328 FEDERAL REI>ORTER. �cured by a draft on my son-in-law for $600 or $700, indorsed by Barth, which he paid. The balance of the money I obtained from the sale of real estate in Massachusetts belonging to my- 8elf, conyeyed to me by deed, and I received some money from my sister." �The son testifies that he knows that hia mother received the money from the sale of property in Massachusetts belong- ing to her from being present at the sale ; and Mr. Morse, the husband, testifies that ail the money paid for the property belonged to his wife, except what was furnished by Barth. It was held by the supreme court of the United States, in Leitz V. Mitchell, 94 U. S. 580, that purchases of real or personal property made during coverture by the wife of an insolvent debtor are justly regarded with suspicion, and that she cannot prevail in eontests with his creditors unless the presumption that it was not paid for out of her separate estate be over- come by affirmative proof, and that the burden is upon the wife to prove distinctly that she paid for it with f unds not fur- nished by her husband. This doctrine has been f ully adopted and applied by the court of appeals of Maryland, in the recent case of Henkle v. Wïlson, October 7, 1879. And in the pres- ent case it may well be that if this was a contest between Mrs. Morse and her husband's creditors, or his assignees in bank- ruptcy, the testimony given by herself, her husband and her son, although not contradicted or impeached, or shaken in any way, (it having been taken in Brooklyn, under commission and without cross-examination,) might not satisfy the court as to the source from which she obtained the money paid for the property, other than that furnished by Barth. But this is not a contest with her, but a contest with one claiming to be a hona fide purehaser from her without knowledge of any weakness in her title. �If the deed from Campbell's heirs had been made to Morse and the property then conveyed to his wife, the case would be clearly within the rule in Green v. Early, 39 Md. 223. The deeds would have disclosed that it was an acquisition of property by her from her husband, and Barth would have taken from her no better title than she had, and if she could ����
