NEAL fl. FOSTER.
29
shown but what this conversion took place before the maturity of the debt due complainant. The strong probabilities are that Creighton embezzled the money as soon as it came into his possession. Under such circumstances, upon what ground can it be fairly claimed that, when the embezzlement took place, the money had become thltt of complainant? In the absence of evidence showing that the money received from Gifford had been appropriated in Creighton's hands to the payment of complainant's claim, it must be held that the plea of payment has not been made out, and that complainant is entitled to a decree against the defendant Blizzard for the sum due, and for the foreclosure of the mortgage. Warren Gifford, the holder of the second mortgage, is also made a party defendant to the bill, and answers the same, setting up the execution of the mortgage to himself as security for the money by him advanced, and averring the delivery of the money to Creighton as a payment of the mortgage to complainant. There is nothing in the evidence whi6h places Gifford in any other position than that occupied by Blizzard. It is not claimed that complainant has 'by act or word estopped himself from showing the exact facts of the case, and the defense relied on by Gifford is the same as that pleaded by Blizzard, to-wit, payment of the debt due complainant. The evidence failing to support this defense, the complainant is entitled to a decree of foreclosure, as prayed for, against all the defendants. .
NEAl,
v.
FOSTER
et al.
(Oircuit Oourt, D. Oregon. August 20, 1888.)
1.
JUDGMENT-RES ADJUDICATA.
B.
The determination of a point or question in any legal proceeding binds the parties thereto and their privies in any subsequent litigation that may arise between them, although the cause of action in the two proceedings is not otherwise identical. The acts and declarations of a: vendor in possession after the sale are competent evidence against the vendee on the question of the character and purpose of such sale.
EVIDENCE-DECLARATIONS-VENDOR AND VENDEE.
8.
TAXATION-'-TAXABLE PROPERTy-TAXABLE CREDITS.
A person cannot lawfully nor truthfully omit a note from his statement of his taxable credits on the ground that there is an understanding between him and the maker thereof that he will not deduct the amount of the same from the value of his property listed for taxation. The motive with which a person purchases property or a claim has nothing to do with his right to maintain an action thereon or thereabout in the national courts; and so it does not affect the jurisdiction of said courts if the purchase is made with the expressed intention of suing therein. A conveyance of real, property, though void as to creditors asserting their right against it, passes all the estate of the grantor in the premises t6 the grantee; and therefore the lien of a subsequent judgment against the grantor, which only attaches to property then belonging to him, does not affect the property so conveyed; and the creditor first seeking to set aside such conveyanca obtains a prior right to satisfaction thereout, from the commencw:nent of his suit for that purpose.
4.
COURTS-FEDERAL COURTS-JURISDICTION-}10'l"IVE OF SUITOR.
I.
JUDGMENT-'-LIEN-FRAUDULEN'l" CONVEYANCE-RIGHTS OF CREDITORS.
FEDERAu nEPORTER.
'1';
6. FRAunULENTCONVEYANOES-WIilAT CONSTiTUTES-CONSIDERATION. The grantee i,n a conveyance of real property by an insolvent debtor hav· ing paid at least three·fourths ,of its cash value therefor, b.y the redemption of dertain wheat-warehouse receipts of the grantor, concernmgwhich he was then liable toa criminal prosecutlOn,and the discharge of certain obligations on which he was held, that the cirGumstances do not warrant the conclusion that the conveyance was made or taken with intent to hinder, delay, 1 . or defraud creditors. BA)!E.
(Syllaou8 oy the OQurt.)
Suit to Enforce Judgments., a. E.' S. Wood and George H. Williams, for plaintiff. Earl a. Bronaugh and L. Flinn, for defendants Crawfords and Pearce. J. K. Weatherford and Charles E. Wolverton, for defendants Goltra, Walden, Liles" Q.nd Baltimore. . DEADY, J. This suit is brought by the plaintiff, a citizen of Illinois, against James A. Foster, John A. Crawford, William Crawford, and Ashby Pearce, citizens of Oregon. The plaintiff sues as the assignee and owner of two certain judgments against the defendant Foster, and to set aside, as fraudulent, three certain conveyances executed by Foster to John A. Crawford, William Crawford, and Ashby Pearce, respectively. William H. Goltra, E. Walden, John R. Baltimore, and J. S. Liles, citizens of Oregon, and judgment creditors of Foster, are also made parties defendant. ,It is alleged in the.bill that on and prior to February 6, 1884, Foster was indebted to Sibson, Church & Co. in the sum of $13,034.96, which claim was on July 15, 1885, assigned to Bibson, Quackenbush & Co., who on March 8, 1886, obtained judgment thereon for $14,066.72, in the circuit court of Linn county, Or., which judgment was then docketed therein, and on March 15th an execution issued thereon and was returned unsatisfied; that on June 11, 1886, Sibsan, Quackenbush & Co. sold and said judgment to the plaintiff, who now owns the same. That on March 8, 1886, Noon & 00. obtained a judgment in said circuit court against Foster, on a promissory note and account for goods, in the sum of $1.920.35, which judgment was then docketed therein, and on March 15th an execution issued thereon and was returned unsatisfied; and that on June 19th Noon & Co. sold and assigned said judgment to the plaintiff, who now owns the same. That when said debts were contracted, on which said judgments were obtained, Foster was the acknowledged owner of the following real prop-
lAs to what constitutes a fraudulent and what is sufficient proof of fraud to cause a conveyance to be set aside, see Stoddara v. Rowe, (Iowa,) 89 N, W, Rep. 84, and note; Satteriield v. Malone, 85 Fed. Rep. 445, and note; Bernard v. Myroleum Co., (Mass.) 17 N. E. Rep. 887, and note.
