Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-02-02
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
Opinions Of the supreme Court of the
State of Tennessee, at Jackson, April
Term, 1853.

| Opinions of the Supreme Court of the
State of Tennessee, at Jackson, April
Leslie vs.. Joiner
This was an action of trcver, for alleged CONVEX
/ sion Of a quantity of tobacco Verdict and jUdg-
ment were rendered for defendant, and the plaintiff
appealed in
The plaintiff as constable had levied on the lot of
tobacco the property of William Joiner, the father
of defendant, Joseph Joiner; after which the defen-
dant claiming to be the proper owner of the tobacco
obtained possession thereof, and refused to deliver
it to the plaintiff.
The fact respecting the ownership of the tobacco
appears to be that the old man Joiner, who was in
debt and had a large family OF ten children which
he unable to support, by reason of his poverty
and physical disabihty-entered into contract
with his son, the defendant, by which the latter
agreed to take two of his brOthers-bOys of the re-
specve ages of II and Is years, and horse beast
belonging to his father and to raise crop and fur
nish the family with provisions for that year lS57D
Out of the crop he was to reimburse himself for
the supplies furnished to the family, and also to re-
tain reasonable wages and whatever beyond this re-
NAMED Of the proceeds of the crop, to 60 the
payment of his fathers debts.
William Joiner, father of defendant, was examin-
ed on the trial as a witness for defendant. and ad-
mtted that the object Of the above arrangement was
to provide a support for his family and to prevent
the crop from being seized by creditors, being I'M
able himself to supply his family with the necessa-
rieS of life.
The tobacco III controversy Is part OF the crop
raised by the defendant under the above arrange
ment.
For the plaintiff it is commended that this was a
fraud upon the old mans creditors; and that, in law
the crop raissd was the property of the father and
liable to the satisfaction Of his debts.
We do not think so. We have said in a recent case
Hamilton VS. Zimmerman Sneed 80, 45-that
every man Is under a positive obligation both in
law and morals to support and maintain his family,
that this is his first and most imperative duty.
An unfortunate debtor is not bound to apprOpri-
ate the proceeds of his daily labor to the benefit of
his creditors, leaving his own family to suffer hun
ger and want
The position assumed for the plaintiff has no foun-
datOn in our law. The general principle is well es
tablished, that conveyance, though fraudulent, of
interest not liable to creditors is not within the
prohibition Of the statute of fraudst isequaly well
settled that the creditor cannot cOerce the debtor
labor for his benefit IT, in the case before US the
old man. even without any consideration had relin-
qushed the Of his horse (Which the law protects
to him) and the labor of his two minor cons to the
defendant upon what principle could any creditor
of the former have complained of it, He might use
his horse himself, or give the use to another at
pleasure and in regard to the labor of bis minor
children.
In the arrangement that was made there was no /
transfer of property or anything Of which, in the
absence of such arrangement the creditors of the |
father could have awaited themselves, by law for |
the satisfaction of their debts; consequently their
rights were in noYise prejudiced thereby.
Judgment affirmed. Mckinney.
Test: NJ D. WEIGH Clerk.