessed of some real estate in Battle Creek, which, during the fall of 1888, he had contracted to exchange for some patent door-bell stock, but his wife was unwilling to sign the deed unless he would deed her the homestead in Grand Rapids. This, it appears, he was willing to do, but no steps were taken to carry out this arrangement until after complainant commenced his suits in justice's court. Complainant recovered judgments before the justice on Monday, April 8, 1889. On Saturday, April 6, defendant Isaac Collier executed to his wife the deed of the homestead, including also certain lands in Iosco county. At the same time, Anna A. Collier, the wife, joined with her husband in deeds of the Battle Creek property, whereby she released her right of dower. These deeds, although drawn up on Saturday, were not executed and delivered until Monday morning, April 8. It is this deed of the homestead so made by Isaac to Anna A. Collier that complainant seeks to have set aside in this suit. He claims that it was made without consideration, and for the purpose of preventing him from collecting his judgments. On the other hand, the defendants claim that such deed was executed in pursuance of the agreement made between |