42 FEDERAL nnroarsn.
debtor thereto having passed to. William Crawford before the judgments
were given or docketed. There was no interest of Foster’s left in the
property for the judgments to operate on. The conveyance was valid
between the parties thereto.— The right of the creditors to have it set
aside for fraud as to them was allthat was left. The plaintiff being the
first creditor to assert thisright, by the tiling of his bill, then acquired
a prior right to whatever may be made out of the property of the suit.
Burt v. Keyes, 1 Flip. 72; Wait, Fraud. Conv. § 392 ; Ltre Estes, 6 Sawy.
459, 3 Fed. Rep. 134, and cases there cited.
- ; In the-latter case, after a careful examination of the subject, I held
that under the law of this state. the lien of a judgment only attached to
property belonging to the judgment debtor at the dateof its docketing,
and·that a conveyance, though void as to creditors who might assert
their right against it, was valid between the parties, and passed all the
estate of the grantor in the premises to the grantee; and therefore the
‘ lien of a subsequent judgment does not attach to the property.
‘ · ·· · _ — Davis v. CHAPMAN. p
· j j (Circuit Court, D. Indiana. August 18, 1888. j `
1. Tanner m COMMON-·—RIGHTS or CO·TENANTS—vACCOUNTING—MOBTGAGE Pim-
·. cmlsna on Fonncnosunn. g
‘ The co-tenancy of a purchaser at a sale on foreclosure of the interest of a tem
· * V ant in common in real estate commences, for the purpose of an accounting be-
4 . tween the jtenants. from the date of the deed, and does not relate back to the
` date of the mortgage. and the accounting should embrace no charge for re-
pairs or improvements made or taxes paid by either tenant prior to the date
  of the deed. ‘ - ‘ , »‘   ·’ ‘
, .2. Sum-4Usm nm Occu1·.ur1oN—RnrA11zs—Sn1·-Orr. ' .
· · While one tenant in common cannot recover of another for mere occupa-
· ` tionof thepremises, yet such occupation may be considered and made an
equitable set-off against the occupying tenant’s claim for repairs, which, in the
absence of an agreement, is likewise not the subject of an action between co-
tenants. V _
In Equity. Action for partition and accounting.
4 The action isfor partition of real estate, and for an accounting in re-
spect to. rents and profits. The defendant claims asetroff for repairs and
improvements and for taxes paid. The title of the complainant has been
established in an action at law in this court, and for the history of that
title, and the disputes and litigation of the parties over it, reference is
fmade tothe decision in 24 _Fed. Rep. 6_74. Upon the matters now in
question the master says: _ _ V , j
` “This suit is the last chapter in the litigation that has been in progress bc—
tween the parties in different courts and in various forms forten or eleven
years; complainant making claim to the ownership of the undivided half of
certain realestate (hotel and livery stable property) in the city of Warsaw,
Kosciusko county, this state. Chapman, the defendant, until the May term