The weekly Panola star. [volume] (Panola, Miss.) 1857-1881, 1866-09-08
befifiTH' " ~ Hlab san N
fffHfs $40 iphfals.

q tr W So
M VT
tf
Hl
fha tIi Vt
appellant a coed m Va IN
lf i.
iH Hs
inE fnlH ms 9hal.f
AelU w Ndiffnt ff
tHHH ftamH M vi a.
ffh'l aHi sml Hui FIT
'alH ifNi ani pre- nNl mupttff aH
~ nNHgoyal ~ ..lffN fafitU IisIfa
hy " N Pope ~ ~ n. Nt "
q We m1ni Wtaad aet mn.
fihH tlHululalf W W y ilfahiisg
ila Hlme Hnl mIff InrI hHtl afl K
pfaml pfut los.
Ai no lHg Of Hip tyefei.ou n
ihet Instruments % mt af iaH wi.
fnlinR 10 Che District fDuH ~ ih,
aiirl 7iaie VS. lehalf ~ fho An
pollanl ~ which % Imdtmmt vmil
10 = short time ~ rendered Tha
Judgment was rendered shortly afler
ilio execution " ihe drtls in1 BON
oNoeuiim wa iaued Hrrran and
levied ~ 9 mft W The hands em
brn0ol w The deeds and the nppcl
lonl. bcume the purchasers thereof
a. Materials mlo and i|hofcupon flol
this pin for Che wtrpuse " having
The deeds ST aside ~ amudutcni and
void On The hearing. the court
docrccl that The first deed Of Ftb.
ruafy ~, 1850, was good and valid.
aud denied thc relief sought ns "a
that, but declared the second deed ol
0th April, 1850, fraudulent and void
as 70 the appellants, and that II
should be- vacated and held for
naught. From that decree the ap-
pellanis took this appeal.
The only question before us, Is "a
TO the validity of the deed Of 23d
February, 1859.
It appears clear that the deed was
made with intent, on the part of W.
NJ. Pope, to hinder, delay or dcfraud
his creditors. The suit of the appel
lants was then pending and would
shortly ripen into judgment; and
the deed was intimately connected
with the purpose which led TO the ex-
ecution, shortly afterwards, of the
deed of 9th April, 1859; and the
result of both the transactions wa,
to place all his property under con.
veyance, and beyond the reach of tho
appellants, his creditors, except Ger.
tain slaves, which he hen intended
to remove, and shortly thereafter did
remove out of this State. The latter
deed was declared void by the court
below; and the former, though exc.
cuted in February, was not recorded
until April, though the objects pro.
tessed to be intended by it woult
have required its prompt registration
to-wit; TO secure the property for tn,
payment of the debt Of Majors 4
Co, since other creditors were NOV.
ing against him. When it was reg.
istered, it was done on the same dat,
as the deed Of 9th April, 1859, ant
as II would appear, by Brantley
This circumstance, and other facts il
the case go to show that both deed,
were executed by w. NJ. Pope, witt
a fraudulent intent rs to the appel.
lants.
1t appears to be conceded, by coun.
sci for the appellees, that this is til,
character of the instrument, so far a,
W. NJ. Pope is concerned. But il i,
urged hat there is nothing to show
that Majors & Co. had notice of thi.
fraudulent intent; and that, mas.
much as they were honestly endeav.
oring to secure their debt, they must
be considered as purchasers without
notice, and their title is valid.
But they do not occupy the atti.
tude Of purchasers without notice
because il was not an absolute con.
veyance, but a mere security for theil
debt, and that a pre-existing debt
In such case, il is settled that a party
does not come within the exceptions
of the third article of the Statute o.
Frauds, in favor of bona 6dc pur-
chdsers. Pack VS.. Harvey, 4, $.
NJ, Farmers's Bank of Virginia vs.
Douglass, lib.
Moreover, the record shows thai
the trustee had notice in law Of the
fraudulent intent of the granter; ant
the deed shows that he was acting il
the matter by agreement between III,
parties, Pope and Majors, and acting
under his authority, notice to him
was notice in law to Majors.
We, think, therefore, that the frs
deed must be held fraudulent as I,
the appellants.
The decree is reversed, and tn
deed Of 23d February, 1859, hel,
fraudulent as TO the creditors Of W
NJ. Pope, and declared void; witt
costs in this and the court below
And a decree is ordered accordingly
D~ooLITTLE's VTEw.-In n spcccl