Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/748

 73e FEDBBAIi BEPOBTEB. �of authority, as well as the better reason, supports the rule that the lien of theattorney is upon the interest of his client in the judgment, and is subject to an existing right of set-ofi in the other party. Oager v. Watson, 11 Conn. 168; Ex parte Lehman, 59 Ala. 631; Wright v. Treadwell, le Texas, 255; Currier v. Railroad Co, 37 N. H. 223; Mohawk Bank v. Burrows, 6 Johns. Ch. 317; Porter v. Lane, 8 Johns. 277; Nicoll t. Nkoll, 16 Wend. 445; Hiirst v. Sheets,,21 lowa, 501. �The demurrer to bill is overruled, and unless respondents wish to answer there will be deeree in accordanoe with the prayer of the bill. ���MoBanb v. Wilson and others. {Circuit Court, W. D. FennnyUania. July 31, 1881.) �1. ESTOPPBL— PUBCHASBKS. �In an action brought by a subsequent purchaser for the recovery of land, TiM, that a prior purchaser is estopped from asserting his title, where, to the inquiry of such subsequent purchaser, whom he knew to be bargaining with the original owner for its purchase, he denies all interest in it. lldA, also, that a judgment creditor of the prior purchaser, who urged such subsequent purchaser to purchase, stating that the title was clear, was also estopped. �In pursuance of written stipulation this case was tried by the court without the intervention of a jury. �The following facts are, therefore, found by the court �(1) The plalntifE and the defendants in this case, respectively, daim title to the land in controversy through and under Jake Hill, who became seized thereof in fee-simple prior to October 31. 1867. �(2) By deed, dated and acknowledged October 31, 1867, Jake Hill sold and conveyed the land in controversy to Henry Metzger. On or about its date this deed was delivered by Hill to Metzger, but by agreement between them it was withheld from record. Said deed was not recorded until June 8, 1876; and then without the consent or knowledge of either of the parties to it. It was recorded at the instance of some unknown person who had obtained pos- session of it. �(3) The land in controversy is the undivided one-eighth part of certain tracts of timber land (described in the record in this case) situate in Jefterson county, Pennsylvania. ihe other owners of said lands were E. G. Carrier and S. S. Jackson. From the date of his deed from Hill down until the summer of 1872 he (Metzger) and his said co-tenants, E. G. Carrier aud S. S. Jackson, were engaged in the business of "lumbering," — running Imnber via the Alle- gheny river to the Pittsburgh market, — and, in the prosecutiou of this busi- ness, Carrier and Jackson eut and removed timber from said tracts of land. Ai the time of the sale and conveyance to Alexander Smith, hereinafter men- ��� �