The weekly clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1863-1882, 1882-04-05
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.
OCTOBER TERM, 1881.
REPORTED WEEKLY FOR THE CLARION, By
ROBERT sHoTwELL, ATToRyEY-AT-LAW.
ADDISON CRAFT,
II 1E1-l87-' 1T
VS..
BLooa. GoLDsalTH. TAcHRy & Co. ]


BLooH, GoLDsH1TH, TAcHRx & Co,
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Marshall
County, Hon. J. W. c. Watson, Judge:
On the 18th day January 1881 B. Rosenfeld
made an assignment to Addison Craft for the
benefit of creditors. Several fictitious AM
simulated debts were named and preferret in
the assignment Tn 10th January 1851, ap-
pellee ued out a. attachment against RosenfeId
and claimants issue was made between the
attacking creditor aud the assitnee. The court
instructed the jury that the ass gnment was not
void per Sc. Itfurther instructed at the instance
OF the plaintiffs in attachment that no good
faith or innocence on the part OF the assignee
would ; we the deed from the nsIderatI0u OF
the law, # it was frau ulently intended and ex-
ecuted by the gr IN and refused the request
of the assignee, to instruct them mat he
purchaser Tor value, and if innocent OF any
fraudulent intent on the pa his grantor,
obtained good title to the G, ,ods assigned
The second instruction. for the plaintiff in at
tachment; II the jury believe from the evil
dence that aay ,e of the creditors Of Rosen-
field held out an indueement to him, benefit
10 him the said Ros nfeld, and he did actually
maxi the assignment with the hope or eXpecta-
tion of receiving such subsequent aid bene-
fit, then they will find for the plain ifs, " was
excepted to The jury found from the evidence
submitted to them that the assignment wss
eontriyed and execnted by the grantor, with
accordingly
Watson, Watson & Smith and Chas. B. Howry
for appellant.
Strickland & Wooten, contra.
CHALMERS, c. j.,
Hold
/. 1t is said that the jury were enormously
charged that if they believed that one fictitious
and simulated debt was in and secured by the
deed, it would vitiate 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 all
assignment for the benefit of creditors, is only
a badge or iHdiciG of frand to be considered by
them in determining from ali the facts in proof
whether the intention was not fraudulent.
2 He who receives security for pre-exist-
ing debt, without the advance of any new
present consideration or the Satisfaction or
extinguishment of his debt is not purchaser
for value and consequently will be bound by
the fraud OF his grantor, though he had no
knowledge thereof.
g. There is no pretense that any new eonsid-
Grafton was given by the assignee any of the
creditors secured by the assignment in this case,
though it does appear that the attorneys who
drew the instrument inserted in it fee for so
doing and agreed to release the erantOr from
any personal liability therefor. To say that
a debtor may make conveyance with intent
TO defraud his creditors and yet that 1t viii be
sustained because the lawyer who assisted him
in drawing it up was ignorant Of his intention
and agreed to accept stipulation in the IN
strument as compensation for his services would
inevitably lead to the most frightful frauds and
would expose the members of that profession
to temptation and suspicious which would mar
their usefulness by sapping public confidence
f. The second instruction for the plalntIH IN
attachment was too broad No promise
pectation Of future benefits, disconnected with
the property will avoid sthe deed, though it
formed the inducement TO its execution. 1t is
a reservation of some benefit in the property
and not the expectation of some reward discon-
nected with aud independent OF it, of which
other creditors can complain. We viii not re-
verse the case on account of this erroneous in
struction because on all the facts the jury were
clearly right in finding for the plaintiffs. At
frnsed.
To be rennrted.