12 Wall. 323-342, 20 L. Ed. 406, VILLA v. RODRIGUEZ.

Doctrine of bona fide vendees without notice only applies where legal title conveyed and purchase money paid.

Approved in Taylor v. Weston, 77 Cal. 538, 20 Pac. 64, assignee of certificate of purchase of lieu land not bona fide purchaser; Kitteridge v. Chapman, 36 Iowa, 350, actual payment, not mere obligation to pay, is necessary.

Distinguished in Dewey v. Whitney, 93 Fed. 537, 35 C. C. A. 414, held not to apply; Tilton v. Cofield, 2 Colo. 405, attachment lien cannot be enlarged against other creditors and subsequent vendees. (But see dissenting opinion in 2 Colo. 410.)

Vendee under quitclaim deed cannot claim as a bona fide purchaser without notice of unrecorded mortgage,

Approved in Lindblom v. Rocks, 146 Fed. 663, 77 C. C. A. 86, where, in ejectment to recover lot on public domain, court instructed as to other defenses, instruction that defendant had burden of establishing plaintiff's abandonment set up as defense does not withdraw other defenses; Runyon v. Smith, 18 Fed. 582, disallowing quitclaim grantee to claim as bona fide purchasers; United States v. Sliney, 21 Fed. 895, and Dodge v. Briggs, 27 Fed. 167, to same effect; Woodward v. Jewell, 25 Fed. 691, grantee charged with defects of title, not to see to application of purchase money; Hastings v. Nissen, 31 Fed. 600, 601, grantee of heirs takes notice of unrecorded grant of ancestor; Johnson v. Williams, 37 Kan. 181, 1 Am. St. Rep. 245, 14 Pac. 538, not bona fide as to title shown by records or discoverable by reasonable diligence; dissenting opinion in United States v. California etc. Land Co., 49 Fed. 504, 1 C. C. A. 330, majority holding deed not a mere quitclaim; Battershall v. Stephens, 34 Mich. 74, arguendo.

Overruled in United States v. California etc. Land Co., 148 U. S. 45, 37 L. Ed. 361, 13 Sup. Ct. 463, quitclaim grantee may be a bona fide purchaser.

Disapproved in Wilhelm v. Wilken, 149 N. Y. 451, 52 Am. St. Rep. 745, 32 L. R. A. 372, 44 N. E. 83, quitclaim grantee takes without notice of unrecorded grant.

Limited in White v. M'Garry, 2 Flipp. 574, 47 Fed. 421, not applied where registry of mortgage is required to make it a lien against subsequent purchaser.

Distinguished in Boynton v. Haggart, 120 Fed. 822, 57 C. C. A. 301, holding innocent purchaser under quitclaim deed acquires title under registry laws against prior unrecorded deed..

Quitclaim deeds. Note, 53 Am. Rep. 751.

Effect of quitclaim in otherwise perfect record title. Note, 29
L. R. A. 39.

On sale of redemption to mortgagee, he must show good faith and pay. ment of full value; all doubts are construed against him.

Approved in Romig v. Gillett, 187 U. S. 117, 47 L. Ed. 100, 23 Sup. Ct. 42, setting aside foreclosure decree and allowing holder of equity of redemption to appear, plead, and make defense; Smith v. United States Fidelity etc. Co., 162 Fed. 18, 88 C. C. A. 669, applying rule to surety who was to advance money, receive conveyance of mining property, operate same and account, who caused it to be resold and obtained title; Savings & Loan Soc. v. Davidson, 97 Fed. 717, 38 C. C. A. 365, prohibiting mortgagee from purchasing outstanding title and hold adversely to mortgagor, believing title acquired for his protection; Clarke v. Fast, 128 Cal. 426, 61 Pac. 74, holding mortgagee becoming subsequent owner of policy originally held under mortgage must show transaction fair; Gassert v. Strong, 38 Mont. 38, 98 Pac. 503, and Wagg v. Herbert, 19 Okl. 562, 92 Pac. 264, both holding where mortgagee purchased from mortgagor and transaction showed unfairness, status of parties was that of borrower and lender; Peugh v. Davis, 2 McAr. (D. C.) 21, refusing to disturb validity of deed where it was difficult to say mortgagee had not paid all property was worth; Tuggle v. Berkeley, 101 Va. 95, 43 S. E. 203, holding conveyance by widow to son-in-law of garden lot and residence, he paying delinquent taxes and covenanting to reconvey on reimbursement constituted mortgage; Hursey v. Hursey, 56 W. Va. 157, 49 S. E. 370, applying principle where deed intended to be mortgage was contended to have, by subsequent agreement, changed to deed absolute; dissenting opinion in Stuart v. Hauser, 9 Idaho, 77, 72 Pac. 727, majority holding in equity suit by grantor to have deed declared mortgage, findings against grantor not disturbed where evidence conflicts; De Martin v. Phelan, 47 Fed. 764, Walker v. Farmers' Bank, 6 Del. Ch. 94, 8 Houst. 264, 10 Atl. 99 (affirmed in 8 Houst. 293, 310, 14 Atl. 828, 837), and Shaw v. Walbridge, 33 Ohio St. 6, in all there being no unfairness, redemption disallowed; Brownlee v. Martin, 21 S. C. 400, and Bradbury v. Davenport, 114 Cal. 600, 55 Am. St. Rep. 96, 46 Pac. 1063, Jones v. Franks, 33 Kan. 503, 6 Pac. 793, and McCleod v. Bullard, 86 N. C. 215, burden is on mortgagee to show fairness; Niggeler v. Maurin, 34 Minn. 125, 24 N. W. 372, redemption allowed for unconscientious advantage; Morrow v. Jones, 41 Neb. 877, 60 N. W. 372, deed may be shown a mortgage by parol; Macauley v. Smith, 132 N. Y. 531, 30 N. E. 998, agreement that mortgage becomes absolute deed if not paid is ineffectual; Tant v. Guess, 37 S. C. 510, 16 S. E. 479, holding leases herein security for debt; Rockwell v. Humphrey, 57 Wis. 417, 15 N. W. 396, relation of creditors existing, instrument herein is a chattel mortgage.

