« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »
A. Not necessarily. It may be smaller. Q. 55. fendant urges that an examination of the Now, ever since you began in 1886, as I under- whole of the witness testimony shows that stand, to examine these cases you have made that 'diagnosis ; that people have traumatic to be the fact. Sufficient, however, appeared neurosis or neurasthenia from accident, trauma, in the testimony of the witness and in his injury, I want to know the length of time you former deposition to furnish a basis for the have been doing it? A. Well, I should like to plaintiff's claims that they were contradicinclude also what I have done besides the length of time. I have examined and given tory. Whether or not they were inconsistent opinions on these cases since certainly that was a matter for the jury to determine in time, say 1886. When I have made the diag. passing upon the value of the witness'tesnosis I have made it as I did here in this case, so-called traumatic
neurosis. I carefully timony. If this evidence was otherwise adused the word 'so-called,' in view of the fact missible, it should not have been excluded, that it is not all due to the accident."
as the defendant now urges, because the The plaintiff was then permitted to ask jury might fail to understand it, or to comthe witness, against the defendant's objec- prehend the distinctions properly to be tion, if in a deposition given by the witness | drawn. It must always be that some memin another case he had not made certain bers of a jury are liable to become confused general statements with regard to the diag- in the consideration of testimony relating nosis of neurasthenia resulting from acci- to scientific and medical subjects, fail to undent, to which the witness replied that he derstand some of the language employed by had. The answers of the witness, contained expert witnesses, or fail to draw just concluin said deposition, in which these statements sions as to the effect of their testimony. appeared were the following:
But when a party offers such direct testimo"Well, to tell the honest truth, the diagnosis ny, he cannot properly object to cross-examof neurasthenia resulting from accident is one ination on the grounds that it may still furthat I practically never make. I. practically ther confuse the jury and that they may not never made it. I don't regard accidents as a cause of neurasthenia ;” and answer: "I mean place a correct interpretation upon the anI don't think that accidents cause neurasthenia swers, which may be given. as such. Neurasthenia may be set up by worry, anxiety, overwork, and I have sometimes made
 The defendant at the trial excepted to the diagnosis litigation neurasthenia in cases in the ruling of said justice excluding testimony which I thought that the worry and anxiety of offered by the defendant to show the result litigation was putting the person into a more of certain so-called counts of the blood of or less neurasthenic condition, but I don't think that an accident in itself' is a legitimate defendant's counsel. It was a part of the cause of neurasthenia."
claim of the plaintiff that, as a result of [1-3] The grounds of the defendant's ob- said injuries, she was suffering from hyperjection to this cross-examination is that it thyroidism, that an examination of her blood was testimony given in another case between showed an abnormal condition indicating a different parties; that the answers contained lymphocytosis, or an excess of lymphocytes in the deposition are not inconsistent with in the blood stream, and that lymphocytosis the testimony of the witness given upon the is a corroborative symptom in cases of hystand in this case, and that the examination perthyroidism. The defendant claimed that must have created the impression upon the the count of lymphocytes in the blood of the minds of a jury of laymen that there was plaintiff was not in excess of the number of such an inconsistency, although none ex- such cells appearing in the blood count of a isted. We do not find merit in the exception. normally healthy person, and sought to show It' is proper cross-examination of an expert the count which had been made of the blood witness, who in his testimony has given an of defendant's counsel. Said justice excluded opinion upon some matter connected with this on the ground that no evidence had been the art or science of which he has special | introduced tending to show that said counsel skill or knowledge, to ask such witness if he was in a normally healthy condition at the has always been of that opinion, or if he has time of taking the sample of which the count not at some certain time, which is specified, had been made. We think the evidence was made a statement which is inconsistent with rightly excluded. his present testimony. The scope of the  We shall consider together the plaincross-examination of an expert witness for tiff's and the defendant's exceptions to the the purpose of testing the value of his opin- decision of said justice upon the motion for ion is largely within the discretion of the a new trial. The only question before the judge presiding at a jury trial. It is a prop- justice on said motion was as to the proer exercise of such discretion to permit such priety of the amount of the jury's award. a witness to be asked if on a former occa- The defendant did not deny its liability. It sion he has not expressed a different opinion. is plain that the plaintiff was very seriously The cross-examiner may call the witness' injured. The accident occurred on August attention to such former statement of opin- 12, 1910. The plaintiff was then 25 years ion, whether the same was made orally, in old, and up to that time had been in excelsome written work, or, as in this instance, in lent health. She was thrown