The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1880-05-08
CHARLES j. OSBORNE,
VS..
JOHN w. CRUMP.
Decree affirmed.

|
Appeal from Chancery Court of Bolivar
county, Hon. W. G. Phelps, Chancellor.
Crump sold plantation in Bolivar county
to one Smith, for $15 900; of which amount
SO, 900 was paid cash, and the note of Smith
for $4,000 was given to represent the
balance due. Crump executed to Smith a
deed and, received from him deed OF
trust to secure the payment of the note.
Afterwards, Smith sold the land to one
Looney, who sold to Trowbridge, deeds
being executed in each case.
Crump pressing Trowbridge for the
money due on the land, the latter paid him
81, POO which he had borrowed for that pur-
pose from his son-in-law, Osborne appel
lant) and executed his own note for
81 $50 for the balance due. At Trowbridge's
request Crump transferred and assigned
the trust deed to Osborne, and received
from Trowbridge in lieuof it, the assign
ment of mortgage, held and owned by
the latter on a tract of land in New Jersey,
being induced to do this by the assurances
of TrOwbridge, thatthe New Jersey mort
gage was worth far more than the 1880
due, and that it afforded perfect security
for it.
Crump knew nothing of the New Jersey
mortgage, and relied wholly on TrOwbrige's
statements in accepting it. 1t has proved
to be wholly worthless, and in the mean
time Osborn has foreclosed the trust deed
on the plantation in Bolivar county, which
was by Crump transferred to him, and be-
under.
Crump brings this bill to assert against
the Bolivar lands lien for the balance of
the original purchase money now repre-
sented by Trowbridge's note for 81, $50.
7. J. & +. A. r. Wharton, and Mont
gomery for appellant.
l.. Brane for appellee.
CHALMERS. j.,
HID
/. 1t is cOntended that the decree in IA
yor of complainant was improperly render
ed because no testimony had been taken,
and the burden of proving the case rested
upon him. The facts were admitted by
the answers of TrOwbridge and Osborne,
and of themselves entitled complainant to
a decree.
.. TrOwbridge in his answer sought to
avoid the facts by the avernent that after
the New Jersey mortgage was discovered
to be worthless, a fact unknown to him at
the time he assigned il. he transferred
other securitis in lieu Of it to Crump with
which the latter avOwed himself satisfied,
and which he still held. Manifestly this
was new affirmative matter not responsive
to anything in the bill, and the burden Of
proving il deyolyed upon defendants, but
no dep0sitions were taken in support Of it.
3. 1t is said that the trustee in the deed
Of trust executed by Smith to Crump
should have been made party, The
point is not well taken, because il Is shown
by the bill and answers that he had fully
executed his trust and Invested himself Of
title by the sale made before the institution
Of the suit, at which sale Osborne became
the purchaser OF the land.
4. Osborne stated In his answer that he
had sold the land 20 one Rockwell, and il Il
said that the latter Is q necessary party.
Not 20, because IL u shown by the answer
that he bought geadeHfe lite, and such a
purchaser = bound by the decree with
out being party.
5, Trowbridge died after answer fled
and the case was dismissed a. to him, II
is said that II should have been revived