SMITH V. 80HWED. 483 �bas been the understanding of other judges of the United States courts in this district, and as the defendant bas in this case admit- ted due notice of trial of the issues of fact, since his entry of the order overruling the demurrer, it would seem that he also must have had the same understanding. The use of this form of order, upon this construction of its meaning and effect, bas prevailed to a considerable estent, and no reasons of importance are shown for disturbing this praotice. The motion should be denied. ���Smith and others v. Sohwed and others.' {Oireuit Court, W. D, Miatouri, W. £>. November, 1881.) �1. Fbaudulent Judgments — Evidence. �A transaction is admissible in evidence, if it can be connected vr'itb. the transaction in controversy as part of a connected sclienie to defraud. �2. SaMB — BONA FiDE DbBT — DeFKAUDING OtHEB CkEDITORS — JUDGMENTS Sbt �Abide. �If the purpose of a crediter in obtaining a judgment is not to collect his debt, but to help the debtor cover up his property, hig judgment will be set aside, though it be shown that his debt was bonafide. �3. Federal Courts— Irregulakities in Judgments of State Courts. �A federal court will not set aside a judgment of a state court for a mer& irregularity, when the proceeding is merely tantamount to the common-law practice of moving to set aside a judgment for irregularity, or to a writ of error, a bill of review, or an appeal. �4. Removal dp Causes— Subject-Mattbb of the Suit. �A bill in chancery that had been flled in a state court to enjoin a judgment crediter from proceeding to enforce his judgment, and to set it aside, was re- moved to a federal court. Prior thereto the complainants had brought and prosecuted to judgment attachment suits against the judgment debtor, and the property attached had been sold by order of court and the proceeds re- mained in the hands of the sherifl. The bill prayed for the payment of their judgments ont of this f und. Udd, that the fund in the hands of the sherifl was no part of the subject-matter of the suit which had been removed, and that the court had no control over it. �In Equity, �This is a bill in equity brought to set aside a judgment rendered in the circuit court of Jackson county, Missouri, on the twenty-sixth day of .January, 1880, in favor of respondent ileller, and against respondents Sehwed & Newhouse, for 69,512.50. The judgment was by confession, and it appears upon its face to have been upon a promissory note given by said Sohwed & Newhouse to said Heller. The bill charges that the judgment was confessed without consider- ation, and by fraud and collusion, for the purpose of hindering, dela.J'ing, and defrauding creditors. Sehwed & Newiiouse were, for some tinie prior to the ��� �
