Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/586

573 PBDEBAL REPORTEE. �170. But these cases turn upon the peculiar statute of timt state, and do not, as will be seen by reference to Davis v. Owenby, (p. 77,) prefer the lien of a judgment to the prier unrecorded deed, but only the deed of the purchaser at the sale on the execution to enforce said judgment. �In equity, a judgment crediter bas not been regarded as a pur- chaser in the sense of the rule which prefers the right of a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration to a prier title under an unreg- istered deed. Story, Eq. Jur. §§ 1502, 1503a. �The fact that the conveyance of a subsequent purchaser, though first recorded, is not allowed by the analogous section 26 aforesaid to prevail over that of a prior purchaser, unless obtained in good faith, is a good reason why a court of equity, in administering and coustru- ing said section 268, should presume that the legislature, in enact- ing it, did not intend to make a conveyance void as against a sub- sequent judgment lien, unless the latter was also acquired in good faith. �As to the defendant Bush there is no equity in the bill. Admit- ting all that the plaintiff claims, it was not entitled to the rents and profits before the filing of the bill and the appointment of the re- ceiver. The judgment and lien of the plaintiff only gave it the right to sell the property free from any subsequent encumbrances, and to apply the proceeds on its debt. Ordinarily, the rents and profits prior to the sale on a judgment do not belong to the judgment crediter, nor are they in any way affected by the lien of it. �In this case, the legal title being in the wife in trust for the hus- band and judgment debtor, the plaintiff is oompelled to resort to a suit in equity to subject the property to its judgment, and for this reason may claim the rents and profits for the commencement of its suit as a compensation for the delayin enforcing the judgment caused by the defendant putting bis property into bis wife's hands. �It appears that Mr. Bush collected the rents of the property from June 11, 1879, until December 1, 1879, amounting to $2,608, as the agent of Mrs. Griswold, all of which is accounted for, as disbursed for taxes, repairs, $1,723.34 paid to Griswold by order of Mrs. Gris- wold, and $459.25 on hand, subject to a charge of $32.23 commis- sions. �There must be a decree dismissing the bill as to the defendant Bush, and declaring that Jane 0. Griswold holds the legal title of the premises as the trustee and for the benefit of her husband, and that the master sell the premises as upon execution, and subject to the lien of ��� �