violently to a deposition. Later in his testimony, the the ground from a wagon in which she was witness in this case insisted that his state riding, by a collision, in which the defendments on the stand were in harmony with ant's electric street car struck against the those in the former deposition, and the de- I rear of said wagon; she had been physically incapacitated up to the time of the trials to whether the verdict was excessive; we in June, 1913. The testimony is conflicting have said that it was, and that it should be as to the disease from which the plaintiff set aside. In our opinion a proper construcis suffering. Witnesses for the plaintiff tion of the statute, quoted above, requires diagnosed her ailment as traumatic hyper- that, before the verdict shall be set aside thyroid neurasthenia; those for the defend- by our order, we must determine the amount ant were of the opinion that she was suffer- of illegal excess and give the plaintiff an ing from traumatic neurosis. The plaintiff's opportunity to remit. If we had fixed upchances of improvement are much greater if on an amount of such excess greater than the latter diagnosis is the true one. There that fixed by the superior court it plainly was testimony from which the jury might would have been our duty under the statreasonably find that, while the plaintiff's ute to do so. Merely because the amount of present condition will probably be somewhat improper excess which we have found agrees relieved and, under proper treatment, some with the determination of the superior court of her more distressing symptoms may disap- the plaintiff is not to be deprived of that pear, she will never be completely restored privilege, for the verdict in fact will be set to health. After a consideration
consideration of the aside by our order. whole testimony and the written decision of The exceptions of the plaintiff and the said justice, we agree with him that the case defendant are overruled. The case is redemands very substantial damages, but that, mitted to the superior court for a new trial in view of the probable improvement of the unless the plaintiff, on or before July 20, plaintiff's physical condition in the future 1914, shall file in the superior court her reand upon a reasonable computation of her mittitur of all of said verdict in excess of probable pecuniary loss, the evidence does $20,000. In case the plaintiff shall duly file not warrant the full amount of the jury's such remittitur the superior court is directed verdict. What sum will justly amount to to enter its judgment for the plaintiff for. compensation it is very difficult to deter- | $20,000. mine. Said justice has made a thorough review of the testimony, and has carefully com
(37 R. I. 21) puted the items of damage. The amount of HOWARD v. McPHAIL. (No. 282.) $20,000 fixed upon by him appears to us to (Supreme Court of Rhode Island. July 7, 1914.) be as nearly adequate compensation for the plaintiff's injuries as can be given in money
1. CHATTEL MORTGAGES ($ 84*)—EXECUTION
REQUISITES-VALIDITY-SURRENDER OF Pos. damages in a court of law. Upon this very
SESSION-RECORD. difficult question we agree with said justice, Under the express provisions of Gen. Laws and find no error in his decision on the mo- 1909, c. 258, § 10, requiring that chattel mort
gages shall be recorded within five days or postion for a new trial.
session of the property delivered to the mortThe question now arises as to the order gagee, such a mortgage is valid as between the which shall be made in remitting the case parties, though neither of such requirements is to the superior court. Both the plaintiff's complied with. and the defendant's exceptions are to be
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Chattel Mortoverruled. We have agreed with said justice sages, Cent. Dig. § 152; Dec. Dig. § 84.* ] that the verdict is excessive in amount, and 2. SALES ($ 219*)-TITLE-RIGHTS OF PUR
CHASER. that his determination as to a proper amount Otherwise than by estoppel, a buyer of per is just. The plaintiff comes here upon an ex-sonal property acquires no better title than that ception to a decision granting a new trial of the seller from whom he buys. unless she should remit a part of the verdict Dig. ss 588-603; Dec. Dig. $ 219.* ]
[Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Sales,'Cent. before a certain day. That day has passed ; she did not remit, and we have overruled 3. CHATTEL MORTGAGES ($ 155*)-LIEN-PUR
CHASER WITH NOTICE-INVALID MORTGAGEher exception to the decision. Shall we send
ESTOPPEL. the case back for a new trial in accordance A buyer of personal property subject to a with the decision; or, as we have approved mortgage which had not been recorded within the amount of damages which was fixed by the statutory period, with notice of the mort
gage, could not acquire title freed from the the court, shall we order judgment to be en- lien of the mortgage by estoppel. tered in the superior court for that amount, [Ed. Note.-For other cases, see Chattel Mortor shall we give to the plaintiff another on-gages, Cent. Dig. S$ 264, 270, Dec. Dig. 8 155.*] portunity to remit the improper excess be- 4. CIIATTEL MORTGAGES (8 41*)-SUFFICIENCY fore the verdict is set aside by our order? OF INSTRUMENT-AGREEMENT TO CREATE Chapter 298, § 12, Gen. Laws, 1909, provides
Under the rule that equity considers that as follows:
as done which the parties intended to do and “A verdict shall not be set aside as excessive by which ought to be done as against the parties the supreme or superior court until the prevail- and purchasers with notice, an agreement ining party has been given opportunity to re-tended to effect a mortgage on chattels or create mit so much thereof as the court adjudges ex- a lien thereon or an equity therein, though lackcessive."
