Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-06-02
Rs.ar Is. Prarranao th.r,.


The object Of te b 70 subj land alleged to Be
The property Of che defendants Joseph Bragg TIE satisfaction
The Sh Of January 3 in favor Of complainant, upon which
execution was returned aal1a bona.
II appears from the proof that perhaps early part Of he
year ls The defendant Joseph. purchased land Of Az
y aes from one Parker The price OF co. and
note @ Parker for the cnsderatOa money. which note
e one sllss Parker and il was Pass The proof
ant klizsbe.h Bragg, wife oisAid Joseph Bragg
The proof showsa @ Bragg had afundof 500 co. in the
Office Of the Circuit Court Rutherford being he dlstrutive
portion Of her deceased fathers estate On The 9Th March,
1854 she made power attorney her hn 20
receive said Of for paid accord
ingy And oo % this money, the proof makes reasonably
CERTAIN sad land was paid f0r indeed from the evidence, the
husband had not means Of his have paid for it.
III proved by Parker The vendor, that Ehen the defendant
nsI proposed @ purchase the land he informed Park
er that ms Hifes money 70 pay that wanted
The right in her nsme and from all circumstances can
be no reasonable doubt OF the fact purchase made
between husband and WIFI that II sol5
9e 9F ner oensn and he title to be taken in her The
Neh was prepared BY stranger, was drawn in
the name 81 the defendant Joseph Accordingly M
ana on the 81 OF December lsj2, With
te assent OF All the parties another deed executed
e conveying said land directly the defeldan Elizabeth Bragg
Which deed duly acknowledged and noted for registration
on the day after its date aud nearly months prior dae
The position assumed BY oOmPansnts Is that By the
execution OF the first dsedhe quStcn Of fraud
became vested in Joseph Bragg and title
may have been incomplete for OF probate registration
and that the destruction OF did not dive the title Of he
Defendant Joseph rnvest the vendor with any interest in
Mrs Bragg was imperative law communicate any title 70
her, In support Of these views Vance MeNary, erg III
1t is likewise insisted conveyance to the wife vas med.
itated fraud upon the creditors Of the husband. l
Upon this point CT the ease that need be said Is that IL the
land were In fact purchased fer the wife, and paid r with her
own money in pursuance Of agreement between the husband
and wife, founded upon sufficient consideration per
esiye now The transaction Be considered fraudulent against
the husbands creditors That agreement between the
husband and wife would be valid husband mightbe
constituted agent Of the wife to make the purchase,
no doubt See Powell vs. Powell, 9 Hump m IF- T
we DO not question the decisions Vance
MoNairy Shields vs. MITCHELL As between detor hold
ing land BY unregistered deed Of conveyaneS creditors
Is well settled that the land thus held and
by execution At law But does this principle govern the
another, takes title himself intentionally by na
yertence, is he thereby vested with such sseet
land to seizure and sale for the satisfaction Of hsdeb7 Would
not Court q Equity, unheangy, dvest him Of the title
and vest It in the principal direct the vendor. if party, to
execute = eouveyance to the true Of the land
Anu " without the intervention OF Court OF Equity the
agent voluntarily dams and all interest the
tate by parO declaration merely and, BY the Of all the
parties the unregistered deed be destroyed and eonveyanee be
heeupon executed to the real purchaser what principle Of
Law equity be held that The latter clothed with
wand ue 70 the land! Surely his right cannot be Preudeed
his title destroyed, by fraud, either Of
AGENT dealing with such And the application
Of the principle will y fact agent
hushandto the person for whom purchase really made,
and BY whom the consideration in fact paid This
consideration mag properly demand increased F In
sitting the bd des Of the transacan, hut change the
operation of established prineiplesOfi4w.
But t admitted argued the complainant that
by the mite fact Of the execution Of the H decd TO the defend
ant Joseph Bragg he thereby invested with e legal
estate as mat his creditors might the land an
sn Al law still upon well sett ed principles o. equity JGrpru
denee Court Of Chaneery would not actively nsrPos in favor
o. ne cre3rs to aid them IN any way in obtaining
satisfaction out Of the land a. against me tqu right OF The
wife; but would dismiss them to their legal rems dy-
And this view ali other considerations aside, the complain
The decree seonnenty erroneous and it viii be reversed
and the bill be dismissed. MeKNNEY.
Aeorreet copy j. p CLARK, Clerk