The deed from Webber to the defendant was good between the parties, and against the administratrix of Web-ber. So she was not liable to creditors in regard to property conveyed by the deed, and ex necessitate, a creditor had a right to 'sue the donee and charge him as executor de son tort-.

The fact that the defendant delivered the property to his daughter, and that she subsequently was appointed the administratrix of her husband, the fraudulent donor, has no more effect upon the *401 rights of creditors, than if he had delivered the property to any other third person ; because the daughter was not chargeable with the value of the property as assets, by reason of the deed executed by her intestate. It may be that the receipt of the property from her father made her also liable to the action of the creditor, but there is no ground upon which it could defeat aright of action against the father, which had previously accrued.

Per Curiam. Judgment affirmed.