The Yazoo Whig and political register. (Yazoo City, Miss.) 1840-1842, 1842-03-25
OPINION
OF CHANCELLOR "BT. H. BUCKNER,


and material allegations of
the PlS % thatih April, 1893, he
purchal elendant, John B.Pease,
a plantaA nifty. eight slaves, together
with qtA of stock and farming uten-
sils, for VIII = he was to pay the sum of One
Hundred Til, 1Sand Dollars n Five Years.
that the propC.ty so purchased was subject
TO number of outstanding incaanbrGnces Gre
ated by said John 3. Pease, which the plain
tiff vast pay off and discharge; that twenty
one of the slaves so purchased by him, had
been bought by said John B. Pease of Bal
lard, Franklin & Co. on a credit, and that to
secure the payment therefor, said John b.
Pease gave to them a Deed of Trust, embra-
cling all the land and slaves so purchased as
aforesaid by the plaintf.-That Ballard
Franklin and Co. were proceeding under
said Deed of Trust to sell the property, real
and personal, embraced therein. That said
John B. Pease had agreed 10 confess judg
ment at law, in favor Of said Ballard, Frank
lin & Co., for the amount of money due them,
and intended to be secured by said Deed of
Trust The Bill charges that the slaves sold
by Ballard, Franklin q Co. to John b. Pease,
and which were bought of him by the Com
plainant, were broughtinto This State by said
Ballard, Franklin q Co., as an article of sale
and merchandise, since the LIST day of May,
1888, in violation of the Constitution upon
that subject, and that the contract of sale and
purchase between said John B. Pease and
said Ballard, Franklin & Co. is therefore void
and irrecoverable The Bill further charges
that Ballard, Franklin & Co. agreed with the
complainant after his purchase from John B.
Pease, ihathe might quietly hold the proper
~ so purchased, until by the crops and pro-
ceeds thereof, he could pay off and discharge
the debt due from John Pease TO them.-
That the defendants are frauduently combi-
ming to cheat him out Of his properly. The
Bill prays for an Injunction which was grant
ed in vacation by one of the Circuit Judges,
enioning sale under the Deed ofTrust, and
a motion is now made to dissolve that In.
junction. The Answer Of John b. Pease
denies all the material allegations of the bill,-
states his desire to fulfil his contract with
Ballard, Franklin & Co., which he says was
made in good faith, and states that part Of
the terms of his contract Of sale 10 the plain
tilf was that he should pay the debt due Bal
lard, Franklin & Co. The Answer of Ballard
admits that all the slaves except two which
were sold to j. b. Pease and by him to the
complainant, were introduced into this State
since the LIST of May, 1888, for sale. lie states
that the plaintiff had agreed TO pay the debt
of John b. Pease, and denies all other char
ges of the BILL The Answer exhibits the
record of judgment against John B Pease
for the debt which the plaintiff now seeks to
avoid, The defendants counsel insist upon
the validity OF the original contract, andmace
an argument Of some length and ability IN
support of that position. Since the decision
of the High Court of ErTOTs in the case oil
Green VS. Robinson, the law upon that ques-
ton has been considered as settled, at least
80 far as the tribunals Of this State are con-
cerned, 1t was there held that all such con
tractsare void and recoverable and although
the point now raised does not appear to have
been made IN that case, yet as it questions
the correctness Of that decision, do not fee
myself at liberty TO entertain it. The princi
pal Inquiry here is, can the plaintiff, unde
the facts and circumstances disclosed by tn,
pleadings. vacate and avoid the contract o
debt of John b Pease, to which he is not
party, and TO which he is not otherwis
privy, than by having voluntarily purchased
the property which he knew John Peas
had charged with the payment Of that debt
and which he the plaintiff assumed to pay a
condition Of his purchase. Althoughit
generally true that any person may take 40
vantage Of a void contract where his interes
10 sopght to be affected by it, yet l apprehen
incorporation is not without some qualhca
ton. II would seem contrary 10 all our nc
honsoi the law of contracts, to permit :
third person who had voluntarily acquired d
interest In the subject Of an illegal contrac'
knowing i to be so, to come forward an
raise that defence, when the maker Of III
contract.Who as in the present case is q part
tothe controversy, not only refuses to max
the defence, but declares his.willingness an
desire that the contract should be enforced
Such case might without any seeming dt
parture from principle, be held 10 constitut
ane1ceptiop from the general rule laid down
But upon this viii give no decided opinion
as there are other features in the case upo
whlehit may ebe decided. II appears that,
thetime the plaintiff purchased the properl
in question, he was not only aware Of ~
existence Of ne Deed Of Trust which he Il: