BADGE OF A term used in the law of conveyances made to hinder and de fraud creditors. It is defined as a fact tend ing to throw suspicion upon a transaction, and calling for an explanation. Bump, Fr. Cony. 31.
When such a fact appears, its effect is to require more persuasive proof of the pay ment of the consideration and the good faith of the parties than would ordinarily be re quired; Terrell v. Green, n Ala. 207. It is not fraud of itself, but evidence to establish a fraudulent intent ; Wilson v. Lott, 5 Fla. 305 ; Pilling v. Otis, 13 Wis. 495.
The following have been held to be badges of fraud: Indebtedness on the part of the grantor ; Callan v. Statham, 23 How. (U. S.) 477, 16 L. Ed. 532 ; Jackson v. Mather, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 301; Cox v. Fraley, 26 Ark. 20; the emyectation of a suit ; Glenn v. Glenn, 17 Ia. 498 ; Hughes v. Roper, 42 Tex. 116; Schaferman v. O'Brien, 28 Md. 565, 92 Ara, Dec. 708 ; Redfield & Rice Mfg. Co. v. Dysart,. 62 Pa. 62; Godfrey v. Germain, 24 Wis. 410; false recitals in the deed; McKinster v. Bab cock, 26 N. Y. 378; inadequacy of considera tion ; Monell v. Scherrick, 54 Ill. 269 ; Burke v. Murphy, 27 Miss. 167 ; Bray v. Hussey, 24 Ind. 228; Jaeger v. Kelley, 52 N. Y. 274; Gibson v. Hill, 23 Tex. 77 ; Craver v. Miller,. 65 Pa. 456 ; Wheeler v. Kirtland, 23 N. J. Eq. 14 ; Kempner v. Churchill, 8 Wall. (U. S.). 362, 19 L. Ed. 461; false statement of the consideration; McKinster v. Babcock, 26 N. Y. 378 ; Peebles v. Horton, 64 N. C. 374; End
ers v. Swayne, 8 Dana (Ky.) 103 ; secrecy; Barrow v. Bailey, 5 Fla. 9 ; Warner v. Nor ton, 20 How. (U. S.) 448, 15 L. Ed. 950; con cealment of the deed, not recording it and leaving it in the hands of the grantor ; Sands. v. Hildreth, 14 Johns. (N. Y.) 493 ; Coates v. Gerlach, 44 Pa. 43 ; Beecher v. Clark, 12 Blatchf. 256, 10 N. B. R. 385, Fed. Cas. No. 1,223 ; Hildeburn v. Brown, 17 B. Man. (Ky.) 779 ; failure to record a mortgage by agreement ; Hutchinson v. 133. In& 271, 30 N. E. 952, 36 Am. St. Rep. 537; Day v. Goodbar, 69 Miss. 687, 12 South. 30; a secret trust between the grantor and gran tee ; 3 Co. 80 ; McCulloch v. Hutchinson, 7 Watts (Pa.) 434, 32 Am. Dec. 776; reten tion of possession of land by the grantor; Jackson v. Mather, 7 Cow. (N. Y.) 301; King v. Moon, 42 Mo. 551; Hartshorn v. Eames, 31 Me. 93 ; Lukins v. Aird, 6 Wall. (U. S.) 78, 18 L. Ed. 750; Purkitt v. Polack, 17 Cal. 327; Johnson v. Lovelace, 51 Ga. 18 ; mere delay to record a deed executed for a good con sideration by an insolvent to his son, where there is no evidence that the son knew of the insolvency, is not a badge of fraud; Sec ond Nat. Bank of Beloit v. Merrill, 81 Wis. 142, 50 N. W. 503, 29 Am. St. Rep. 870; but in general anything in the transaction out of the usual course of such transactions is held to be such ; Danjean v. Blacketer, 13 La. Ann. 595 ; Bump, Fr. Cony. 50.