Distinguished in Bridges v. Lender, 60 Iowa, 195, 14 N. W. 219, as being essentially different from absolute conveyance with agreement to

reconvey.

Where confidential relations and means of oppression exist, the scrutiny of sale of redemption to mortgagee is severer.

Approved in Liskey v. Snyder, 56 W. Va. 623, 49 S. E. 520, following rule; Fort v. Colby, 165 Iowa, 127, 144 N. W. 405, applying rule where grantor in deed given as mortgage surrendered possession and took two successive leases from grantee; Holden Land & Live Stock Co. v. Interstate Trading Co., 87 Kan. 225, L. R. A. 1915B, 492, 123 Pac. 735, deposit of deed in escrow by mortgagor at time of mortgage, for delivery to mortgagee if he fails to meet his obligation promptly, is ineffectual; Skeels v. Blanchard, 85 Vt. 294, 81 Atl. 915, where mortgagor under past due mortgage gave mortgagee warranty deed, evidence justified finding deed was intended as mortgage; Hudkins v. Crim, 72 W. Va. 425, 78 S. E. 1047, relinquishment by mortgagor of equity of redemption without consideration did not change relation of parties; Bradbury v. Davenport, 114 Cal. 600, 55 Am. St. Rep. 96, 46 Pac. 1063, Walker v. Farmers' Bank, 6 Del. Ch. 94, 8 Houst. 264, 10 Atl. 99, Jones v. Franks, 33 Kan. 503, 6 Pac. 793, and Vangilder v. Hoffman, 22 W. Va. 33, 34, all arguendo.

Relief in equity against mortgage for inadequate consideration toward person in fiduciary relation. Note, 18 E. R. C. 358.

Mortgagee, purchasing equity of redemption, must reconvey, if any vice exists in the transaction, irrespective of form of instrument, though his debt, with interest, will be secured to him.

Approved in Walker v. Farmers' Bank, 8 Houst. 310, 14 Atl. 837, being fair herein, redemption disallowed; Vangilder v. Hoffman, 22 W. Va. 35, deed may be shown to be mortgage by parol; Bradbury v. Davenport, 114 Cal. 600, 55 Am. St. Rep. 96, 46 Pac. 1063, Walker v. Farmers' Bank, 6 Del. Ch. 94, 8 Houst. 264, 10 Atl. 99, and Jones v. Franks, 33 Kan. 503, 6 Pac. 793, all arguendo.

Contracts between mortgagor and mortgagee to waive or release equity of redemption. Note, 55 Am. St. Rep. 105.

Mortgagee having made assurances that an absolute deed given was a mortgage, redemption will be allowed.

Approved in Leland v. Morrison, 92 S. C. 513, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 349, 75 S. E. 893, applying rule in action to declare a deed absolute in form, a mortgage.

Parol evidence that instrument importing a complete transfer was intended as a mortgage or pledge. Note, L. R. A. 1916B, 347, 446, 447, 448, 452.

Right of redemption as inseparable attempt to mortgage. Note, 18 E. R. C. 365.

Miscellaneous. Cited in Partee v. Thomas, 11 Fed. 773.

12 Wall. 342-349, 20 L. Ed. 439, HANAUER v. DOANE.

Contracts in aid of Rebellion are void.

Approved in Thomas v. Richmond, 12 Wall. 357, 20 L. Ed. 457, holding statutes passed in aid of Rebellion are void; Dewing v. Perdicaries, 96 U. S. 195, 24 L. Ed. 655, sequestration and sale of stock by Confederacy is void; Keith v. Clark, 97 U. S. 464, 24 L. Ed. 1075, party asserting invalidity must set up and prove; Confiscation Cases, 1 Woods, 226, Fed. Cas. 3097, letter of credit to Confederate agent abroad is void; Whitis v. Polk, 36 Tex. 628, and Alexander v. Lewis, 47 Tex. 490, contract for sale of cotton beyond United States is void; Isaacs v. City of Richmond, 90 Va. 33, 17 S. E. 761, notes in aid of Rebellion void; dissenting opinion in Milner v. Patton, 49 Ala. 428, arguendo.

