NEAL v. 1=‘0sTEB.. 29
shown but what this conversion took place before the maturity of the
debt due complainant. The strong probabilities are that Creighton em-
bezzled 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 that 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 complem-
ant’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 h1m advanced, and A
averring the delivery of the money to Creighton as a payment ofthe
mortgage to complainant. There is nothing in the evidence which places
Gifford in any other position than that occupied by Blizzard. It 1S 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 com-
plainant is entitled to a decree of foreclosure, as prayed for, against all
the defendants. . '
l NEAL 11. Fosrisa et al. A , ‘
T (Oircuil Court, D. Oregon. August 20, 1888.)
1. Juneunur-Rns Anaunroxm. _
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. ‘ ‘
8. Evinnnom-—Dnc1.snA·rr0Ns—Vn1:non Ann Vmvnnn.
The acts and declarations of a vendor in possession after the sale are com-
petent evidence against the vendee on the question of the character and pur-
pose of such sale.
8. TAXATION*TAXABLE Pnornnrr-Taxannn Onnnrrs. '
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.
4. COURTS-—-FEDERAL COURTS—JUBISDIOTION—MOTIVE or- Surron.
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 ne.-
tional courts; and so it does not affect the jurisdiction of said courts if the
purchase is made with the expressed intention of suing therein.
5. JUDGMENT—LIEN—FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE—R[GHTB on Cnnnrrons.
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 to 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 nrst seeking to set aside such convey-
. ance obtains a prior right to satisfaction thereout, from the commencement.
' of his suit for that purpose. _ ,