Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1871-02-11
F. G. BENNINGTON,
Clerk of Supreme Court.
No. 30.


W. A. and John Hickerson vs.. Willis Blaptou
& Co.
{ the 11th of December, 1857, VIM.
Hodge sold and conveyed the land in con-
uoversy to James P. Daniel for 81, 600,
and took his notes payable at one, two
and three years, for the payment of which
lien was retained in the deed. Daniel
failed to have his deed registered until
the 9Th of October, 1859. The deed and
notes were written by Willis Blanton,
who was subscribing witness to the
deed and who proved its execution before
the Clerk of the County Court on the 4th
of January, 1859. Two of the notes of
Daniel were transferred by Hodge to
compliments, who have obtained iudg-
ments thereon, and who now claim that
they are entitled to the vendors lien on
the land.
This claim is contested by Willis Blau-
ton on two grounds: First, On the Sth
of March, 1851, BlsntOn bought the land
from Daniel, took his deed with cove
nsnts of warranty, and went into possess
sion under this deed. Second, On the
Sth of september, 1859, Hodge confessed
three judgments before Justice of the
Peace in favor of Blsnton, in which exc
cutiOns issued on the 9th of September,
1859, which were levied on the land in
controversy on the 18th of September,
1879. The land was condemned at the
January term, 1860, of the Circuit Court,
and sold on the I'd of April, 1860, when
Willis Blanton was the purchaser, and on
the 25th of November, 1865, the Sheriff
executed deed to Blauton for the land.
He now claims to hold the land under
the Sheriff's deed.
1t is manifest that Blanton cannot re-
sist the lien of complainants by virtue of
his deed of March, 1861. He was not
an innocent purchaser without notice.
He wrote the deed from Hodge to David,
was subscribing witness to it, and was
affected with notice of the lien retained
on its face.
But if the lien of Blanton's levies on
the land on the 18th of September, 1859,
was superior to complsinsnts' lien by
reason of the non-reglstration of the deed
of Hodge to Daniel until the 9th of Octo-
Der, 1859, the validity of his superior lien
would be lost by his afterwards buyipr
the land from Daniel and by his holding
and claiming title under such subsequent
purchase.
This fact, together with the other cir
cumstanCes of the case, amount to a
waiver and estoppel of his claim under
his purchase at the Sheriff's sale Perry
vs.. Calhoun; Head, 551. Another ques-
ton, however, is, whether the judgments
on which Blsnton procured to be levied
on and sold, were fraudulent as against
complsinants under section 1,759 of the
Code. In that section it is enacted that
"every bord, suit, judgment or execution
had, or made and Contrived, of malice,
fraud, GOWN, collision or guile, to the in
tent or purpose to delay, hinder or defraud
creditors of their just and lawful actions,
suits, debts, accounts, damages, penal
ties, foIfeitures y shall
be deemed and taken only as against the
person, bis heirs, successors, executors,
administrators and assigns, whose debts,
suits, demands, estates, or intestate, by
such guileful and Covinous practices as
aforesaid, shall or might be in any wise
disturbed, hindered, delayed or defraud-
ed, to be clearly and utterly void; any
pretense, color, feigned consideration ex-
pressing of use or any other matter or
thing, TO the contrary notwithstanding.
The law sar ctiOns and commands dill
gence and vigilance on the part of cred
| itors, in securing their just demands.