ing in some legal requisite, will be upheld in
equity, and the court, as against the party or a The exceptions of the plaintiff and the purchaser with notice, will raise a trust and defendant brought before us the question as decree that the party or purchaser holds the
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep'r Indexes property in trust for the lienor to the extent of chattels, and did not file said mortgage for the lien.
record until October 26, 1910. Said mort[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Chattel Mortgage is now held by the respondent, and the gages, Cent. Dig. $ 84; Dec. Dig. § 41.*]
debt as security for which said mortgage was 5. CHATTEL MORTGAGES (
8225*) — TRANSFER given has not been paid. At some time in OF PROPERTY.
Where the owner of certain personal prop- November, 1910, the complainant had actual erty executed a mortgage thereon, but the prop-notice of the existence of said mortgage and erty was neither delivered to the mortgagee nor of the record of said mortgage in New Shorethe mortgage recorded within five days, as required by Gen. Laws 1909, c. 258, $ 10, a buyer ham. On July 18, 1911, said Julia M. Vaill, of the mortgaged property from the mortgagor the mortgagor in said mortgage, executed with notice of the agreement of the seller to cre- and delivered to the complainant a bill of ate a valid mortgage on the property would be sale of the personal property covered by said regarded in equity as a trustee for the mortgagee to the extent of the latter's interest un mortgage. The consideration named in said der the mortgage.
bill of sale was $2,000. Thereupon the com[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Chattel Mort- plainant took possession of said personal gages, Cent. Dig. 88 468–470; Dec. Dig. § 225.*] property, still, retains possession thereof, and 6. CHATTEL MORTGAGES (8 155*)-STATUTORY has filed this bill to restrain the respondent INVALIDITY-PURCHASER WITH NOTICE
from interfering with said chattels, and also FRAUD.
Where a chattel mortgage was unenforce for the cancellation of said mortgage. able at law because of the mortgagee's failure to The complainant's prayer is based upon her take possession of the property or record his interpretation of section 10, c. 258, Gen. Laws mortgage within five days, as required by Gen. Laws 1909, c. 258, § 10, and the mortgagor 1909. The portion of said section, pertinent sold the property to complainant, who took with to the case, is as follows: notice of the facts and the mortgagee's rights in the premises, complainant was in particeps made shall be valid as to the assignee in insol
"No mortgage of personal property hereafter criminis with the mortgagor in seeking by such vency of the mortgagor, or any other person exsale to defeat the mortgage, and was therefore cept the parties thereto and their executors and not entitled to a decree in equity restraining the administrators, until possession of the mortmortgagee from taking possession of the proper gaged property be delivered to and retained by ty and from foreclosing or treating the mort- the mortgagee, or the said mortgage be recorded, gage as valid.
* which said recording or taking and re[Ed. Note. For other cases, see Chattel Mort- tention of possession as aforesaid shall be made gages, Cent. Dig. 88 264, 270; Dec. Dig. § 155.*] or taken within five days from the date of the Vincent and Parkhurst, JJ., dissenting.
