tle are worth $7 per head, or $700, and the horses $50 a head. I have lived in two miles of him since the fall of 1852. Since that time he has had the amount of property stated above, etc.

ELIAS CORE testified that he lived about a mile from McLain, and had known him for twenty-five years. That he owned personal property to the amount of some three or four thousand dollars: and was the owner of that much personal property in the first of the year 1858, etc.

GEORGE W. HARDY, testified: I have known Allen McLain ever since 1853. He has resided in Pulaski county since that time. I have been frequently at his house, and from what I saw, am warranted in the belief that he was worth from $1,500 to $2,000 of personal property, at any time since I have known him, and in the year 1858, etc.

Other witnesses corroborate the above, to the extent that McLain was the owner of personal property consisting of horses, cattle, hogs, etc., of value far exceeding the amount of taxes charged upon his lands for the year 1857.

The argument of counsel, that the witnesses do not state that the personal property referred to by them, was in Pulaski county, and within the reach of the collector, is not entitled to very grave consideration.

When the witnesses state that they had known McLain for many years, that he resided in Pulaski county, that they lived near him, had frequently been at his house, and that he had so many horses, cattle, hogs, etc., the inference is very plain that they meant that the property referred to by them was in his possession, and at his place of residence.

Nor is there any testimony conducing to prove that the horses, etc., of McLain were running in the range, as supposed by counsel, and not to be found by the collector, and that on that account he resorted to a sale of the lands, etc.

On the contrary, Josiah M. Giles, one of the deputies of the collector, testifies that he was the only deputy that collected the taxes of 1857, in Campbell township, where McLain re

sided. That he made no effort to obtain from him personal property in satisfaction of his taxes, nor did Danley, or any of his deputies do so within the knowledge of witness. That from his knowledge of McLain's condition, he thought he was able, and had plenty of personal property to pay his taxes. He generally gave in a good many horses and cattle in his assessment list. Witness was at his house once during collecting time, to serve writs, but had no recollection of calling on him for his taxes.

The truth of the whole matter, as it appears from the depositions, is, that McLain deposited money with Hutt, his merchant, and instructed him to pay his State and county taxes, but not to pay his road tax. The deputy of the collector called on Hutt for payment, and he tendered the amount of the State and county taxes, but refused to pay the road tax, as directed by McLain; and the deputy declined to receive any portion of the taxes, unless the whole, including the road tax, was paid. Whereupon, the collector proceeded to advertise and sell the lands assessed in the name of McLain, without going to his residence, or sending a deputy, to levy upon personal property, or to see if any could be found.

We think, upon the pleadings and evidence, the decree of the Chancellor dismissing the bill, and canceling the tax deed of appellant, was right, and the decree must be affirmed.

Mr. Justice FAIRCHILD did not sit in this case.

The denial in an answer of facts alleged in the bill, which are not within the personal knowledge of the defendant, must be treated as a matter of pleading, putting in issue merely the allegations, which may be proved by one witness.

It is well settled that a father has the right to permit the son, during minority, to labor for himself and appropriate his wages according to his own inclinations. Where property is purchased for the son, with his money, and upon an agreement that the deed is to be made to him, and the deed is executed to the father by mistake, he holds the legal title in trust for his son, and his conveyance of the property to the son cannot be held as fraudulent.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court.

Hon. H. F. FAIRCHILD, Chancellor.

FOWLER & STILLWELL, for appellants.

Jonathan Lewis, the father, was not a competent witness for the appellee. He was in possession of the property in controversy, and the effect of his evidence was to enable him to retain the possession and use of the property. Gresly's Eq. Ev. 353, 354, 358; 2 Coup. R. 621; 1 Hill (N. Y.) Rep. 100. Another effect was to release him from liability for rents accruing pendthe suit.

Without the testimony of Jonathan Lewis there was not sufficient proof of the allegations of the bill. And it must be borne in mind that the contest is not between the parties to the mistake, but between one of them and a creditor, and a court of equity will not interfere to correct an alleged mistake in the latter case, unless the proof of it be full, and the relief asked for clearly shown. 1 Bro. Ch. R. 342; 6 Vesey 333; 9 Gill's Rep. 430; 2 John. Ch. R. 632; 1 Story Eq. Dec. 169.

Appellee being a minor, his father was entitled to the proceeds of his labor, and although invested in land, in his own name, it is still subject to the claims of his father's creditors. Wright's Ohio Rep. 751; 2 Kent's Com. 162-3; Freeman's Ch. Rep. 434.

WATKINS & GALLAGHER, for appellee.

Mr. Chief Justice ENGLISH delivered the opinion of the Court. Goodrich and Boardman were the joint owners of fractional lots No. 2 and 3, in Block No. 1, of Pope's Addition to the city of Little Rock, east of the Quapaw line. Goodrich died, leaving Boardman, who resided in New York, his executor.

On the 8th of December, 1854, Boardman conveyed the lots to Jonathan Lewis, who had occupied a house upon the lots. for some ten years before.

On the 15th May, 1855, Jonathan Lewis conveyed the lots to his son, John Lewis, the appellee, but continued to occupy the house upon them.

On the 2d of May, 1855, Jane Fairhurst, the appellant, commenced an action of trespass against Jonathan Lewis for an assault and battery, alleged to have been committed by him upon her; and on the 14th of July, 1855, recovered a judgment against him for $1,000 damages. She sued out an execution upon the judgment, the lots were levied upon, sold, purchased by her at a nominal sum, and a deed executed to her by the sheriff. She afterwards brought an action of ejectment against Jonathan Lewis for possession of the lots, and obtained judgment; and to prevent her from causing a writ of possession to be executed, and to establish his own title to the lots, John Lewis filed the bill in this case.

The substance of the case made by the bill is, that Jonathan Lewis was, and had been for many years, a cripple, was poor, had a large family, and was barely able to support them.

The complainant, John, who was about twenty-one years of age when the bill was filed, had been permitted by his father,

for some ten years before, to go out and labor for himself, and appropriate his wages according to his own inclinations. That he had found employment as a cabin boy, steward, and finally as an engineer upon steamboats running upon the Arkansas and White rivers, supported himself, contributed occasionally to the maintainance of his father's family, by gifts to his mother, and laid up some money from his wages.

That his father, after the death of Goodrich, learning that the lots in controversy were for sale, having lived upon thein for some years, and being desirous to secure them as a home, corresponded with Boardman of New York, in relation to the price of them, and on learning the sum demanded, expressed himself as being totally unable to purchase them.

Finally, in the fall of 1855, complainant learning that an agent of Boardman had come to Little Rock, and was offering the lots for sale at the sum of $400, he determined to make an effort to purchase them himself, to take the deed in his own. name, but to permit his father and mother to occupy the premises as a home during their lives. Accordingly he borrowed. $150 from his uncle in St. Louis, which, together with the money he had saved from his wages, made up the sum of $400. This sum he sent to his father to purchase the lots in his name, the purchase was accordingly made, with the distinct understanding that the deed was to be made to him, and the money was to be deposited with Mr. Wait, of Little Rock, until the deed was executed.

The money was accordingly deposited, and subsequently the deed was executed by Boardman, forwarded to Mr. Wait, and delivered by him to Jonathan Lewis.

But Boardman, by mistake, made the deed to Jonathan Lewis instead of the complainant, John, either from the fact that he confounded their names, or from the fact that Jonathan Lewis had corresponded with him on the subject, and negotiated the purchase with his agent.

Afterwards, when complainant came to Little Rock, and was shown the deed, he expressed surprise and dissatisfaction at its