The comet. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1877-1882, 1881-03-05
ID. ANNA W. SALMON,

ID. ANNA W. SALMON,
VS..
W. Is. SMITH
Appeal from Chancery court Tate county
Honr j. B. Morgan Chancellor.
A sufficient statement of facts will b,
found in the opinion.
Stands a. Johns for appellant.
T. NJ. White for appellee.
CAMPBELL, j.,
The decree of the Chancellor, wher
tested by what we are led by the argu
ment made here, TO believe was made the
especial subject of contention before him
was correct; but 1t is plain to our minds
that the real matter Of controversy present
ed by the record is different from that
argued here, and as we suppose, pressed
upon the attention of the Chancellor. The
case stands thus, viz: The bill is against
husband and wife, TO subject to demand OF
complainant property held by the wife,
as the result Of series Of fraudulent acts
of the husband to hinder and defraud
creditors. The charge is, that the husband
owned the property, and as part of his
scheme of fraud, conveyed the property,
sought to be reached by the bill, to his
brother, who served as a mere conduit to
vest title in the wife of the grantor, which
wife had no.means Of ner own with which
to pay for the property and that the
money used or any was that of her hus-
band. The husband answered the bill,
denying allegations of fraud as to the trans
fer to his brother, and stating the convey
ance was made because he was indebted to
the latter and In payment Of 1t, and in good
faith.
The wife answered the bill stating that
she had no knowledge Of the tranaetion
hnfWpau ha ~ 4.
that she purchased with her own means.
The husbdnd's answer is directly respon-
siye TO the bill, as to his conveyance to his
brother. The efforts on both sides seemed
to have been directed to the contest over
the question whether the wife had means
of her own sufficient to make the purchase
and the evidence makes IL clear that she
had not. II we regarded this as the test
question we would agree with the Chan
sellor. But the real question is as TO the
validity OF the conveyance from the hus-
band to his brother. IL that was valid, the
title was beyond the reach of creditors
and the holder by such n conveyance could
give the property to the wife aud IL was
immaterial whether she possessed the means
to purchase or not.
The answer of the husband, responsive
to the bill asserts the valuable and suffi-
cient 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 il. II 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 II might
be determined whether or not she had the
means Of her own to make the purchase
from the grantee of her husbond. IL the
separate answer of the husband responsive
to the bill enured to the benefit Of the wife,
who answered separately and did not an
swer as to the conveyance by her husband
10 his brother, further than to state her
want Of kowledge Of it, IL follows that the
validity Of that conveyance Is established
as fact in the case, and that being estab-
lished, no further inquiry is proper. That
Is an end to the controversy. This brings
us to a consideration Of whether the an
swer OF one defendant to the bin enure to |
dence in his favor. Ii Is a well settled rule |
that the answer of defendant cannot be |
used against a co-defendant, but there is |
strange silence among the authorities rs to |
whether the answer Of defendant respon.
sive 70 the bill shall enure TO the benefit Of /
a co-defendant as evidenced in his favor.
+" But the answer Of a defendant respon-
sive TO the bill, IL admissible rs evidence
in favor Of a CO. defendant, more especially
where such co-defendant, being the de-
pository Of a chattel claimed by the plain
til, defends himself under the title Of the
other defendant" I Dan. Oh. Pl. a Pr.
D. s41, n. Z. The settled doctrine of this
court il that when one Of several defen.
dauts makes default followed by a Ere
roafssss. and Others defend, and il appears
from their defense, that on the whole case,
The complainant IL not entitled TO recover,
be will not he allowed 10 do 80, even
against him making default. Minor v.
stewart, . IT,, s12 Hargroye ct al. v. Mar.
in, 9 5. a NJ, 81.
The principle supporting this rule Is that
he complainant must show himself entitled
% relief or he viii not have IL, and Il mat
crs not which Of these be calls on to de-
end, shows his complaint groundless.
In this case the husband answered the
I'LL, fully responding 10 1t, and denying the
allegations Of fraud in the conveyance nom
Tim 20 HE brother, and stated In explsns-l
ion the facts Of the transaction, which IL
rue, made IL proper one. The wife re-
,osing upon the full answer Of the hus-
and simply denied personal knowledge Of
be tEalssfsioH between the husband and
The complainant did not las he should
tack her answer 40 ineorzplete, bot bent
u his efforts 70 smother fmmxeerisl point.
n this he succeeded, but len un&s<xiisd the
nzin point, viz. the validity Of The tr1ns-
or from the husband to his broxher.
rhough this IL set up By the husband's an
wer, 20 slong ss u IL pet oferthrown II