The complainant relies largely upon the auCase Certified from Superior Court, Provi
thority of Burdick v. Coates, 22 R. I. 410, 48 dence and Bristol Counties. Suit by Katherine V. Howard against Don- state of facts unlike that of the case at bar,
Atl. 389, which was an action at law upon a ald T. McPhail. On certificate from superior and did not involve a consideration of the court. Bill dismissed.
principles of trusts and of fraud which should Eliot G. Parkhurst and Edwards & Angell, govern the determination of the case beall of Providence, for complainant. Irving fore us. Champlin and Hammill & Bradford, all of
 An important provision in said section Providence (John C. Knowles, of Providence, is that the mortgage remains valid as to the of counsel), for respondent.
parties, although possession of the mortgaged
property be not delivered to, and retained by, SWEETLAND, J. This is a suit in equity the mortgagee, and the mortgage be not rewherein the complainant seeks to restrain corded. The situation, then, on July 18, the respondent from taking possession of 1911, before Julia M. Vaill made the bill of certain personal property and from foreclos- sale of said chattels to the complainant, was ing or treating as valid a mortgage thereon. that Miss Vaill had by a valid instrument The complainant also prays that said mort- conveyed the title of said chattels to this regage be ordered to be delivered up for cancel- spondent defeasible on payment of the mortlation.
gage debt. For a personal property mortAfter the pleadings were closed and after gage is more than a security; it transfers hearing in the superior court for final decree the legal title subject to defeasance only on upon an agreed statement of facts, the cause performance of the conditions. Although was certified to this court for final determi- she was permitted by the respondent to renation. The essential facts set out in the tain possession of said chattels, Miss Vaill's agreed statement are as follows: On Septem- possession was that of a bailee; there remainber 28, 1910, one Julia M. Vaill, now deceased in her only the right to redeem said proped, for valuable consideration, executed and erty on performance of the conditions of the delivered to the respondent, McPhail, a chat- mortgage. The question before us therefore tel mortgage covering certain personal prop- is: Will a court of equity, by reason of the erty then owned by, and in the possession of provisions of said section of the statute, dethe mortgagor, located in the town of New cree that Miss Vaill, who was without title Shoreham. The respondent, said mortgagee, herself, nevertheless was able to convey title did not take possession of the mortgaged to this complainant, who had actual notice
*For other cases see same topic and section NUMBER in Dec. Dig. & Am. Dig. Key-No. Series & Rep’r Indexes and full knowledge of the respondent's rights favor of the respondent against the comunder the mortgage and of the impropriety of plainant. Miss Vaill's act? For whatever may be de-  Equity looks upon that as done which termined as to the position of the complain the parties intended to do and which ought to ant, Miss Vaill was guilty of actual fraud in be done. As against the parties themselves selling said chattels in disregard of the rights and those who purchase with notice, an of the respondent, unless her bill of sale agreement, intended to effect a transfer of shall be considered in equity merely as a dis- property or to create a lien -upon it or an position of her right to redeem, and not as an equity in it, though lacking in some legal attempt to convey title to said property; in requisite, will be upheld in equity which which case the complainant clearly would not binds the conscience; and in such circumbe entitled to the relief which she seeks. stances a court of equity, as against the party
 This court; in Goodell v. Fairbrother, himself and as against a purchaser with no12 R. I. 233, 34 Am. Rep. 631, and Woods v. tice, will raise a trust. Legad v. Hodges, 1 Nichols, 21 R. I. 537, 45 Atl. 548, 48 L. R. A. Ves. Jr. page 477. 773, has stated the generally recognized prin
Coble v. Nonemaker, 78 Pa. 506, was a suit ciple that otherwise than by estoppel the pur- by a mortgagee of an unrecorded chattel chaser acquires no better title than the ven- mortgage against a subsequent purchaser of dor from whom he buys.