Distinguished in Pfeuffer v. Maltby, 54 Tex. 463, allowing accounting for completed partnership.

Any portion of consideration being illegal, notes are void in toto. Approved in State v. Wilson, 73 Kan. 354, 117 Am. St. Rep. 479, 84 Pac. 741, applying rule in prosecution upon charge of obtaining money by false pretenses by selling mortgaged cattle as clear of encumbrance; Snyder v. Willey, 33 Mich. 495, note given to stop criminal prosecution is void; Bick v. Seal, 45 Mo. App. 478, note partly illegal, mortgage not enforced; Cooper Mfg. Co. v. Ferguson, 113 U. S. 733, 28 L. Ed. 1138, 5 Sup. Ct. 741, contracts in violation of law not enforceable; Higgins v. McCrea, 116 U. S. 685, 29 L. Ed. 769, 6 Sup. Ct. 564, to same effect; Branch v. Haas, 4 Woods, 589, 16 Fed. 55, and Murray v. Chicago etc. Ry. Co., 62 Fed. 41, all arguendo.

Distinguished in dissenting opinion in Sprott v. United States, 20 Wall. 466, 22 L. Ed. 373, majority holding purchaser of cotton from Confederate states who knew that money he paid for it went to sustain Rebellion cannot, in Court of Claims, recover proceeds when it had been captured and sold under captured and abandoned property act; Keith v. Clarke, 4 Lea, 730, bank notes issued after 1861 are receivable as taxes from innocent holder.

Money borrowed to redeem illegal due bills may be recovered, though purpose was known.

Approved in Graves v. Johnson, 179 Mass. 58, 60 N. E. 383, allowing recovery for liquors sold and used in another State where sale prohibited. Distinguished in Barnhart v. Goldstein, 27 Ind. App. 103, 104, 59 N. E. 1067, refusing recovery for slot machines sold for purpose of gambling; Standard Furniture Co. v. Van Alstine, 22 Wash. 675, 79 Am. St. Rep. 963, 62 Pac. 146, refusing to enforce conditional sale of goods for use in house of ill fame.

He who sells goods to an agent of Confederates, knowing purpose of purchase, is guilty of treason or misprision thereof.

Approved in Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 150, 21 L. Ed. 428, amnesty of President includes aliens; Sprott v. United States, 20 Wall. 463, 22 L. Ed. 372, one buying cotton of Confederacy aids Rebellion; Whitis v. Polk, 36 Tex. 627, applying rule to sale of cotton without United States.

One must be taken to intend the consequences of his own voluntary act. Approved in Ohlsen v. Wilson, 31 Tex. Civ. 178, 71 S. W. 769, holding one manufacturing and selling faro-box designed for gambling purposes cannot recover price; Sprott v. United States, 20 Wall. 463, 22 L. Ed. 372, one purchasing cotton from Confederacy gives money in aid of Rebellion; Whitfield v. United States, 92 U. S. 170, 23 L. Ed. 707, one selling cotton to rebels and accepting bonds, aids Rebellion; Ware v. Jones, 61 Ala. 295, one selling goods to be used by Confederates intends to aid them; Carlisle v. United States, 16 Wall. 150, 21 L. Ed. 428, arguendo.

One knowing that goods sold or money lent are to be used for a criminal purpose, cannot recover, though he does not give it for that purpose.

Approved in Continental Wall Paper Co. v. Louis Voight & Sons Co., 212 U. S. 262, 53 L. Ed. 505, 29 Sup. Ct. 280, public policy demands denial of recovery upon account of goods sold by corporation created to form illegal combination of wall-paper manufacturers; Hiram Walker & Sons v. Grubman, 224 Fed. 732, enjoining sales of "Canadian type" whisky to saloon-keepers in the wood, except when seller receives assurance buyer will not use it in substitution for genuine Canadian whisky; McKinnon v. Waterbury, 136 Fed. 491, fact that lender caused note and mortgage taken for loan to be made payable to alien in order to escape taxation, cannot be set up as defense to foreclosure; Marden v. Phillips, 103 Fed. 197, holding vendee, under bill of sale held as sccurity for money used in "differences," barred as against vendor's trustee in bankruptcy: Ashford v. Mace, 103 Ark. 116, Ann. Cas. 1914B, 804, 39 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1104, 146 S. W. 475, mere knowledge by lessor that lessee intended to sublet premises leased for purpose of bawdy-house, did not render contract void; Schaun v. Brandt, 116 Md. 564, 82 Atl. 553, discussing rule in suit against surety on bond, given to secure pay