NEAL v. rosrmz. 41
therein. The decided weight of the evidence supports this conclusion.
And yet it may be that these notes were existing obligations between ‘
the parties thereto on February 6, 1884, and that all the acts and dec
larations of the Crawfords to the contrary are falsehoods and pretenses,
spoken and acted for the selfish purpose of avoiding the payment of the
taxes thereon; but, if so, they have been ensnared in their own net, and
cannot complain that the court has taken them at their own word.
Some question is made by counsel for the Crawfords as to the right
of the plaintiff to maintain this suit. The testimony is satisfactory-¥—
indeed there is no room for doubt about it-that Sibson, Quackenbusb
& Co. and Noon & Co. sold and assigned their respective judgments tc
the plaintiff absolutely and for a valuable consideration,—$5,000 in the
first case, and $500 in the second,·—through the agent of the plaintiffs
attorney in fact, William S. Ladd. And if Ladd & Tilton advancedhim
, the money wherewith to make the purchase, as suggested in the argu-
ment, of. which there is no proof, it would make no difference. The
only question to be considered is, did the judgment creditors sell and as-
sign the judgments in question absolutely, without any trust or reserva-
tion in their own favor? In other words, was the sale a real, and not a
fictitious, one? As I have said, the evidence is satisfactory on this point.
The sale was absolute and unqualified. This being so, it is altogether
immaterial that the judgment creditors 1nay have been induced to make
this sale as they did, because they feared they could not succeed in en·-
forcing the judgments in the state court,-the tribunal of the defendants, .
;or that the plaintiff made the purchase because, being a citizen of Illi-
nois, he thought he could enforce the same against the property of the
judgment debtor in the handsof the Crawfords, by a suit in this court,
—the interstate tribunal,-and that he intended to do so when he bought
them.  
The motive with which a party purchases property or a claim has
nothing to do with his right to maintain an action thereon or thereabout .
in this court, any more than in a state court. McDonald v. Smalky, 1
Pet. 623; Barney. v. Baltimore Oity, 6 Wall. 288; Collinson v. Jackson, 8
Sawy. 363, 14 Fed. Rep. 305. The conveyances to John A. Crawford
and Ashby Pearce being valid as against the plaintiff, the bill will be
dismissed as to them, with costs. , A
The conveyance to William Crawford, being void as against creditors,
will be declared fraudulent, and set aside, and the property sold by the
master, and the proceeds applied, first, on the judgments of the plain- .
tiff and his costs and disbursements in this suit, and the remainder, if
any, pro mtu. on the judgments and costs and disbursements in this suit
of Walden, Baltimore, and Liles. The decree will also provide that, if
the proceeds of the sale are not sufficient to pay the judgments of the
plaintiff` and his costs and disbursements, execution may issue against
the property of William Crawford for the remainder. l A c
" The judgments of the plaintiff are prior in time to those of Baltimore
and Liles, but subsequent to that of Walden. Neither of the judgments,
however, are liens on the property in question, the title of the judgment