UNITED BTATES V. FOOLE. el6 �ant to maintain his answer. To accomplisli this, ht must show that, as against the government, his son, William B. Poole, by the conveyance of March 25, 1868; did not acquire a valid title to the estate, and that the govemment, by its levies.did obtain a good title to the same. This he proposes to do by evidence, to satisfy the court, that his deed; to his son was executed with the intent and design of both parties thereto thereby to defraud the United States, to place the property beyond reach of the government, and prevent its being applied to the satisfaction of, any judgment the gov- ernment might thereafter reoover against the grantor. �The government insists that the defendant is not at liberty thus, for. his own benefit, to attaok and impeach his owndeed and establish its invalidity by reason of suoh fraudulent in- tention. It is certain that as betwôen the parties to this cor.- veyance, however fraudulent may have been.their intent, the title to the estate thereby passed to the grantee. Sijch a trans- fer is not void, but being a perfect and complete instrumesnt, duly executed -with ail the formalities of thelaw, and a con- sideration having been paid therefor, it was voidable pnly by creditors of the grantor, and was good between the parties. The question now for decision is whether under these cir- cumstances, a.s against a creditor whose interest it now is that this conveyance should be sustained, and in the relation which the government now bears to this estate, a grantor shall be heard to offer evidence of his fraudulent purpoue and thereby sustain a levy, which, as the record stands, is invalid. In the opinion of the court the grantor must abide by his conveyance, and cannot establish his own fraud to defeat it. �The marginal note in Roberts v. Roberts, 2 B. & Aid. 367, is : "No man can be allowed to allege his own fraud to avoid his own deed." Abbott, C. J., said: "The plaintifE at the trial produced a proper deed of conveyance, and proved its execution, and by that he established his title to the prem- ises. The defendant endeavored to defeat this by showing that the deed was delivered for the fraudulent purpose of giv- ing to the plaintiff a colorable qualification to kill game ; bu*; in Montejiori v. Montefiori, 1 Wm, Bl. 363, Lord Mausfie.Ul ����
