Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1870-12-17
No. 16l.
Geo. w. Susong VS.. Joseph A. Williams an

u. t.
No. 16l.
Geo. w. Susong VS.. Joseph A. Williams and
Catharine Williams.
sVoLUSTARY CoNvEYANcE.-R econUeyanee-
Rights Of Creditors Of GTdntee.-W here moihef
conveys property 10 son by registered deed
reciting as 3 consideration moral obligation
to convey, but in fact upon secret agreement
of grantee to recOnvey to the grantor when
peace should be re-esta6llshed, the motive o.
the grantOr being fear of cOnfscation, the re-
| conveyance being made, party who had deal'
with the son on the faith Of his apparent prop
| erty before reconveyance, was held entitled u
| subject the property to his debt.
4 Sach a conveyance is valid between the par
l ties and the reconveyance being without con
| sIderation, is void as to creditors OF the son.
/ SAAE.-RecitalS IN WGTTdnty.-In convey am
the recital that the grantor holds the estate II
/ a specific mode is not an indication, OF an IN
i tent to convey what interest is so held ana no
/ an interest otherwise held, such as will con
troll express words of conveyance and genera
| warranty. Warranty is an estoppeL
| SrAsPs.-Conpeydnce. Agree1Rent-A convey
ance without pecuniary or valuab e eonsld era
| tion did not require conveyance stamp ou
| an agreement stamp merely.
SAME.-Instrunlent made tcithtn CoHfederdt
| Lines.-An instrument made within the Con
| federate lines is not void for want of stamp
See Sporrer VS.. Eifer. Post p.
APPEAL has no effect as to party not appeahn g
FROM GREENE.
4 a
Lucky, CHI, in the Chancery Court
Greeneville.
| Nelson, j., having been of counsel di
not sit in this cause Shields, special j.
sitting in his place delivered the opinio
of the Court.
HMcFarland and Mckee for cOmplt. o.
estoppel by warranty, cited Hindmsn VI
Oveiton, 2 Yer. 1894. False recital in dee
estops grantor. Gibbs vs. Thompson,
Hum. lS9. Peacock VS.. Tompkins, Meig
317. Insisted that conveyance to aVoi
confiscation was fraud, not Lawful
trust.
X. NJ. Barton, for defend
ant Catherine Williams, insiste
that the reconveyance of J. A
Williams was good against all creditor
who had not judgment lien at its regi
tration. Citing ,,Embry & Young v
Robinson; Hum, 444; Sharp v
Caldwell Hum, Ais; Chester v
Greer, 5 Hum, 26, "a; l Stor., E,
Jur., 1912; 2, Id. 1872, 1,977a. Mr.
w. did not participate in any fraud OF ,
A. w. on his creditors. Peck VS.. Ca
michael; Yer, 1926.
As TO trusts in conflict with recitals
deed he cited: z Hum, Ais; Dudley v
Bosworth 10 Hum, 9.
Want of sufficient stamp; Miller '
) Morrow; 8 Cold, 587.
, He admitted that the warranty pass,
the estate of Mrs. w. by estoppel.
OPINION.
t This bill was filed in the Chance
Court at Greeneville, for the purpose
establishing a claim growing out of
I alleged fraudulent transaction with Go
eminent voucher, against the defenda
Joseph A. Williams, and for the furth
purpose of having declared void,
against the complainant, conveyan
made by the said Joseph A. Williams
j his co-defendant, Catharine ID. William
p and the land so conveyed subjected to t
3 satisfaction of said claim.
The Chancellor held the defendant =
seph A. Williams was liable to the CO.
Il plsinant in the sum of eight hundred q
: five dollars, and so decreed, which deer
g remains in full force and effect, no app,
n from the same having been prosecuted.
II The Chancellor also held that the CT
IS veyance was void as against the compla
n ant and decreed that q sufficient port
e of the land so conveyed, to satisfy
/ amount of said decree against Joseph
:, Williams be sold for that purpose; fri
3 which decree Cathsrine d. Willial
l. prOsecutes an appeal to this court.
st 1t appears that on April %, 1854, Ca
n arine d. Williams, who was the mott
a of Joseph A. Williams, conveyed to h
% q very valuable tract of land situated
d Greene county, known by the name
re the college Farm" This conveyal
,g contains the following recital:
y "Whereas, by virtue of the power
n me vested by the last will and testam
,r of my husband, Alexander Williams,
Sc visipg to me the title absolute in fee 81
pie to all his estate, ETC., leaving the sa
i'll absolutely at my disposal; and, where
h in discharge of the trust Committed to
ne hands l feel it to be my duty to
be tribute the same equally among
Mt children and heirs at law,
same being the children and b
in at law of the testator. Now, thereto
a. in part compliance with what l believe
er have been the spirit and intention of 8
I'd last will and testament, l do hereby trs
it fer and convey" etc. The conveys
in also contains covenant of general v
nv ranty of title, and was duly registered
ed Greene county on April 26, 1864.
a 1t seems that Mrs. Williams, althO
t. her late husband had devised the
I'd land to her, as recited in her said COW
Y ance, in fact held the same under the
Id of descent, as heir at law of her fat
ID, who many years previous to that iii
is bad departed this life in,estate.
be Some time after this conveyance
in made and registered, and in the Ia
,se part of the year 1864 or early in 1e
S. the transaction occurred between
ief complainant and the defendant JOSEPH
nd Williams, out of which the demand
be the former against the latter grew.
of unnecessary, as Joseph A. Williams
RS. mits to the decree against him, to enc
90 Der this opinion with statement of
Id, nature and particulars of said transact
INV 1t is sufficient TO say that in one col
II gency, which afterwards actually
vas pened, it involved the element of C
ca given and extended to the said JOSEPH
doe Williams by the complainant.
TIE At still later period, to-wit, May
ere 1865, the said Joseph A. Williams
the conveyed the same tract of land to
one mother, reciting as consideration Il
.aw for, that the former conveyance to
be- was with the distinct understanding
in | promise on his part that if when :