receive the purchase money, without any further responsibility on the part of the purchasers as to its application." Story, Eq. JUT. 1135. See, also, Elliott v. Merryman, Lead. Cas. Eq. (Amer. Notes,) p. 73.
From these authorities the conclusion is obvious that, in the absence of allegation or evidence of collusion or fraud between the respondent Jewell and his co-respondents, the purchasers of the lands, the latter were under no legal obligation to look to the proper application of the purchase money. The prayers of the bill are, for the reasons given, denied, with costs.
KERWIN and others
HIBERNIA. INs. Co.1
(Qircuit Court,E. D. Louisiana. December 9,1885.)
Equity courts have· jurisdiction in cases of avoidance of contracts on the ground of inability to contract on account of insanity, and where complainant was not interdicted, or on the ground of fraud.
Equity courts have jurisdiction of a cause seeking to set aSIde or conveyances of real estate, brought by forced heirs to recover their legitzme, in which the real estate is alleged to have been wrongfully placed in the name of the wife of their ancestor, and wrongfully declared to have been acquired by her separate and paraphernal funds, and where an account must ,be taken to ascertain the estate.
In Equity. On demurrer. B. R. Forman and E. D. Saunder8, for complainants. Thoma8 Gilmore, John A. Gilmore, and Joseph O. Gilmore, for defendant. PARDEE, J. The case for Mrs. Honora Mansfield is one to set aside and annul a mortgage granted by herself when insane and nna ble to contract. If she has any remedy at all it is in equity, as she was not interdicted. She demands relief also on the ground of fraud, which is a favorite ground for jurisdiction in equity. The demand of the other complainants is not only to set aside the mortgage given by Mrs. Mansfield, but to recover for themselves, as forced heirs of Michael Kerwin, the legitime or forced portion of said Michael Kerwin's estate, which estate is alleged to consist of real estate, and to have been wrongfully placed in the name of the wife, and wrongfuUy declared to have been acquired by the separate and paraphernal property of the wife, when, in fact, it was acquired by the joint earnings of the spouses, and belonged to the community of acquests and gains. The bill goes to show a case where Kerwin, by joining in the act conveying the property to his wife, estopped himself from claiming the property, and, as he would be estopped, his heirs also are estopped,
lReported by Joseph P. Hornor, Esq,. of the New Orleans bar.
CENTRAL TRUST CO. W. WAnASll, ST. L.
P. RY. 00.
except for what claims they may have as forced heirs for their legitime. The extent of these claims for the leg,itime must depend on an account to be had of the estate of Kerwin, and such account can only . . be had on the equity side of this court. If Kerwin joined in the act or sale to his wife, in which act was a declaration that the purchase price was paid from the separate paraphernal property of the wife, when in truth the price was paid from community funds, he was thereby estopped from claiming the property, either for himself or the community; and the result was the same to his creditors and forced heirs as if he had fraudulently alienated the property, and the remedies of the creditors and forced heirs would be the same. The bill does not specifically state that Kerwin joined in the act of sale by which the proper title of the property in question passed to Mrs. Kerwin, though the fact appears inferentially from the bill, and is conceded in argument. Such statement should be put in the bill, and then, I think, there can be no doubt that as to the demands of all the complainants the remedy is only in equity... As the demurrer is a general one, and to the whole bill, it should be overruled, and such order will be entered; and, in order to perfect the bill as to all the complainants, an amendment as herein indicated will be allowed.
CENTRAL TRUST Co. and another 'V. WABASH, ST. L. & P. Ry. Co. and others. (UNITED STATES TRUST Co. and others, Intervenors.)!
(Circuit Oowrt, E. D. Mi8aou'l'i. December 9, 1885.)
MORTGAGES, GENERAL AND OF PROPERTY.
A.pplication by trustees in an underlying mortgage to have property covered by their mortgage turned over to receivers appointed in suit to foreclose said mortgage, denied for the present, in view of negotiations for sale of entire system under the general mortgage thereon.
In Equity. The intervenors' petition states that, pursuant to leave granted by this court, the intervenors have instituted proceedings in the circuit court of Gentry county, Missouri, and of Pottawattamie county, Iowa, to foreclose a mortgage executed to them by the St. Louis, ·Kansas City & Nebraska Railway Company, known as the "Omaha Division First Mortgage;" that the past.due interest on bonds secured by said mortgage amounts to $82,250; that the appointment of receivers in said foreclosure proceedings has been applied for; and that the petitioners, and the bondholders whom they represent, desire that all
by Benj. F. Re:l:, Esq., oft,he St. I.ouis bar.