Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1859-05-01
sugg vs.. Al. Powell and othsrs.

The object of this bill is to subject to his debt
Judgment in favor Of said Powell against B. D.
Holt for S41414, rendered the 18th Of Mny, 1856,
before David Stephens, ajustics Of the peace.
The compliments bull was filed the 10Th of June,
1856. 1t appeared that 7. B. Marks held q note
upon A. ]. Powell, on which his ia her, John Powell,
and one Clanon were his securities, for $3.50 90,
which, between the fret and fifteenth Of May, 1856,
was placed in judgment against John Powell, one Of
the sureties before s. ]. Miller, justice of the
peace.
1t is contended by John Powell that the PrOmissOry
note, upon which the judgement against Holt was
TAKEN was prior TO the rendition of said Judgment
transferred and delivered to him by A. J. Powell,
az indemnity against the debt in which he was su-
rety to Marks and that he to collect said note,
and apply so much Of its proceeds as might be ne
cessary in payment of the note 10 Marks and in his
own discharge surety.
He insists therefore, that he is entitled to prior
ity over the complainant, Sugg, SO far as may be
necessary for his indemnity.
The Chancellor so held and we concur in the de-
cree.
It is admitted in the record that John Powell has
paid the debt to Marks And il is proved TO sat
isfaction that the note upon Holt before it was put
in suit reduced TO judgment, was transferred and
delivered by A. J. Powell to John Powell, express
ly for his indemnify.
This took place more than a month previous 20
the issuance service of the attachment in favor
of Sugg,
We are satisfied of this fact, upon proof indie.
pendent of any thing stated by Mitchell POwol.l
Marks proves that A. J. Powell told him, he had
the claim on Holt in the hands of John Powell, to
pay the debt to him; and he in effect establishes
that when he aftsrWari saw Jehn Powell, he had
possession of the note and offered to let him have
it in payment OF the debt due him.
Davis, the constable, who had the note for col,
lection, proves that when he received it of Mitchell
Powell, he told him it was to 60 to pay the debt TO
Marks
Parker in April, 1856, heard a conversation be-
tween Sugg and A. J. Powell, which, We take it, re-
ferred the note on Holt, and the effect Of which,
by Powell, was that John Powell had, and claimed,
the note to secure him sgainst the Marks debt.
Clanton proves that A. J. Powell iold him, he had
given his father the Holt TO pay the debt to
Marks.
Mitchell Powell proves the same thing, and thsthe
received the note Of his father as his agent to car
ry TO Davis, the constable, for collection; that he
placed the note in the hands of Davis for that pur
pose took his receipt and handed it to John Powell;
and that he stated to Davis, the use to which the
note TO be applied, and that it belonged to John
Powell, for the purpose OF paying the debt TO
Marks.
1. is true, Davis does not remember that he men,
toned the claims to John Powell upon the note,
but still we cannot doubt the fact, that the note was
placed in his hands for his indemnify.
All this took place previous to the fling OF Suggs
bill; and the position that A. j. POwells acts and
declarations anterior to that time are not evidence
of John PoWels title, is untenable. Green. EE
section $50, 1S9 100.
The transfer of the note TO John Powell being es
tabished, it follows, that his equity Is superior 70
that of Sugg. Nolsn Us. Crook ct al, D Hum 81.
1t is said Holt, the debtor in the note, shoald
have had notice Of its transfer to John PoWel and
that until this given his title was not complete,
and the debt might be attached by Sugg as the ef-
feots Of A. J. Powell And to sustain this position
We referred to Clodfsller %. Cox, Sneed $50.
But the doctrine Of that case has no application to