Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/575

 UNITED STATES V. GEISWOLD. " 561 �" When the debtor remains in the possession of the property his acts and declarations are competent evidence against the grantee. The possession is a part of the resgestœ, and the nature and character of the possession is an im- portant point of inquiry. The acts and declarations connected with it, form- ing a part of its attendant circumstances, are collateral indications of its nature, extent, and purpose. They are admissible, not because any peculiar credit is due to the party in possession, but becaase they qualify and charac- terize the very fact to be iiivestigated." �Ses, also, Potter v. McDoivell, 31 Mo. 74; Whart. Ev. § 263. �It may be remarked, as bearing on this question and the considera- tion to be given to the leaning of the earlier authorities, that with the growth of the idea that it is better to enlarge the field of evi- dence than to restrict it, the admissibility of this kind of declara- tion is received with increasing favor; and it is safe to affirm that there is no reason why an act tending to show ownership on the part of the vendor, after sale, should be received as an item of evidence to prove the true chararacter of the alleged fraudulent transaction, which does not equally support the admission of the declaration which accompanies it, and is to all intents and purposes a part of it. �It is also contended on behalf of the defendants that admitting the conveyances that terminated in the one vesting the legal title to the premises in Mrs. Griswold were made with intent to hinder, de- lay, and defraud creditors, that the United States, not being a cred- itor of the Griswolds until after that date, — January 29, 1874, was not aflteeted by the transaction and cannot be heard to complain of it. Upon this point it is contended by the plaintiff that Griswold's cred- itors at the date of his bankruptcy, who have not since been paid in full, are his creditors still, for that his discharge was and is illegal and void, because he fraudulently omitted from his schedule the premises in controversy, and certain Indian war scrip of the value of many thousands of dollars, including one item of $15,566.59 arising out of the expedition to aid the Oregon emigrants of 1854, which he had obtained from Ben. Drew, and afterwards, on April 20, 1871, col- lected in full from the United States, and such conveyances being void as to these then-existing creditors are void also as to the subse- quent ones, including the plaintiff. �But admitting all that is alleged against the integrity of the bank- ruptcy proceeding, as that Griswold's discharge was fraudulently obtained for the reason stated, still the discharge is and bas been in full force and effect ever since it was obtained, and is and was a valid and binding discharge from the debts then due from Griswold until T.8,no.8— 36 ��� �