CNITED STATES V. POOLE. 417 �agaiDst creditors and others, whose actiona shall thereby be defrauded or delayed, fraudaient conveyancea shall be of more effect." In 43 Me. 274, (Andrews \. Marshall,) Cutting, J., p. 276, in a very elaborate opinion, says: "The doctrine is established beyond controversy, by nearly ail the authorities touching this point, that the fraudulent vendor parts with ail his title, and can m no event invoke his own turpitude for the purpose of reclaiming any interest in the property so con- veyed." See, also, Ellis v. Higgins, 32 Me. 34; Andrews v. Marshall, 48 Me. 30. �It is elaimed that, while such may be à well- established rule of law, the present case should be deemed an exception thereto, as the government has repudiated this conveyance from the defendant to his son, and by its levies defeated the son's title, and obtained a valid title to the estate. It is true that the government, if it elected so to do, might attack the validity of the deed to the son, and such probably was its original design, as we may well infer from the course first adopted ; but having made its levies it has refrained from asserting that thereby it acquired a valid title to the estate. The records diselosed that the son had acquired an older title, and the govemment yielded, admits its validity, and has never since undertaken to question it. It nowhere appears that the officers of the government in any way had knowledge of the fraudulent purpose of the parties to the conveyance, or that if a contest should take place as to the title that it would be able to establish such fraud, and maintain the validity of its levies. As the record stood there was not merely a cloud upon the title of the government, but as against^the son it had apparently acquired no title, and for more than 10 years had acknowledged that such was its condition by not claim^ ing possession of the premises or any income therefrom. The release from the son to the father, in 1873, did not alter the case, as under the law as now settled in this state the title thereby acquired by the father did not enure to support an invalid levy previously made upon the premises as the father's property. Freeman v. Thayer, 29 Me. 375. �This defendant cannot be damnified by this resuit ; it ac- �v.5,no.5 — 27 ����
