Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/584

570 FBDEBAIi BEPOKTER. �that it was the payment of a prior debt due from the Lusband to her^ the existence of which is not only not proven, but actually disproved. But this is not all : the evidence is more than convincing that the wife's name has been used in this matter by Griswold from the begin- ning simply as a convenienee and protection against contingencies that are liable to occur in the life of a speculating adventurer, with- out actually letting go his hold upon the premises, and that the pos- session, control, and enjoyment of the same have remained with him, with her knowledge and consent, as eompletely as though the con- veyance from C, A. had been made directly to himself. �The unexplained failure to put the deed to the wife on the record for nearly eightyears after it was made, and the fact that it was not made public and recorded until the probable effect of this litigation rendered it convenient to assert that the property was hera; the declarations of Griswold to his confidential agent, Mr. Chester N. Terry, a witness whose long and favorably-known residence in this state the court must take notice of, to the effect that the property waa in fact his own ; that it had been put into the names of the Adamses merely to ward off the claims of his New York creditors, and that he expected to get it into his own hands soon ; the failure on the part of the husband and wife to give a credible or consistent aocount of the transaction, and the many gross and palpable contradictions and absurdities in the ones given by the former, — all point with certainty to the conclusion that the conveyance to the wife was procured by the husband upon a consideration moving from himself, and for his own benefit. �The plaintiff also insists that the conveyances to C. A. and J. 0. G. were not legally acknowledged, and therefore are not entitled to record, and that for this reason they are void as against the lien of its judgment, irrespective of the intent or consideration with or upon which they were made. In support of this proposition section 268 of the Civil Code is cited, which provides, in effect, that a convey- ance is void as against the lien of a judgment unless recorded within five days of its execution, as provided between conveyances of the same property in section 26 of the chapter on conveyances. Or. Laws, 518. �The conclusion already reached makes it unnecessary to pass upon this question. But, as the conveyance to J. M. A. is legal in form and duly acknowledged and recorded, and therefore passed the legal title from W. C. G. to the former, the lien of the judgment after- ��� �