PASSONS V. DENIS. 817 �Fabsons V. Denis and others» �(Circuit Court, E. Z>. Missouri. January 3, 1881.) �X. Construction of Statute — Mobtgagb a Dbed. �A mortgage is a deed within the meaning of the Missouri Statutes, (Bev. St. § 699,) which provides that " a husband and wife may con- vey the real estate of the wife, and the wife may relinquish her dower in the real estate of her husband, by their joint deed." Therefore, under said provision, a married woman may mortgage her separate property when her husband joins with her. 2. Pbaoticb — BquitabIiB Defbncbs in Actions at Law. �Equitable defences are inadmissible in actions at law in United States courts. State practice does not aaect the rule. S. SAME — SBTTINa up OoLLusrvB Transfeb. �The proper way to set up a collusive transfer, in fraud of jurisdic- tion, is by plea in abatement, and not by answer. �Demurrer to Answer. �Henry A. Cunningham, for plaintiff. �Finkelnburg e Rassieur, for defendant. �Tbeat, D. J. This is an action of ejectment in the ordi- nary form. To it several defences afSrmatively are inter- posed. To all of those special defences except one a demurrer is presented: �1. The first defence is substantially that a married woman cannot mortgage her estate (her husband joining) to secure the payments of his debts. �Eeference is made to the Missouri Statutes on this sub- ject, as changed from time to time, and to the precise mean- ing of the term "deed," it being contended that even if a married woman could convey absolutely (her husband join- ing) she could not mortgage. The distinction attempted to be drawn from the doctrine of mortgages is a subtle one; but, in the opinion of the court, a morgtage is a deed, within the meaning of the statute, and operative as such. Hence, the demurrer as to said defence is well taken. �2. The second defence is as to the inadequacy of the price at whioh the property was sold under foreclosure. �Equitable defences, though admissible under the state practice, are not admissible in United States courts. ��� �
