Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, Va. [W. Va.]) 1852-1859, 1856-08-20

| dpAI nc ha niVht have done with his property.
Tl -. 3of1;e5LJi II, respsct to personal prop
srtv has t,een as1opted ly the highest Judicial
! tribunals In the United States and in SO doing
onr courts have broadly declared, that in the
Ie,enaroI disposition by the owner of personal
5ronerty in one country, it will effect it every
Lrherc because in regard to the owners control
oror 4 s,srson9I J,roperfi has no loeaIity. The
onl;csfinn ofthis principle imuairs no right, but
promotes general Justice. andis founded on the
| mutual raspect. comfy and convenience of con.
mercial States and communities Bank q. 5.
Tvs DonnalIy. Peters R., I'll; 4 John. CHI y R.,
| $50: s Paige r.. .446-5l9.
! Tho gt1t5ts or CAPACITY of Graft therefore, to
| make the deed. aud tho construction aud effect
of the deed itself. depend on the laws Virgin
| ia What then is the legal effect of this deed
/ IN yirpiniaP
! It is urged that the deed is T0id, because tits
made to prefer creditors.
By5 the 9th Section of the ordinance of con-
yenfion. the State Of Virginia adopted the COM
! mon law of England and the acts of parliament
| of general nature in aid thereof, prior 10 the
| 1th year of the reign of James the First That
ordinance which was adopted in 1916, Is stu IN
force, except in such notifications as have been
made BY the Legislature of the State. 1t is not
pretended, however that such modification has
/ been made, affecting The right of falling debtor
to so dispose of his property, as to make pref
| erence in the payment of his creditors. Inc
common law of England declares that ut IS mel
Their immoral or illegal to prefer ore set OF cred
/ itors to another" In Mum VS.. Wi!smOrc. 8, l.
R 52e, Lord Kenyon says, putting the bank
rupt laws out Of the case, debtor may assign
iuH of his affects for the benefit of particular
/ creditors" And in the case OF Small VS. <4uaiey'
Up. WINS. 427, where an assignment was made
to favored creditor, TO secure money lent BY
him to a merchant only the day previous to the
Ecommission of the act of bankruptcy, the Court,
/ in deciding the case, said, 'EIhere may be just
reasons for n sinking trader to give preference
I to one creditor before another-to one that mas
been faithful friend, and for lust DEBT lent
| him in extremity, when the rest OF MS dents
1 might be due from him dealer IN trade,
wherein his creditors may have been gamers;
whereas the other may be not only Just debt
but all that such creditor has in the world to SUD-
SiSt on; in such case the trader honestly may,
nay ought, TO give the preference" In language
equally strong, the same principle was maintain
i ed BY the Court in Cook VS.. Goodfellow, TO- Mod.
Under the ordinance of l7IG, the highest lu-
diciaI tribunal of Virginia, has adopted the de-
csions of the English common law courts on
this question.
4 Mr. Justice Carr, in giving the opinion OF Tue
court of appeals in the Mccullough ct al, rS
!; SomcrVille s. Leighs K 42I, says, 1T Is I'M
questionable that debtor i'll failing clrcunstan-
ces NAV prefer one creditor one set OF cTcd-
itOrs to another; nor is his right to do so at all
weakened or impugned by the maxim that
equality is equity This maxim is justly a IA
f voritc one in the courts of equity in cases to
: which it applies; but cannot be permitted to
) interfere with the right which debtor has to
secure this or that creditor class Of creditors
in preference to others"
| know this doctrine is repugnant to the leg
islative policy of the State of Ohio But ii is
1.-The law of the domicil of the parties where the
deed was made, and that law obtains in giving
effect to the deed, and in transferring the legal
title to the property, unless there is something
else in the translation which renders 1t tra''du-
lent in contemplation of law; and this brings US
+ 20 the only remaining question in the case:-is
: there such evidence Of fraud in the transaction
or on the face of the deed, that will make the
f transfer void, rs to creditors?
i The original sale of the goods by Graft TO My
erson, would doubtless have been declared fraud
S uient, had the goods, while in the hands OF My
. erson, been seized under legal process against
{ Graft by his creditor The circumstances of that
a sale had all the indicia of intent to defraud
, creditors. The facts that the goods were pur-
!. chased by Myerson without cxamlnation-and
4 without being unpackcd from the original boxes
: and sent hastily out of the State, would be su-
ficient to raise legal presumption of fraud in
5 contest between Inversion and an attaching credi
tifIs by Graft of all his property for the benefit
. of his creditors on the 18th Of November, and
the subsequent canceling of the 49, 900 note, and
the receipt Of the goods therefor by the as
signecs, placed the whole matter upon footing
: as if no sale had been made to Mycrson at ALL
i, The goods andproperty being placed in the hands
: of trustees to pay creditors, negatives any pre-
f sumption of intent to dcfraud creditors. re the
deed is valid and cfectual orthe purposes intend
ed by it. then the title to tae goods was perfected
4 in the Plaintiffs, and they were not thereafter
: subject to legal process against the assignor.
Q hut it is snid this decd has the evidence of
f fraud on the face of it, irasmuch ms it demands
general release Of the whole debt of each or the
5 creditors upon the payment of a part.
u If Graf gave up all his property, and in do
= ing so, had u right to pay one in exclusion of
: others. with what proPriety can he be charged
Q with fraud, because he preferred those who
e III