Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1853-1862, 1860-12-22
DECISIONS OF THE sUPnEmE COUNT.
OFFICIAL.

Opinions OF the supreme Court of the state
Of Tenncssee, at Knoxville, september
Francis Bottles vs. George Bodies and J. R. sanacss.
The complainant filed her bill against her hus-
hand George Boiles for divorce and alimony. the
9th of Nov, 1857, in the Chancery Court OF Har-
kns. There was prayer and iiaton the same day
for injunction. but the same was not issued until
the I'd Of June, 1858, the complainant not having
given security until that time
Sanders purchased the land on the 24th of Dec.
1851, and his deed registered the 2Ssh of the
same month, and on the "a of February, 1858, an
amendment bill was filed against him to set aside the
sale aud subject the land to her decree 1t is admit
ted that both Sanders and Bodies had full knowledge
Of the fling 0fthe bill and the fiat for the Injunction
There can be doubt but that the subject of Bodies
was to defeat his wifes claim for the alimOny, and
that Sanders was conscious of his purpose. The dl-
vorce was obtained, and alimony allowed at May
tenn, 1855, and the question is whether the
land can he made subject to it under the circum-
stances. The Chancellor thought it could, and so
decreed. Il is insisted that this is erroneous.
The land was sold under its value with a full
knowledge on the part of Sanders of the tendency
of this bill and the order of an injunction.
We need go no further than our own case of
FarnswoFth Fowler, l. Swan 5. 10 show that the
effect Of an injunction ordered IS just the same
before its issuance as after upon those who have
knowledge Of the order. If that be so, the sale of
land invalid, and leaves it subject to the claims
of the complainant.
| But the requires Ihat the injunction on II
should be issued without necessary delay. And )
Danl CHI Pr. 1909 and is viz. 2, aud cited to show
that such delay as interviewed in this case between
the fat and the issuance of the injunction would be
| unreasonable and deprive the complainant of It's
benefits and save defendant from its effects That
! might be so under some circumstances But IN this
case the delay was produced by the difficulty on
the part of complainant to give the necessary secu
rity.
Sanders was applied to by the solicitors of com
A. RI, hnp
r1ty for the process as he close neighbor and
she an injured and unprotected woman. But he
refused and discouraged the proceedings. He was
deputy sheriff and it appears, gave information
to the defendant of the facts communicated to him,
and on the next day wrote, and perhaps posted upon
the Court House door, for the defendant, written
warning to all persons against creditng or in any
way aiding or assisting his wife, the complainant.
On that day, the 9th Of November, Sanders was
informed of the fiat for an Injunction. Il is made
very probable. from the evidence, that he in
strumental by these proceedings and Otherwise in
putting It out of the power of complainant to give
the necessary security for the INDUCTION. He was
the friend and adviser of defendant in the whole
matter, and kept him fully Informed OF the proceed
ings.
1t would be outrageous to hold under this state of
facts that the delay of even five months in the is
suance of the process of INJUNCTION, should relieve
him from the effect of his notice of the order for it..
The proof makes it too clear for controversy that
the object of Boils well Sanders TO defeat the
claims of the plaintiff upon the land for the almony
that might be and was decreed to her.
2. But there is another ground liz this case that
would produce the same result without the injunc-
ton Here was claim up by bill filed the 9th
| of November, 1857, for divorce and alimOny out
of the estate of defendant of which the parties had
actual notice. independent Of the constructive no
tice from filing the bill and without reference TO
l the doctrine Of lis pe1diuS
This land with other things, is claimed in the
bill TO be liable to such alimony. The defendant,
avowedy to avoid such claim sells the land to one
| who has full knowledge of all the facts, as we'll as
the object and intention of the husband to avoid the
claim of his wife, and to enable him to do So be-
comes the purchaser of his land Can such Q sale
| stand in her way when she obtains her de-
! cree, evea if a full price was paid? 1t would
! be contrary to all sound principles both in
| law and morals TO allow such combination to de-
feat the just claims Of another to succeed. Il is
| everywhere held that purchase Of property made
to aid debtor to defeat his creditors cannot stand
but will be set aside in favor of the creditor
fraud upon his rights. The law is the same when
the object concurred in by both parties is to defeat
| a recovery Of damages TOR injury sustained.
FarnswOrth vs.. Bell ]. Head SOL Is not this case as
strong, nay stronger and notorious than either
of the others 1t is the claim of Injured and spf-
fering wife for support and maintenance for herself
and helpless children which is attempted to be de-
I feated by combination with her unnatural hus-
band, to get his property cut of the reach of the
| law.
Upon both or either of these grounds the decree
| of The Chancellor may be maintained
It will thei eiore be affirmed with costs and the
| cause remanded for its execution CARUrHERs
a true copy: Test c. ". NELSON, Clerk.