The Valley Virginian. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1865-1895, 1875-10-07


SfPE,vs. EAEMAN EFT ALS.-From the Chr
cut Court OF Rocksn9hdan. Question in this
case was. whether a deed Of trust to secure
creditors therein named was fraudulent because
it postponed the time OF sale, the possession OF
the realty and certain articles OF personally
therein conveyed, remaining with the grantOr,
and the rents and profits to be received by him,
and he to pay annually the interest on the
debts. Court held-fraud cannot be presumed
unless the terms OF the deed preclude any 9TH
err inference; and the reservations on the face
Of the deed do not raise an irresistible presump-
ton of fraud which would of itself vacafe the
deed; because there was embraced in the deeef,
and reserved for the use of the grantor until
default in payment, some things which must
be consumed in the USE and could not strength
Ell the security, did not make it ved for whilst
they could not directly strengthen the security.
they might, indirectly, by ministering to the
support and improvement of the important and
4 substantial subjects. and manifest an honest
intent to provide for the PAYMENT of the debts.
But in this case they could not have been avail
| able to the Judgment CREDITOR if not embraced,
by reason Of the stay law, and his reservation
| of the possession and Use for three years. was
on condition of annually paying the interest
which could be enforced by trustees, selling if
he failed to do so. It also tends to prevent
an increase of the debt bv accumulation of in
terest and its use was probably not more than
compensation for the payment of interest,
even # consumed in the use The LENGTH Of
time allowed the debtor q years) could not
nreiuCiice the Indictment creditor. He is no
worse off than # an immediate sale was reoui
red. for if anythino remained after having
trust creditors he coult, subject IT, The in
diligence enables the debtor to keep dow. the
interests, and probably reduce the principal
and the rents, &C., not being appropriated by
the deed to trust debts, could be subjected by
~,
deed pending suit and a short time before the
| term at which Judgment would probably be
| rendered against the grantor does not render
| it fraudulent and void. citing s Leigh Pill
| Nor does the provision authorizing an earlier
sale, if desired by the grantor, as it does not au-
thorize the grantor to sell an account as in
| Rand. 80, and Graft $50; nor does it con-
| stitute him an agent for the trustee for that
purpose, 1t only authorizes sale before the
| set fine if desired nv him and an application
| of the Or, ceeds by the trustee. to the payment
of the debts. Nor do the extraneous proofs i'm
the case establish the existence of fraud. or an
intent to defraud other creditors who are not
nrovided for by it's terms IF he has RIGHT to
prefer amono creditors whose claims are inst.
he can also Prefer the inst to the unjust even
if he could NOT show their iniustice nv vrtue of
his unrestricted mower of alienation where
there are no liens. But there was error in
dism;ssing tho Hill n1a;nt;ff hninr entitled to
fla after n1vnlRnt
trHst debts and TO an account te ascertain their
amonnt nnder the nrayer for general relief.
| even If nor asked for Specifically. Decree re-
versad for this error. buf without costs to the
annellant. .Tudge Anderson delivering the
oninion.
60. - @Yo,.....-..--.-~s a.
IL. p pa1t.y "a ~
~ ~
VI ueGlalatoia a " ueeeasea as uylis
0io.is. u n.y. OF 1o1s 10
oiiei .ool.' oloGA; z. hn' oaa o: ~ 49, :,
ceaseu was stoDeI ~ wv piaeee ~ te Ivy,
1et miilcr wonoS ''o u''u o'i JUG u ''
io IN, oa,l' ioao: - 49, ,,;a,,t :.
ne ne, aeclaraIlohs were lnaug On lne ns1 VI
.e ON, anu aoeuI hours ai.el ieue tht
ene "o'llius' QFstio.l Mae w ;,s's'
s dnser ~ naa 9 coneaos'sneeo 20 o,.ar1
0e.ll' a.iu ea.o l,u lro 'oo W ~ ~ fcht
nenessoG sa; d"I ont to naces
prnveu, ueceasea saiu ne was Ss;,S ca: ~ pGleIa,
oa a1aI, e. 49,, tla ,,laoo Il +ho fi,rht cold
w. 1911 mt li, u. t to octor nnlnss
~. " ..tI o,lI a. hnfora
10. VS. ,;t,,ns said ohoI
on os..' So h,,t hn ,as ho div ont
1r;tnass to1d liz, no VOC ~ citad. ranl;ed he
,vas NJ a1oitaI and ;fanv nf the family van
ed - 500 lin thev ,nst Ia ot there &c soon nc
rasS;hIo aaid w., ,l,Id 49, orot nar II fro
Ii, ti o could NOT ret
't, ~ III ha,,t TX ,,,;nutas after he
w. . ,oa III 81 tl,;,,' ~, oa;nr - die
| viii dc + will neuor rooovar;, rhouoht
,itness Thought ha uonld dc ani # was not
moro eSclamstion Affair." Inf an eSnresson Of
nn;non =
So the doctor when be first 60 him do
ceased said he wo,,d die doctor told him he
mioht oct we'll that he had seen many men no
worse bnrt than he was Get we'll. afterwards,
abont o'clock at nioht. Wien called in from
another room DECEASED said Gle wonld die. ),
and his wounds reasonably justified that opin
| ion. For Eve or six DAYS witness had good
hopes of his recovery. would say to him Jim,
7 hone Won will get well.'' deceased would an
Witness thou Int that during the whole OF
the first night up TO the Time ne Iasg sa" nm.
v ,ras and Declarations made by de-
/ ceased that night were made in view of impen-
ding death. $S e E# s&
| Court held it was clear that on the night.
when the declarations were made deceased was
fully impressed with the CONVICTION he must
die, and had not the remotest nope OF recovery.
The fact that he did not die Immediately, but
fingered 10 days, and during that time gave
expression to CLEANS OF hope, when encouraged
by his physician, did not alter the case. The
question is always, did the deceased, at the
time the declarations were made, have the
nnsoiouSpaSc. thot death was imDnuOinO and