#### Michael Gliatto, Appellee, v. William Dobritz et al., on appeal of William Dobritz, Appellant.

Gen. No. 17,907.

(Not to he reported in full.)

Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. Mastín M. Gbidley, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed October 15, 1913.

Statement of the Case.

Bill in equity in nature of creditor’s bill by Michael Gliatto, the judgment creditor of Christian Dobritz, against Christian Dobritz, William Dobritz and Joseph E. Baumruck to set aside a conveyance of certain real estate from Christian Dobritz to William Dobritz as having been made to hinder, delay and defraud appellee in the collection of his judgments. Upon the hearing before the chancellor, a decree was entered setting aside said conveyance as against appellee, subjecting the real estate to the lien of appellee’s judgments, and appointing a receiver to collect the rents of the premises and apply the same in payment of said judgments. William Dobritz alone appeals from this decree.

*438Abstract of the Decision.

1. Fraudulent conveyances, § 65 * —when consideration for conveyance is not material. "Where evidence shows that a conveyance was made for the express purpose and with the fraudulent intent of both grantor and grantee to defeat the collection of judgments against the grantor, it is immaterial whether the grantee paid a valuable and adequate consideration for the property.

2. Fraudulent conveyances, § 155*—what is effect of fraudulent conveyance. A fraudulent conveyance is valid and binding as between the parties, and it is not error to set aside such conveyance as to one judgment creditor alone.

3. Appeal and error, § 366*—what will he considered on appeal. A contention that certain property is exempt from execution, as a homestead, will not be considered when not raised in the court below.

Theo. Proulx, for appellant.

Joseph E. Ryan and Alanson C. Noble, for appellee.

*

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XI s, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Baume

delivered the opinion of the court.