Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 2.djvu/141

134 FEDERAL EBPOBTBB. �Nelson, D. J. The original suit was brought to set aside a deed executed by Julinah P. Atwater to John D. Seely, Jr., dated April 19, 1875. The bill contains a prayer, also, that certain real estate therein described be partitioned among the owners, or sold and the proceeds distributed according to the interest of the parties as alleged therein. A cross-bill is filed by the defendants, Seely and others, and affirmative relief prayed. The cases have been fully presented and argued upon the pleadings and proofs. �The controversy involves the title to real estate claimed by the complainants in the original suit, as heirs at law of Jo- sephine Seely, and by the defendant John D. Seely, as the heir at law of her husband, John D. Seely, Jr. ; the other de- fendant, Norman G. Seely, being adminiatrator of his estate. �The testimony is voluminous, and discloses a very bitter feeling on both sides. �The foUowing facts are established by the proofs, and I so find : On August 12, 1873, John D. Seely, Jr., and Josephine, his wife, were in possession and seizedin fee of the north-west quarter of section fourteen, (14,) township one hundred and seven, (107,) range twenty-one (21) west, situatedinthecounty of Steele, Minnesota, and on that day, by warranty deed, they conveyed these premises to Julinah P. Atwater, a sister of Josephine Seely, for the consideration expressed in the deed of $6,000, when in fact no consideration was paid at the time of the conveyance, or ever has been, but the deed was executed and delivered from apprehension of a slander suit against John D. Seely, Jr., by one Prisley, and to prevent a lien of any judgment obtained in that suit. I also find that John D. Seely, Jr., made an attempt to create a secret trust for his benefit; and I further find that on October 14, 1873, �Julinah P. Atwater, at , in the state of New York, by a �quitclaim deed of the real estate above described, executed in accordance with the laws of the state of New York, conveyed the real estate in controversy to Josephine Seely, and the deed was delivered to and received by her, but was not so executed as to admit it to record according to the laws of Minnesota then existing, for the reason that there were no ����