The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1881-04-07

against husband and wife, to subject L
demands of complainant property held By
the wife, as the result of a series of fraudu-
lent acts of the husband to hinder anc
defraud creditors. The charge is, that the
husband owned the property, and as par
Of his scheme of fraud conveyed the prop
erty sought to be reached by the bill, To
his brother, who served as mere conduit
to vest title in the wife Of the grantor, who
had no means Of her own with which to pay
for the property, and that the money USED
(if any was that of her husband. The
husband answered the bill, denying allega-
tions of fraud as to the transfer To hi.
brother, and stating that the conveyance
was made because he was indebted to the
latter and in payment of it, and in good
faith
The wife answered the bill stating that
she had knowledge of the transaction
| between her husband and his brother, but
/ that she purchased with her own means.
/ The husbands answer is directly respOn-
| sive to the bill, as to his conveyance to his
/ brother.
The efforts on both sides seemed
/ to have been directed to the contest oyer
the question whether the wife had means
of her own sufficient to make the purchase
and the evidence makes it clear that she
had not. If we regarded this as the test
question we would agree with the Chansel-
Tor. But the real question is as to the
validity of the conveyance from the hus-
band to the brother. If that was valid,
the title was beyond the reach of creditors,
and the holder by such conveyance could
give the property to the wife and it was
immateriai whether she possessed the means
to purchase or not.
The answer Of the husband responsive to
the hill asserts the valuable and sufficient
consideration for his conveyance to his
brother, and its good faith, and there is no
evidence as to this. Not a question was
asked about it. 1t seems TO have been
assumed throughout the progress of the
cause that this was true and that the title
Of the wife was to stand or not as it might
be determined whether or not she had the
means of her own to make the purchase
from the grantee of her husband.
If the separate answer of the husband
responsive to the bill enured to the benefit
of the wife, who answered separately and
did not answer as to the conveyance by her
husband to his brother, further than to
state her want of knowledge oft, it follows
that the validity of that conveyance is
established as fact in the case, and that
being established, no further inquiry is
proper. That is an end to the controversy.
This brings us to a consideration of
whether the answer of one defendant to the
dant as evidence in his favor. 1t is a well
settled rule that the answer of defendant
cannot be used against a co defendant, but
there is strange silence among the authori-
ties as to whether the answer of a defendant
responsive to the bill shall enure to the
benefit of a co-defendant as evidence in his
favor "But the answer of a defendant,
responsive to the bill, is admissible as evil
dence in favor of a co-defendant, more
I,y dofa hain
the depository of chattel claimed by the
plaintiff, defends himself under the title of
the other defendant" | Dan. Gu. Pl. q |
Pr. p. 841, n. Z.
The settled doctrine of this court is that
when one of several defendants makes de-
fault, followed by a pro c0nyesso, and others
defend, and it appears from their defense,
that on the whole case, the complainant is
not entitled to recover, he will not be allow |
ed to do so, even against him making de-
fault. Minor y. Stelcart, H., 912; HargroUe
ct al. .. Martin, 6 s & NJ, 81.
The principle supporting this rule is that |
the complainant must show himself en- |
titled to relief or he will not have it, aud |
it matters not which of these he calls on to |
defend, shows his complaint groundless.
In this case the husband answered the |
bill, fully responding to it, and denying the |
allegations Of fraud in the conveyance from
ton the facts Of the transaction, which if
true, made it proper one. The wife repos
ing upon the full answer of the husband, |
simply denied personal knowledge of the
transaction between the husband and his
brother.
The complainant did not Gas he should)
attack her answer as incomplete, but bent
all his efforts to another immaterial point.
In this he succeeded, but left unassailed the
main point, viz: the validity of the transfer
from the husband to his brother Though |
this is set up by the husbands answer, SO
long as it is not overthrow, it shows the |
not entitled to the decree he
sought and obtained below.
Reversed and remGnded.
Stands & Johnston, for appellants.
t. w. White, contra.
To be reported.