22 FEIQERAL, nnrorvrnn.
· Cole, ]kkVey Jr Clark, for complainant.
, Geo. W. Payne, for defendants. · »
BREWER, J.· The facts in this case are these: Plaintiff holds two
judgments against the defendant John B. Cook, amounting together to
about $9,000, upon which judgments executions have been issued and
returned unsatisfied, and this bill was filed as a_creditors’ bill to reach
certain real estate, part of it standing in the name of Viola E. Cook, the
wife of John D. Cook, and a single lot in the name of Susan Smith, the
mother of Mrs. Cook. One of these judgments was rendered against
both John D,. and Viola E. Cook. So far, then, as Mrs. Cook’s interest
is concerned, it can be taken underthat judgment as well as her hus-
band’s. All the real estate standing in the name of Mrs. Cook is sub-
ject to the lien of several mortgages given to the defendant W. L. Cul-
bertson, and the bill attacks these mortgages as fraudulent and void. ‘
The first question, and that easy of solution, is whether the real es-
tate standing in the name of Mrs. Smith is hers, or equitably the prop-
erty of John B. Cook. Mrs. Smith and her second husband lived with
Mr. and Mrs. Cook from 1873. to ,1884, at which time Mr. Smith died.
At the time she commenced living with Mr. Cock she had no property
but a house and lot in Ohio, left her by her first husband, and the pro- `
ceeds of that, when sold, were invested in lot_7 of block 3, in Carroll,
Iowa. Afterwards lot 1 in block 9 was purchased in her name, and a
building erected on it, and this is the property about which the conten-
tion arises. During the lastyears of his life Mr. Smith was practically
disabled from work, and contributed substantially nothing to the sup-
port of himself and wife. Themoney for the purchase of the lot and
the erection of the building was, in fact, furnished and paid by Mr.
Cook; and while_Mrs. Smith claims that she was `to be allowed $300 r
a year for her services, that she owned this property and paid for it,
_ yet it very clearly appears that this was all amere pretense, and that
` the property was really all fthetime Mr. Cook’s. She' personally had
nothing to do withthe transaction ofthe purchaseor the building, and
l could not tell how or whentthey were had. The complainant is entitled
toLa decree subjecting ther interest in this property to the satisfactionof
_ the judgments. This, however, is a minor matter. A _
The principal question `is _as to the validity of the Culbertson mort-
gages. ` Between 1873 and January, 1882, Cook executed five mortgages
to Culbertson, aggregating $11,500. In January, 1882, and January,
1883, he executed three morejmortgages, amounting to $9,800, and se-
cured these by different tracts of real estate. In January, 1882, he exe-
cuted a chattel mortgage for $12,500, and in January, 1883, another
chattel mortgage for $12,000. These last two mortgages were merely
given as`udd1tional‘security. r As the right to"1*etain possession of the
mortgaged¥property'and to sell-and dispose of them was retained by the
mortgagor under these last two mortgages, and as the property therein
r was, in fact, sold and disppsedhof by the mortgagor, they drop out of
consideration, except so fares they throw light upon the question of