Under Illinois law,[i] t is of no moment that the property remaining in the grantor's hands after the [allegedly fraudulent] conveyance was in nominal value more than equal to the amount of his indebtedness if subsequent events show that the property retained was not sufficient to discharge all his liabilities.

Since it appears that the parties regarded the issues as properly made, the filing of a traverse was waived

The Illinois Supreme Court later clarified that proof of actual insolvency was not required, but rather that the focus was on whether the transfer "directly tended to or did impair the rights of creditors."

"The law looks to the attainment of practical results, and a solvency which it cannot employ in the payment of the debts of an unwilling debtor is certainly not distinguishable by any valuable difference from an insolvency."

Conveyances are voluntary, as to creditors, if supported by no consideration, or according to some authority, by a consideration that is not substantial.

—property concealed in the names of third parties is not readily available for creditor satisfaction and therefore not to be considered in determining amount of property retained by transferor

The policy behind allowing creditors to set aside transfers under a constructive fraud theory is that "property retained by the grantor... must be sufficient in fact and readily available for the satisfaction of creditors."