WOOD V. : WEIGHT. . 5 1.3 �land — the land now in controversy. The deed was delivered to Julian. It does uot appear that Mrs. Bryant had any knowledge of this.. but she also executed a quitclaim deed to the assignee, and delivered the same to Julian. Martha Julian and J. B. Julian also executed a quitclaim deed to the assignee. �Mrs. Wood -was not a party to the suit pending in thia court, and it is said the assignee had fuU knowledge of her judgment. Mrs. Wood caused an execution to be levied on the lands under her judgiùent, and the question is which haa the better equity, the assignee or Mrs. Wood. I think the assignee has. �It seems to me, under the cîrcumstances of the case, that the assignee must be remitted to the rights of Cate. Cate was the bona fide purchaser of the property, and held it relieved from the lien which undoubtedly existed on the part of Mrs. Wood prior to that time to the lands of Julian. �The lien against land held fraudulently from the owner must certainly cease to operate when it is transferred to a hona fide purchaser. That Cate was so, was held by this court. And, when the assignee has obtained his title under circumstances like these, it seems to me that he stands in the position of a hona fide purchaser, and is entitled to the pro- tection of a court of equity. But, independent of this con- sideration, and admitting that there were equities alike on the part of Mrs. Wood and of other ereditors of the bankrupts, still it seems to me that the assignee, by the superior dili- gence he has exhibted by suing the Julians and Cate, and, as the resuit of that litigation, having obtained a title to tho property, should have the protection of a court of equity in preference to Mrs. Wood. �The bill of the plaintiiï will be dismissed. v.4,no.6 — 33 ����
