Case ID: tenn_21/html/0115-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n    ", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Johnson and Heam vs. Morgan, Allison & Co.
    Johnson purchased slaves of Richmond, paid the purchase money, took a bill of sale of the slaves and received the possession of them: Held, that said slaves were subject to the execution claims of creditors until said bill of sale was registered: no title passed as against such creditors but by deed registered before the lion of the execution attached.
    Johnson and Heam filed this bill in the chancery court at Lebanon on the 30th day of April, 1840, against Morgan, Allison & Co. to restrain by injunction the sale of certain slaves. The bill alleges that complainant, Johnson, purchased on the 12th day of February, 1839, four slaves, to wit, Boason, Rosetta and her two children, of one Richmond; that Johnson paid ¿the purchase money, took a bill of sale and possession was delivered to him in accordance therewith, and that shortly after the purchase of said slaves he gave Rosetta and her two children to complainant Heam, who had intermarried with his daughter.
    The bill alleges further, that on the 13th day of May, 1839, the aforesaid Richmond executed a note to Morgan, Allison & Co.; that suit wasinstituted thereupon against saidRichmond, in the circuit court of Wilson county, and that at the March term, 1840, judgment was recovered on the same for the sum of $629 89; that executions issued therefor, which came to the hands of the sheriff of Wilson county and was by him levied on the slaves, Rosetta and her two children, in the possession of complainant, Heam.
    The bill further alledges, that said sale was without fraud and Ionafide, and that all the facts and circumstances connected therewith, were well known to defendants Morgan, Allison & Co., and that said defendants, were not seeking to subject the said slaves to the payment of the debts of Richmond, on the ground that there was any fraud in the sale, but on the ground that his bill of sale was not registered at the time of the recovery of the judgment aforesaid. An injunction was applied for and ordered by judge Ca* ruthers. The defendants filed a demurrer to this bill and complainants joined in demurrer. This demurrer was argued before the chancellor, Ridley, at the July term, 1840, and the bill was dismissed at the cost of complainants; from this decree complainants appealed.
    
      R. M. Burton,
    
    cited and commented upon the act of 1784, ch. 10, sec. 7; 1789, ch. 59, sec. 2; 1831, ch. 9, sec. 1-6-12,• and contended that- under the circumstances of the case, registration was not necessary, and that the title had passed at the time of the levy, and that consequently the slaves were not subject to the execution of Morgan, Allison & Co.
    
      Caruthers, for defendant,
    regarded this question as settled by the previous adjudications of the State.' Douglas vs. Morfard, 8 Yer-ger, 373. Payne vs. Lassiter, 10th Yer. 507. Banks vs. Thomas, Meigs, 28.
   Per Curiam.

Johnson and Heam acquired no title to these slaves against the defendants until the bill of sale of Johnson was registered. This was not done until the lien of defendants’ execution attached. Let the decree of the chancellor be affirmed and the bill dismissed.