Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1875-12-11
Decision Of the Court Of ADDeaIs-.
DeeIS---HOW EiIialeI

ln the Supreme Court OF Appeals, yester-
day, decision was rendered in the case Of
Henderson VS.. Hunton, from u decree Of the
Circuit Court OF Fauquier.
| The facts OF the case are that in March, 1864
Thomas j. Moore, of the county of Fauoujer
conveyed all his real estate in that county to
Thomas Henderson, his nephew, ia considera.
ton of debt Of fifty dollars due by the former
| to the latter, aud for the further consideration
OF support, with the attentions of a servant
to be furnished by Henderson, during the life
OF the grantor. AT the time this contract was
entered into Moore was about seventy-six wears
of age, very infrm, without family, and
much embarrassed with debt. 1t was in proof
that Henderson, subsequent to the execution
of the deed, paid off judgments against Moore
TO the amount Of six or seven hundred dollars
and he also made Announcements to consider
able amount TO the support and maintenance
OF Moore. There is no proof that Henderson
at The time OF the execution of the deed knew
OF any Indebtedness on the part of Moore. The
bill was filed by creditor of the latter to va.
cate the deed tor fraud. As the case presents
some interesting questions of law We give an
extended abstract Of the opinion of the court
as delivered by Judge Staples:
The only question we are to consider ia
whether the deed constitutes Il valid security
| Tor advances made snd expenses incurred Nv
| the grantee In support OF the grantor rs against
creditors whose debts wore contracted prior to
Its execution There is no question that if these
creditors had lnterposed before any advances
were maze oy the grantee In performance of
| ms contract courto equity would have vacated
the deei and held the property subject to the
Claims of creditors As, however they did not
so lnterpose, the question is presented in an en-
t'rely different aspect
! "A conveyance of property in consideration
| OF an agreement to support the grantor is not
regarded in law rs voluntary. As it is impossi
Die to say how long the grsntor may live or
what expenses the grantee must necessarily in.
cur, 1t is impossible to say that the considers-
ton is inadequate unless, indeed, the services to
Do rendered are greatly disproportionate to tn
estate conveyed. Such conveyances are there.
| fore, treated as founded on valuable considers
| ton
mo rule is better settled than that in order
| to vltlate conveyance the fraudulent design of
the grantor must be known to the grantee.
When there is actual fraud, both parties con-
! curing, the deed Is utterly void sb initio, and
1t IS not permitted to stand as security for any
purpose. In no instance will the courts afford
any indemnity to particeps criminis in case Of
actual fraud. When, however, tho deed is
| merely constructively fraudulent, or when the
grantee has acted bona fde having no psrtici-
patton in The fraud, the decd is valid az secur
ity for what is justly due the grantee or for
bona tide sdvnncements made by him subse
quent to its execution.
This doctrine is n t only just and reasonable
in itself, but is supported by great weight of au
thority. In support OF this view the learned
Judge cites and comments upon numerous cases.
Applying these principles to the case under
consideration, he proceeds TO show that Hen.
dsrson was an innocent purchaser, having no
notlce OF the debt IN controversy, or, indeed, of
any Indebtedness on the part OF the vendor; that
Moore's liability rs one Of the sureties of Mari
was entirely contingent, depending upon the
solvency OF the prlncipa aud of his co-sureties
All or which was uncertain, and of which it
ana not appear that Henderson had the slightest
information Besides all this, the conduct of
the complainant WAS we'll cslculat, to delude
Henderson into n feeling of absolute security.
NO execution WAS ever issued upon the judg-
nent against Moore; no effort m ,de to enforce
the Judgment; it Was never ducketed no notice
given OF 1t, and 80 calm asserted against the
property or against Henderson, notwithstanding
Inc deed under which he claimed WAS duly re.
corded. 1t is very true that creditor does not
ratlty fraud by dong nothing. And while the
contract originally may be nullity, as to his
rights by lis performance il may be yery far