The eastern clarion. [volume] (Paulding, Miss.) 1837-1863, 1861-04-12
DECISIONS OF THn H1oH coUrT.
OCTOBER TERM, 1890.
lEEPOETED EEFEEssLT ron Tu IAsrEns c4r,ar1


Daniel J. Allen and wife.
The bill in this case was filed bv n. an
pellees to recover slave in the posaer.;1p
Of the appellants.
Il appears that the appellants we're
Judgment creditors Of David j. Allen rr;or
to the Bird Of November, lS58-that {Ilan
had in his possession slave which thev had
selected and claimed as his propertv az
empt from execution under the Statnta
and that on that day he executed A deed
Of gift of this slave to his vile. they heinz
then residents of this State. where ne
had resided for three or four wears. and
he the head of afamily-that Allen heing
a preacher Of the Methodist Church md
belonging TO the Memphis Confereoce
and subject TO its orders, left his res;-
dence at Holly Springs TO attend the Con-
ference which met at Trenton. in Ten
nessee, in December, 1858. not knowino
whether he would remove from this gtale
or not, but intending TO accent whatever
appointment should be assigned him Nv
the Conference, and that an appointment
was assigned him out Of this State xb;oh
| he accepted, and in consequence of that
removed from this State-that the slave
was left in this State, and was in Fehr,-
airy, 1859, levied on under the executions
\ in favor Of the appellants against Allen.
and sold, the appellants becoming the
purchasers.
The first position taken for the appel.
lAnts is, that the conveyance of the hus-
band to the wife was made in contempla-
ton Of his removal from this State. and
to secure the slave to the use of his family
after such removal, which otherwise would
work forfeiture Of the privilege of ex-
emption secured to him by the Statute
and hence that the deed was fraud upon
the Statute and void. It is said that
there could be no motive for the act
unless il was to obviate the consecuencs
of the removal, inasmuch as the slave wa
secured to him by the Statute as long q,
he resided in this State, and after bill
death here belonged to his wife.
But whatever might have been the for
of this view if there had, been no eVide
IN opposition 10 it, it is shown by the pos
tive testimony of Allen that the deed wa
not executed with reference to his re
moval from this State-that though b,
intended to accept the appointment to b,
assigned to him by the Conference, yet
that he did not know where he was to 90
and it was as likely that his appointment
would be in this State Is elsewhere
Moreover, il is not unreasonable or i'm
probable that he should wish. in gooC
faith, to give the slave to his wife so as I,
vest the title absolutely in her, thereby
giving her the entire benefit Of the prop
erty. and placing it in a condition il
which he would have no trouble in de
Tending his title. The bill states that tn
purpose in making the deed was to secur
, some small amount of property for tn
/, support of his wife; and certainly the eX
ecution of the deed was the most effectua
,, mode of accomplishing that object.
We do not, therefore. consider this OF
lection 10 the wife's title valid.
/; 1t is next insisted that the deed is vol
as to the appellants who were creditors {
|, the husband at the date of it. in virtue {
the provision Of Article %, Revised Cod,
336, which is in these words: Provide
: that any deed from the husband to tn
= wife for her use, shall be void as againi
his creditors, who were such at the tim
OF executing the deed &c. II appear
to be conceded by the appellants cour
3 sci that person holding property exemI
I, from execution under the Statute. ma
! make a sale or gift OF it, except 70 his wifi
} But it is contended, in behalf Of the a.
: pellees. that this case is not within II
prohibition Of the Statute, because tn
/! slave not being subject to execution, Il
rights Of creditors could not be affects
by the conveyance. And we consider tn
a correct view Of the subject.
The object of the Statute obviously W
- to prevent frauds upon the rights Of ere
= itors. TO whose claims the property CO
veyed by husband to his wife was su
., iect and ought to be applied. This valu
81 BILE right Of creditors was intended to
- protected, and frauds upon it prevente
|, But no reference was had TO creditors
- any other sense or to any other purpos
- and though persons were creditors gene
"A ally Of the husband, yet If a pafticul
; piece Of property was wholly exempt fro
n any liability to them, they could not
~ said to be creditors as to that property
as to make a conveyance Of that proper
% a matter of concern to them. As 70 tn
- property, the debtor would be consider
- as without creditors; and the own
~ would have the right to dispose Of i
- though he had no creditors.
~ We are Of opinion that the Statute Dc
not apply to property in the condition
~, the slave here in controversy, and II
. this objection to the deed is untenable
g Let the decree be affirmed.
~ H.rnv