Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/582

568 FEDERAL REPORTER. �this point it is unnecessary to discuss the evidence further. After a caref ul study of it, it seems impossible that this story of the gift to the wife in 1865 can be true; and upon this incredible and uncor- roborated assertion of the defendants rests the whole fabric of the defence — that the promises belong to the wife. �It may be and is probably true that the conveyance to J. M. A. ■was net without some consideration ; but it is not at all probable that this consideration was more than $11,500, — the sum for-which the deed was duly stamped, — as the grantee, it may be presumed, would not aceept a conveyance stamped for less than the actual considera- tion of it. And it may be that the conveyance was made for this con- sideration, subject to the alleged mortgage of Jacobs, of October 9, 1867, for $12,000; but even then it follows that $11,500 of the nom- inal consideration of the conveyance is fictitious. The reason for this is apparent, and coincides with the theory that the controlling pur- pose of this conveyance was to put the premises, or a substantial interest in them, beyond the reach of Griswold's New York creditors. In 1867, the year of the conveyance to J. M. A., this property was assessed for general taxation at $25,000, and must, therefore, have been considered worth at least from forty to fifty thousand dollars. �To make, then, the consideration in the conveyance to J. M. A. appear at all adequate, even assuming that it was made -subject to the alleged Jacobs mortgage, it was necessary to put it up to at least $22,500. But there is no evidence as to the consideration of the Jacobs mortgage, except Griswold's statement and what appears upon the face of the instrument. A certified copy of the record of it, made December 2, 1867, was put in evidence by the defendant, 'which has "the like force and efifect" as the original, (Or. Laws, 518, § 27,) and is prima facie evidence of the f acts stated therein. In it the consid- eration is stated at $12,000, but under the circumstances this state- ment is entitled to but little weight. Bump on F. C. 575. �In his answer, Griswold states that the debt due Jacobs was "some $10,000," and in his deposition that the mortgage to him was $12,- 000, and that when he made his answer he had forgotten there was a mortgage. But upon the face of the deed it appears that it was only stamped for a consideration of $6,000, which fact is itself suffi- cient to overcome the bare recital in the deed and prove that the con- sideration did not exceed that amount. Indeed, when we consider that there is no attempt to show, not even by the oath of W. C. G., how this alleged indebtedness to Jacobs arose, it is extremely doubt- ful if there was ever any actual consideration for the mortgage to ��� �