The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1879-06-14

norticipate in the intent which actuates the
debtor to make it. ,i;d
Rnt while the transaction may De Valiu
In law az IN the creditors receiving inc pre-
fararce the unfair intent with which IL was
.oaJa will make the doctor liable to attach
ment. 4ho ohoro,a ,,os
Upon the 9TH ground the charRe waS
SUBSTANTIALLY as follows:
II a man, in order to obtain credit,
makes false representations as to his ablilty
! 70 paw, and by those representations does
obtain credit, he fraudulently contracts the
debt, If he contracts debt with the III
tention of not paying it, this is manifest
and direct fraud. If, knowing himself 10
be insolvent and incapable of making pay
ment. he obtains credit from another,
known by him to be ignorant OF his lnsolyH
encv and inability to pay, and who extends
fine credit under the most implicit belief IN
his GOOD faith and solvency, the conceal-
ment of the truth was fraud.
| 7 If a man has been of known standing,
Ibut has become insolvent, he cannot go TO
those who were acquainted with his former
position, but have not heard OF LIS chang-
ed condition, and innocently obtain credit
Fairness and morality demand in sucnI
case that he shall inform those VINO were
acquainted with his former Wen known
atandinp. of his altered condition, before
| he obtains new credit, and his failure TO 90
so would make him guilty OF fraud
A debt contracted under any OF the fore
Going circumstances would be traudulently
Contracted within the meaning OF our
stotute. and would make the debtor liable
| to attachment
In one of the cases the Court also made
the following ruling; In the absence OF
stipulations in the copartnership artlcies' or
otherwise, to the contrary, partnership, ny
| oneration of law becomes dissolved by the
death of one partner.
Thereafter the surviving partner mas no
power to continue the business or to con-
tract new debts or liabilities, so as to bind
the partnership assets.
IT is his duty to wind up the partnership
as speedilv as practicable, and to use the
partnership funds, as far as may be neces-
sary to nav the partnership debts. lie IS
created by law trustee for that purpose,
and it is his duty to devote the firm assets
TO the payment of the firm debts. II he
applies them to the payment OF MS lndl-
yidual debts, before the partnership depts
have been fully discharged, he is guilty OF
a moral. as well as a legal fraud anu
sale or disposition of the partnership as
sets for his individual purposes, to one
who knows the purposes for which sucn
sale or disposition is made, will be VOID as
TO partnership creditors. If he continues
the business after the dissolution, and con-
tracts new debts or obligations, by borrow
ing money, buying merchandise, or other
wise. thew will be his individual debts or
obligations, and not binding on the tlrm
assets but while goods purchased by INN
after the dissolution are his individual
property, yet if he so mixes them up with
| rirm assets that it is impossible to distinguish
them. they will be treated and dealt with
as firm assets, so far as the partnership
creditors are concerned, The disposition
by serving partner of the firm assets IN
violation of his duties as defined, would
make him liable to attachment.
In another case, the debtor had made an
4 ASSIGNMENT to trustees for the benefit of
his creditors the property assigned was
attached bv his creditors, and the trustees
claimed the property, thus bringing into
question the validity of the assignment
| The assignment purported on its face to be
n general assignment of all the debtors
property, but it was in evidence that the
| debtor had other property not named in the
assignment. which he afterwards sold and
applied TO the payment of one of his cred
itors, In this state of the case the Court
ruled as follows
Where a deed of assignment purports to
convey the whole of the debtors property,
| but does, in fact, convey only part, it
! Ilo nf face.
for such a statement on the face of the
deed would have no other effect than to de-
! ceive and mislead the creditors. 1t would
be equivalent to declaration to them that
he had surrendered all Of his property,
when in truth he had not; such false decla~
ration would necessarily deceive and mis-.
lead creditors.
The evidence of fraud may exist upon
the fGtce of the deed, or it may exist in
proof outside of the deed; whenever 1t is
established, the effect will be to initiate the
deed. -t8S14&@A
The deed being fraudulent in law, the
party executing'it would be liable to attach
ment, as having disposed of his properly
with intent to defraud his creditors
Again, the deed purporting to convey all
of the debtors property, and providing for
| It's ulSLflDuIlOu, pp run, anonB al Iho
creditors, was a declaration to Thorn that he
had surrendered all of his property and
was making no preferences. If, in fact,
the deed did not convey all of his property,
and if he used the part not conveyed, in
secretly discharging debt due to one of
his creditors, he would also be liable to at
tachment, as having disposed of his proper
ty or some part thereof, with intent to give
an unfair preference to some of his credi-
tors, for the preference of one creditor
under such circumstances would manifestly
be unfair
It was also ruled in this case, that while
trustees in a deed of assignment are not to
be treated as mere voluntary grantees, yet
inasmuch as they pay nothing and part
with nothing as a consideration for the
deed, do not occupy the position of limo
cent purchasers for value; that it is not
necessary, therefore, to connect them III
any way, by notice OF otherwise, with the
fraudulent intent of the debtor i'll making
the deed, and that if it is fraudulent, as to
him, it will be fraudulent also as to them.