the chattels covered by said unrecorded mort The complainant cannot claim that any gage, of which the purchaser had notice at doctrine of estoppel works in her favor the time of his purchase. The court said: against the respondent; because, although
“Considered in another aspect, the case seems he allowed the mortgaged property to remain [the mortgagor], he held it bound by the trust
equally plain. While the title remained in Eves in the mortgagor's possession, nevertheless for the benefit of the plaintiff which the mortbefore the complainant took said bill of sale gage bad created. When the title was passed to she had knowledge of the mortgage and that the defendant, he, having notice of the plaintiff's it had been recorded. She must claim that with the character of trustee with precisely the
equities, became, by operation of law, invested in some way, by reason of the statute, de- same obligations that the contract expressly imspite the absence of circumstances creating posed on Eves [the mortgagor). A trust alan estoppel, and, in spite of her knowledge subject-matter, is created de novo as against a
ready in existence, and annexed to the present of the facts, she has acquired from Miss Vaill person who takes by a title derivative from the a title that Miss Vaill herself did not have.original trustee. Lewin on Trusts, 205. If an and that equity will confirm that title to estate be passed by trustee to a stranger by her. The purpose of statutes requiring the teer, will be bound by the trust, whether he had
conveyance, then the grantee, if he be a volunregistry of mortgages or other conveyances notice of it or not; for, though he had no actual is to prevent fraud and deception, by pro- notice of the equity, yet the court will presume tecting bona fide purchasers and creditors id. 206; Mansell v. Mansell, 2 P. Wms. 678,
it against him where he paid no consideration. from the effect of secret incumbrances. 681. But if the grantee be a purchaser of the Their purpose is to prevent, not to assist, estate at its full value, then, if he take with fraudulent transactions.
transactions. This court said notice of the trust, he is bound to the same exwith reference to the absolute language of a whom he purchased (Dunbar v. Tredennick, 2 B.
tent and in the same manner as the person of recording act under consideration in Wilson & B. 319); for, knowing another's right to the v. Esten, 14 R. I. 621: “The statute, how- property, he throws away his money voluntarily ever, must receive a reasonable construction." and of his own free will (Mead v. Lord Orrery, In well-considered cases in this court regis- only to the case of a trust properly so called,
3 Atk. 328 ). And the rule applies not try statutes have received a reasonable con- but to purchasers with notice of any equitable instruction. This court has not lost sight of cumbrance, as of a covenant or agreement affect, the purpose of such statutes and the funda- 249), or a lien for purchase money (Mackreth v.
ing the estate (Daniels v. Davison, 16 Vesey, mental principles of equity; and has recogniz- Symmons, 15 Vesey, 329). The defendant [the ed that, even where the language of the stat- subsequent purchaser) then held these goods subute, taken literally, is absolute, it may still ject to the equities of the plaintiff [the mortga
gor] under the mortgage.' be the subject of exception. Wilson v. Esten, 14 R. I. 621; Miller v. Coffin, 19 R. I., at
In the early and leading case in this counpage 168, 36, Atl. 6; Westerly Savings Bank try of Mitchell v. Winslow, 2 Story, 644, V. Stillman, 16 R. I. 497, 17 Atl. 918.
Fed. Cas. No. 9,673, Judge Story said:
The last case will be considered more fully later. thorities that wherever the parties, by their con
“It seems to me a clear result of all the auThe complainant has invoked the aid of a tract, intended to create a positive lien or court of equity, and her suit must be consid-charge, either upon real or upon personal propered in accordance with equitable principles. erty, whether then owned by the assignor or Before taking up the important question of whether it is then in esse or not, it attaches in
contractor or not, or, if personal property, the effect upon the complainant's rights of equity as a lien or charge upon the particular her vendor's fraud, of which she had full no-property, as soon as the assignor or contractor tice and in which she participated, I will all persons asserting a claim thereto, under him,
acquires a title thereto, against the latter, and consider how far the knowledge by the com- either voluntarily, or with notice, or in bankplainant of the respondent's rights in the ruptcy." mortgaged property, at the time of her pur- In accordance with this principle it was chase, raises a trust as to said property in held in Williams v. Winsor, 12 R. I, 9, that a mortgage of personal property to be subse- matter of agreement at least against the party quently acquired, though invalid at law, will himself, and third persons who are volunteers
or have notice. For it is a general principle in be upheld in equity.
