16 FEDERAL BE1=o1rrEB.
V . The defendant Effinger was the attorney for Elliott in the litiga-
tion with Holladay and Emmet, and claims a lien on the decrees
given bythe supreme court against them for his compensation as
such attorney, and the plaintiff admits that he is "entitled to some
compensation" for his services, but how much he does not know, and
therefore he makes him a party defendant. ·
During the pendency of this litigation Ben Holladay was indebted
to sundry persons, including Joseph Holladay, and in October, 1871,
he gave the latter, on account of said indebtedness, his note for $100,-
000,with interest at the rate of 1 per centum per month ; and in No-
vember, 1876, gays a second note in discharge of the first one for the
sum of $160,000, with interest at a like rate, and, to secure the pay-
ment ofthe same, transferred and conveyed to Joseph Holladay, at »
divers times between said last-mentioned date and the date of said
decree against him, all the real and personal property owned by him
in Oregon, consisting of lands, stocks, notes, bonds, mortgages, _and
other personal property, then worth $225,000 and now worth $500,-
000. Portions of this property were in the name of and held by third
persons as the naked. trustees of Ben Holladay, and the transfers and
conveyances thereof to Joseph Holladay were made by them on the
direction of the former, of which the latter had knowledge. ,
The bill also alleges that Ben Holladay hashad no property in his
own name, since the date of said decree, out ofwhich the same could
be satisfied by legal process, and is now insolvent and unable to pay
the same, except out ofthe property aforesaid; that the transfers and
conveyances aforesaid were made and directed by Ben Holladay and
received by Joseph Holladay with the understanding and agreement
between them that the same were taken and received by the latter
partly as a security forthe payment of said last-mentioned note, and
also "that said property was to be held in the name of Joseph Holla·
day, so that the same could not be attached, levied upon, or taken
by the other creditors" of Ben Holladay, of whom Elliott was one;
that the said transfers and conveyances were made by the latter
"with intent to hinder and delay the said Elliott and other creditors
of the ‘said Ben Holladay in the collection of their lawful debts and
demands ;" that at the date of said transfers and agreements it was
understood and agreed between Ben Holladay and Joseph Holladay
that the former should receive a large portion of the profits of said
property, while the remainder should be retained by the latter on
account of said note; and that, in pursuance thereof, he did, from
time to time, send anddeliver to Ben Holladay large sums of money,
the profits of said property,—al1 of which is contrary to equity and
good conscience, and in contravention of the plaintiffs rights in the
premises. t
The objection of laches is not made by Elliott’s demurrer, and
the ground on which it is made by the other defendants is not dis·
tinctly indicated. But has the plaintiff been guilty of laches or un-