Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-11-15
Williams vs.. TsllaferrO and sharp:


| The complainant judgment creditor of thu
defendant Sharp, seeks by this bill to subject a 10
| of ground suitable in the town of Trenton, to tn,
satisfaction of said Judgment. The chancellor de
| creed for the complainant and the defendants ap
! pealed.
The facts are as follows The compliments judg
| ment was obtained on the oath Of June, 1889, fol-
! 1927 81 on account of money previously paid by
| him the surety Of Sharp appears from the plead
! ings.
! Sometime before the rendition of said judgment
! to-wit: on the - day of November, 1856 SHARP
made conveyance of said lot to the defendant Tall
aferro in consideration that the latter had won the
| lot from the former upon bet or wager made be
| tween them touching the result of general cleo
! ton.
The argument for the appellant comedies, that. as
| between the immediate parties the conveyance was
void and that Sharp might have avoided it and re-
covered the lot but it is inserted that if the convey
be acquesced III by the losing party, no credi-
tor of his can be heard to mpeach avoid the con-
veyance.
In this conclusion we do not concur. By our
statutes 'betting on elections" is declared to be
"gambling;" and by the act of 1899, oh. S, every
species of gaming contract is declared to be illegal
and void; and "every promise agreement, BILL bond,
or other contract" and every conveyance or lease
of land" founded upon gaming consideration, Is
made absolutely void.
The conveyance in the present case is, therefore,
simply nuity. Sharp is still seized of the estate
and interest in the land in exactly the same manner
and to the same extent as if such conveyance had
never been executed by him; and might recover the
possession again, in action OF eJectment, as the
VOID deed would form mo obstacle in his way in a
court of law. Or upon familiar principle, ne
might go into a Court of equity to have the void
deed delivered up and cancelled, as being cloud
upon his title. johnson vs. Cooper Gerg. 524, $50
IT, then, the land be still the property OF Sharp,
and if he could regain its possession would it not be
absurd to maintain that his creditors cannot subject
1t to the satisfaction of their claims against him.
The principle upon which they may do so is, per-
haps, more obvious than in the case of a fraudulent
conveyance made by debtor, for the purpose OF
eyadng his creditors.
In this view. the decree is unquestOnaby correct.
And it might likewise be maintained, as we think,
upon the principle that against the creditors of
Sharp, the conveyance must be regarded as being
voluntary and fraudulent. But need not discuss
the case upon this principle the other is decisive.
Test: NJ. D. WEIGH, Clerk. MCKINNEY.
Banks & Walker vs. Mcdowell.
Banks Walker sued keathy as administrator of
Linton, before magistrate, for debt against the
intestate. Judgment was given for SlS4 81. Kea-
thy appealed to the Circuit Court and entered into
bond with Cox, security for double the Judgment,
conditioned that il the appeal not successfully
prosecuted, the appellant shall comply WITH and
perform the judgment of said Court. Pending the
case in the Circuit Court, Keathy died, and the suit
was revived against his successor in the administra
ton, Mcdowell. Upon trial in the Circuit Court
verdict rendered in favor of the plaintiffs for
SIG. But they found the plea of assets in favor
OF the defendants. WhereupOn. Judgment was rem
dered against the administrator for S226 to be leUed
OF the goods, dc, of the nteStae that might thereafter
come to the hands Of The defendants BIT upon notion
judgment was rendered against Cox, the surety, in
the appeal bond, for the amount of the judgment
and cost, for which execution was ordered.
The only question Is, whether this judgment
against Cox was right; and we think it was not.
Ills bond does not bind him in case of failure in the
appellate court by his principal pay the debt or
amount for which Judgment might be then given in
favor of the appellees. but it is to perform the
judgment of the Court That of course can only
mean such judgment may be legally rendered
against his principal personally. And what is that.
If the plea of no assets or fully administered is
found for him: Costs and damages only. This.
then, Is all for which Cox, surety, is bound by
his undertaking.
An administrator, case of appeal, is not re-
CURED to give security for the debt or judgment
against him. The reason is, that it is the prop
erty of the administrator that is proceeded against
in suits against hIm SUCH but the funds of the in
Gestates debtor his hands LANES Heirs vs. Hen
derson, ; Yer. 1875 If this were otherwise the alb.
surd consequence would result, that the admins
traitor without funds of his intestate would indi-
recty be made liable for the debt in where he
might feel it his duty to appeal TO higher tribu-
nal. Fer if the surety were made to pay the debt
ne would be entitled TO Judgment against his prin-
cipa for the amount paid as his surety.
This appeal bond should have been conditioned to
pay costs and damages alone But as it is that
is the proper construction TO place upon it. If, |
however, it would not bear that construction, or
was in terms to pay the amount of money found
due to the plaintiff against the estate, such illegal
provision or condition would be rejected and the |
bond held good only for the costs and damages Polk
vs. Plummer, 2 Humph, 500
This Judgment then must be reversed, and the
proper judgment rendered here which is, that the
plaintiff recover against Mcdowell and Cox, the |
surety for the appeal for the costs. CARUTHERs
Test: NJ ID. WELCH, Clerk ]