equity that as against the party himself, and In Westerly Savings Bank v. Stillman, 16 any claiming under him voluntarily or with noR. I. 497, 17 Atl. 918, this court considered tice, such an agreement raises a trust." the validity of the mortgage of a corporation Mr. Pomeroy in his work on Equity Juristo which the treasurer had affixed a seal diction (2d Ed.) § 591, says: and as to which act of the treasurer there “When a person is acquiring rights with rewas no allegation of authorization, which spect to any subject-matter, the fact whether he mortgage was not acknowledged and record-ests or claims of others in or upon the same sub
is so acting with or without notice of the intered as required by statute. The court said: ject-matter is regarded throughout the whole
“The statute, however, only applies to deeds, range of equity jurisprudence as a most material and it is not clear that the mortgage in ques-circumstance in determining the extent and even tion is a deed; for, though the treasurer of the the existence of the rights which he actually accorporation affixed a seal to it, it is not alleged quires. In conformity with this view, the genthat he was authorized to do 'it. If the mort- eral rule has been most clearly established that gage be not a deed, it is inoperative at law as a à purchaser with notice of the right of another is conveyance, and would bind the estate only in in equity liable to the same extent and in the equity, where it would undoubtedly be enforced same manner as the person from whom he made between the parties according to its intent. the purchase. The same rule may be thus exWould it likewise bind the estate as against a pressed in somewhat different language: A persubsequent mortgagee or purchaser for value son who acquires a legal title or an equitable with notice? We think so." The general rule is, title or interest in a given subject-matter, even that a purchaser with notice of the right of an for a valuable consideration, but with notice other is in equity liable to the same extent and that the subject matter is already affected by in the same manner as the person from whom an equity or equitable claim in favor of another, he purchases.”
takes it subject to that equity or equitable
claim." In Mayo v. Newhoff, 47 N. J. Eq. 31, 38, 19 Atl. 837, the Court of Chancery of New authorities that, in equity, this complainant,
 It therefore appears clear from the Jersey recognized the general rule laid down having knowledge of the agreement between by Lord Cottenham in Folk v. Moxhay, 2 Miss Vaill and the respondent to create a Phil, 772, that if an equity is attached to lien upon the chattels in question, would property by its owner, no one purchasing take the same bound by the trust as Miss with notice of that equity can stand in a Vaill was bound and subject to the equities different situation from the owner, and that of the respondent, although the instrument this rule is applicable to personalty. In Porter v. Parks, 49 N. Y. 566, the court in legal form and in execution, and be lack
which evidenced the agreement be defective said:
ing in the requisites of acknowledgment and "While, therefore, the law is well settled, as claimed on behalf of the respondents, that where registry necessary to make a mortgage valid a party, by his own act and consent, has given in law. It is a well-recognized, equitable to another the evidence of ownership and the principle that an attempt to make a legal apparent jus disponendi of property, a bona fide mortgage which fails for want of some solpurchase from the apparent owner, or one who advances money or incurs responsibilities on the emnity, may yet create a lien valid in equity. faith of the title, will be protected, it is equally Therefore, if we should grant the prayer of well settled that, if the party dealing with the the complainant's bill, we should effect this apparent owner has actual notice of the rights
result: That a decree shall be entered in of the true owner, he acquires no better title than the transferor or apparent owner can law- this cause in equity which will permit the fully convey. In other words, the purchaser or complainant to hold said mortgaged property pledgee is not a bona fide purchaser as against freed from the trust by which, in good conthe rightful owner, and is not within the protection of the rule invoked by the defendants, and science and according to established prinmust rely upon the actual, rather than the ap- ciples of equity, she should be bound. parent, authority of the individual with whom
I will now consider the question of fraud he deals for his protection.”
which is involved in the cause. As we have In Bernheimer v. Verdon, 63 N. J. Eq. 312, said above, Miss Vaill, in selling said chatthe court affirmed a decree of the Vice Chan- tels in disregard of the title and ownership cellor, whose opinion is reported in 49 Atl. of the respondent, was guilty of actual fraud. 732. The Vice Chancellor held that, where What was the position of the complainant in the purchaser of personalty located in a cer- the transaction as it relates to another equitain place has notice of another's claim to table consideration important in the case? a mortgage thereon, before taking the bill of Story says (1 Story Eq. Juris. $ 395): sale, equity will direct the execution of a "Another class of constructive frauds consists mortgage by the purchaser on such person of those where a person purchases with full noalty as was in such place at the time of pur- sons to the same property. In such cases he will
tice of the legal or equitable title of other perchase, and still remaining in the purchaser's not be permitted to protect himself against such hands.
claims, but his own title will be postponed, and In 2 Story's Equity Jurisprudence, at page injustice to allow him to defeat the just rights 577, the author says:
of others by his own iniquitous bargain. He be"Indeed, there is generally no difficulty in comes by such conduct particeps criminis with equity in establishing a lien not only on real the fraudulent grantor; and the rule of equity estate but on personal property, or on money in as well as of law is: 'Dolus et fraus nemini pathe hands of a third person, wherever that is a trocinari debent.' And in all such cases of pur