The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1881-12-03
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
ADDISON CRAFT.

ADDISON CRAFT,
| vs.. -
BLOOM, GOLDsMIrH, TACHRN Il Co.
Appeal from the Circuit Court OF Mar
shall county, Hon. Jno. w. G. Watson
Judge.
On the 18th day OF January, 1881, B
Rosenfeld made an assignment to Addison
Craft for the benefit Of creditors. Sovera
fictitious and simulated debts were nance
and preferred in the assignment.
On the 10th of jan, 1851, appellees sued
out an attachment against b. Resented
and claimants issue was made between the
attaching creditors and the assignee.
The Court instructed the jury that the
assignment was not void per sc. 1t further
instructed, at the instance Of plaintiffs In
attachment, that no good faith or inno-
eence on the part Of the assignee would
save the deed from the condemnation OF
law If it was fraudulently intended and
executed by the grantor and refused the
request Of the assignee to instruct them
that he was a purchaser for value, and II
innocent of any fraudulent intent on the
part of his grantOr, obtained q good title to
the goods assigned. The second tnstruc-
ton for the plaintiff in attachment: "If
the jury believe from the evidence that any
one of the creditors of Roscnfcld held out
an inducement to him, a benefit to him
said Resented, and he did actually make
the assignment with the hope or expecta.
ton Of receiving such subsequent aid or
ben eft, then they will find for the plain.
tiffs," was excepted to.
The jury found from the evidence sub.
mitted to them, that the assignment was
contrived and executed by the grantor
with intention of defrauding his creditors
and returned verdict accordingly.
Watson, Watson a. Smith and Chas. Is.
Howry for appellants.
Strickland Il Wooten contra.
CHALMERS, C. j.,
He'd
l. 1t Is said that the jury were erro.
neOusly charged that If they believed that
one fictitious and simulated debt was in
serted in and secured by the deed it would
viliate the whole instrument. There were
four charges given on this subject, and
while the meaning OF one of them Is
ambiguous, all the others quite clearly tell
the jury that the insertion Of fictitious
debts In an assignment for the benefit Of
creditors IL only badge or isdieia Of fraud
to be considered by them In determining
from NIL the facts in proof, whether the In. |
tcnti0n was not fraudulent.
2. He who receives q security for q pre- |
existing debt without the advance of any |
new present consideration or the satisfac-
ton and extinguishment Of his debt IL not |
a purchaser for value; and will conse- |
quently be bound by the fraud of his gran |
tor, though he had no knowledge OF it.
3. There IL no pretense that any new |
consideration was given by the assignee or /
any Of the creditors secured by the assign
meut In this case, though 1t docs appear
that the Attorneys who drew the instru-
mcnt inserted In II provision for the pay.
ment OF their fee for so doing and agreed
to release the grantor from any personal
liability therefor. To say that debtor
and intention Of defrauding his creditors,
and yet that 1t will be sustained because
the lawyer who assisted him in drawing II
up was Ignorant of his intention and agreed
10 accept u stipulation in the instrument as
for his services, would in
cvitably lead TO the most frightful frauds
aud would expose the members Of that pro-
Icssion to temptations and suspicious
which would mar their usefulness by sap
ping public confidence.
8. The second instruction for the plain
IFS In attachment was too broad.
No promise or expectation Of future
benefits disconnected with the property
will avoid the deed, though 1t formed the
nducement to Its execution. 1t is the
reservation Of some benefit in the property
md not the expectation Of some reward
with and independent Of 1t of
which other creditors can complain. We
viii not reverse the judgment ON account
VI this erroneous instruction because on
u tho facts the jury were clearly right in
ud!ng for plaintiffs. Affirmed.
fro BE REPoRTED.l