Case ID: va_50/html/0181-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SAMUELS, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

*Henderson v. Henderson’s Ex’x.
    July Term, 1852,
    Lewisburg.
    (Absent Allen, J.)
    Judgment — Satisfaction of — Parties.-- A bill is filed to subject lands to the satisfaction of a judgment after the death of the debtor, and charging fraud in certain conveyances by the debtor to his son. The son haying conveyed some of the lands to third persons, all such persons must be made parties to the cause.
    This was a bill filed in September 1835, in the Circuit court of Wood county, by Richard H. Henderson, executor of Alexander Henderson of Dumfries, against George W. Henderson and the administrator of Alexander Henderson, late of Wood countj’. The plaintiff claimed to be a creditor of Alexander Henderson of Wood county by judgment recovered against him in 1824; and he sought to set aside certain conveyances of real and personal estate, made by Alexander Henderson of Wood to his son George W. Henderson in 182S and 1826. In his bill, after setting out his judgment and the deeds, and the insolvency of Alexander Henderson of Wood at his death, he charged that these deeds were intended to hinder and delay his creditors, and especially the plaintiff; and George W. Henderson was called upon to say whether he had sold the land conveyed to him by his father, and if he had, when and to whom he had conveyed it, and who was the then owner. And the prayer of the bill was, that the conveyances might be set aside, and that the defendant George W. Henderson might be required to account for the value of the property with interest and profits, and for general relief.
    George W. Henderson answered the bill, averring that he had purchased the property and given full *value for it. And in answer to the enquiry whether he had sold the land conveyed to him by his father, he stated, that after making considerable improvements on one of the tracts, he in 1830 exchanged it with his uncle Archibald Henderson for other lands; and in 1833 he sold and conveyed another tract to Joseph Tomlinson, and that Tomlinson afterwards conveyed it to his daughter, the wife of the defendant; and he filed with his answer the deeds to and from himself.
    In the progress of the cause the plaintiff Richard H. Henderson died, and the suit was revived in the name of his executrix, Orra M. Henderson.
    The cause came on to be heard in March 1848, when the court held that one moiety of the lands conveyed by Alexander to George W. Henderson by the deeds of the 5th and 7th of December 1825, were bound by the judgment against the grantor therein. And it was decreed, that unless George W. Henderson, on or before the 1st day of the next June, paid the balance due on the judgment, that a commissioner appointed by the decree should after, &c., sell at public auction one moiety of the said lands upon a credit, &c. And an issue was directed to ascertain whether the deeds of the 5th and 7th of December 1825, and a bill of sale of the 1st of April 1826, for the slave and other property therein mentioned, were voluntary conveyances, and therefore void; or whether or not they were for an inadequate consideration, and fraudulent and void: or if for a valuable consideration, then what was the true value of each of the tracts of land in the said deeds mentioned, and the true consideration paid therefor by George W. Henderson. And also to ascertain the true value of the slave and other personal property mentioned in the bill of sale aforesaid, and the consideration paid therefor. George W. Henderson applied to this court for an appeal from this decree, which was allowed.
    *Price and McPherson, for the appellant.
    Fry, for the appellee.
    
      
      See principal case cited in Cronise v. Carper, 80 Va. 681. See also, monographic of eon “Judgments.”
    
   SAMUELS, J.

I am of opinion the Circuit superior court of law and chancery for Wood county should have rendered no decree in the case until it had caused the persons holding the titles to the lands sought to be charged, to be made parties to the suit. As a moiety of their lands if subjected to the lien of complainants’ judgment, can only be so subjected after applying the. personal estate of Alexander Henderson, if any, to the part payment thereof,. these persons have a direct interest in the. questions connected with the personal property. . It was improper therefore, to decide in regard to the personal property in their absence. And moreover the decree in regard to the land would be wholly inoperative against those who held the titles but who are hot parties to the suit.

The, decree should be reversed with costs to the appellant, and the cause remanded with directions to make parties such persons as hold titles to the land conveyed by Alexander Henderson to George W. Henderson by the deeds bearing date the 5th and 7th days of December 1825, and for further proceedings to be had therein.

The-other judges, concurred..

The decree was as follows:

The court is of opinion that the Circuit court of Wood county erred in rendering any decree affecting the real or personal property sought to be charged 'without having before it as parties the persons holding titles to the lands cpnveyed by Alexander Henderson to George W. Henderson by the deeds bearing date the 5th and 7th of December 1825. It is' therefore adjudged, ordered and decreed that the said decree be *reversed and' annulled, that the appellant recover of the appellee his costs expended in this court, to be levied of the assets in her hands to be administered; and the cause is remanded to the Circuit court of Wood county with directions to cause the persons above' mentioned to be made parties, and for further proceedings to be had therein.