Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 3.djvu/208

 EADFOKD V. POLSOIT. 201 �premises described in the petition hy purchase from Frank, and praying that her title might be established. Sometime thereafter the cause was argued upon the pleadings and proofs, and submitted to the court, and by the court taken under advisement. Subsequently, and before a decision waa rendered, Frank Folsom was adjudicated a bankrupt in this court, and the plaintiff herein, baving been appointed his as- signee, appeared in the cause in lowa, moved the court that the submission be set aside, and that he be substituted aa party plaintiff for Frank Folsom ; that ail af ter proceedings in the cause be in his name, and that he be permitted to file the necessary pleadings in that behalf. The court refused to set aside the submission, but allowed him to be substituted aa plaintiff, and to file an amendment to the petition setting up the fact of the bankruptcy of Folsom, and his appointment as assignee. This cause had already been commenced in this court. Afterwards, the court rendered a decree that the bond and deed were intended as a mortgage; that Frank Folsom took with notice; that his sister Eliza took pendente lite, and also with notice. In accordanee with the prayer of the cross-bill the court directed an accounting, fixing the amount necessary to redeem, and provided that redemption might be made on or before June 1, 1880, which, if made, should then vest the property in the defendants free of any claim or lien in favor of the plaintiff or intervenor, and further provided that such redemption money should remain in court until the prospective rights of the plaintiff and intervenor should be determined; that if the redemption was not made, then the title to the land deeded by Frank to the intervenor should rest in her, and the residue in the plaintiff Eadford, "free and clear of any lien or claim of defendants, or either of them." �The question now arises whether this decree vesting the title to a portion of the property in Frank, and to another por- tion in Eliza, estops the plaintiff in this suit from questioning the validity of the conveyance from Frank to Eliza made pending the legislation in lowa. The general principlôs appli- cable to this class of questions are weli settled. �When a question is distiuctly put in issu'e, and trîed aàd ����