The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1849-04-12
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Deeisions-NEw ORLEANS, April 9. 1s4s.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Condensed Deeisions-NEw ORLEANS, April 9. 1S4s
| lContinued1
Where A. resident Of Mississippi made conveyance
his property in trust for his creditors B. and afterwad
conveyed portion of the property to 6 in 70
his future wife ID. the former deed remaining in force
and retained possession of the property and receives
the revenues. and the latter deed acknowl
edged proved recorded according to the statutes
Mississippi, and pending proceedings by a creditor il
Mississippi. ed with his wife and property int
Louisiana held that the former deed being audulen
and the latter void the property must be subjected tn
debt for which the creditor had obtained Judgment il
Mississippi.
YOUNG, SMITH & Co., USE OF ETC u.s. SAMUEL
TEMPLETeN AND WIFE AND JAMES w. WILEY
! Appeal from the Tenth judicial District Court
Parish Of Carroll. .EUsTIs, C. j.. This sui
is brought on Judgment obtained by the plaintiff
in the State of Mississippi against Samuel Temple.
ton aid others. The object of it is to obtain a
judgment in this State against Samuel Templeton
one of the defendants, and to annul conveyance
of certain slaves made by said Tempeton to the
other defendant, James WILEY, in trust for Mrs.
Templeton, in consideration of marriage, and to
subject the slaves, twenty. one in number, to the
dict of jury in favor of the plaintiffs against
Templeton for the amount of his debt, but in favor
of the other defendants, Wyley and Mrs. Temple
ton, against the plaintiffs and Judgment having
been rendered accordingly, the plaintiffs have ap-
pealed. The judgment having sustained the con-
veyance under which the slaves were held in trust
for the benefit of Mrs Templeton, the principal
argument of counsel has been directed to the ules-
ton of its validity. The opinion of the Supreme
Court is long and elaborate, and our limits compel
us to abbrevate it. The conveyance of the slaves,
with other property, was made October 9, 1843, in
view of marriage, by S. Templeton, through the
fundamentally of WILEY, as trustee, he being the
future father-in-law. The deed was executed in
Madison county, Mississippi, Wyley's residence,
that of TempletOn being in Warren county, Mis-
sissppi. Early in December, 1916, Templeton and
his wife removed to the parish of Carroll in this
State, with the slaves, and the instrument above
described was there recorded about that time. The
judgment on which this suit is brought was rem
dered in May, 1840 in the Circuit Court of Warren
county, Mississippi.
The,Supreme Court first considered this PROPOSE
ton: If the marriage settlement was valid against
the plaintiff under the laws of Mississippi the par.
ties residing there and the property upon which it
was to operate being also there, it may be assumed
that the rights of ownership under it are not affect
ed by the removal of both to this State" The va
lidity and effect of the settlement, under those
laws, were therefore examined. The counsel for
plaintiffs insisted that the marriage settlement
never had any legal existence under the laws Of
Mississippi, as to those who were creditors of Tenn
pleton at the time it executed, that it vas void
as to all such creditors, whether they had judge
proved, or recorded in the manner required by the
statutes of that State, in order to give it effect
The statute is in Howard and Hutchinson, D. 3i3
The only evidence of compliance with the pro-
visions of this statute by the parties the marriage
settlement is certificate of the clerk of the Pro-
bate Court OF Madison county, Mississippi, dated
Dec %, 1643, to the effect hat the two subscribing
witnesses appeared before him and proved the ex-
ecnti0n and delivery of the instrument on the day
and for the purposes therein mentioned. In the
act of settlement Tempeton describes himself as of
the county of Warren, and conveys to his future
wife twenty-one slaves, together with the planta-
ton upon which he then resided, in Warren county,
with all the stock, farming utensils, household and
kitchen furniture, etc. The Supreme Court there
fore held it to be apparent that the requisites of the
statute had not been complied with, as to acknow-
ledgment, proof or recording that the instrument
did not appear ever to have had effect in Missis-
sippi; that it stood private writing, without
any act connected with it which would give it any
effect as an executed contract. The case of Arm
field Us. Armfeld, Freemen's Chancery Reports,
3l6, is then noticed at length.
The marriage settlement never having been re-
corded in Mississippi and there being no pretence
for any notice of it to the plaintiffs, the Court said
it was very difficult to perceive what ground it
could have been held valid against levy on the
property by an execution of the plaintiffs. Here
this levy was prevented by the conveyance of the
legal estate in the property under the deed of trust
to Joseph TempletOn, which the plaintiffs have
been attempting to set aside. This deed having |
been recorded in the proper county, and the judg
ment having been enrolled there, it seemed to the
Court that it fixed the notice of both upon the tru-
tee as well as the party in interest, and disclosed
The rights of plaintiffs under their judgment, and
The desperate condition of Templeton's affairs. |
The transfer of his homestead, furniture and slaves
could imply nothing else and the Court said they
could not understand how by going out of his coun-
" and contracting with person there, the latter
4 Of OP reI lev ar
Under our laws marriage of this |
character, adversely to creditors, would have no |
effect and we are not able, as the Court observed,
% understand on what ground it can be sustained |
md in Mississippi. The very case before quoted, |
hat of Armfeld, appears to be conclusive against
he defendant; the settlement under these circum-
stances. Is in no sense just, nor is 1t free from the
mputation of fraud. |
The Court then proceeded to ascertain what es-
ate or property the trustee, WILEY, acquired in the
property conveyed to him by the marriage settle
nent. Young, Smith q Co. first instituted suit in
he Circuit Court of Warren county, Mississippi,
Oct 3, 1888, against Samuel Templeton ct al, in
which the judgment was obtained which consti-
utes the foundation Of the present action. The
writ, in that. suit, was executed on Tempeton on
he 18th Oct, 1888. At the November term Tenn
,leton put in demurrer to the declaration and the
,ase continued until the next term, which was TO
'ome on the 10th May, 1889. On the 9th May,
039, Samuel Tempieton made transfer of all his
property being 900 acres Of land in Warren county,
70 negroes, stock, growing crops, and every thing,
own to the household furniture, TO his brother Jo-
eph Templeton. This deed was put on record in
Warren county on the 18th July, 1889. On the LIST
Nay, 1910, the plaintiffs obtained their judgment
gainst Samuel Templeton, Isaac N. Giidewell,
rhos. M. Green, and John Gowan, for $1l ,472 &c,
nd costs. On the execution issued under this
Judgment nothing was made, Samuel Templeton
aving thus transferred all his property to Joseph
Templeton.
On the 10th March, 1874, the plaintiffs filed their
I'LL for the purpose of annulling the said transfer
nd deed trust, on the ground that it made to
Under, delay and defraud the creditors. All the
artes who were supposed to claim any rights un-
er the deed of trust made parties to the suit
II were called on to set forth the amount of the
ebts which they claimed as secured by the deed
trust. The bill directly charged that no such
ebts existed or that if they did exist they had
cen paid off by Samuel Templeton, and that the