The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1885-04-01

and conveyed the land to others, under
whom appellees claim. In 1882, appel
lant. creditor of the estate Of Move,
/ filed bill to subject the land to the
payment of his claim. Demurrers TO
| this bill were sustained by the chancel-
lor. but were overruled on appeal 10 this
court. The defendants have now filed
| foru pleas. The chancellor held these
pleas to be good, and en- appeal was
again taken.
The sale to Caroline and William
| Dancy was an express investment OF that
much of the assets of the estate in the
| land, to await a final settlement, and to
be recalled for the purposes OF the estate
/ or not, as might be required on hnal set
| tlement Until then, the provisional
arrangement thus made was TO stand.
| If the condition of affairs was such that
the funds thus invested should not
be needed for the paromunt claims of
creditors the land was to be the property
of the purchasers, freed from the trust
but if il became necessary, the money
was to be accounted for The bill shows
that thu complainant is & creditor of
Moves estate, and he seeks satisfaction
out of this trust fund invested in the
land.
The arrangement stated created an
express, direct, technical and continuing
trust as to the S4997.27 invested in the
land. The pleas are all insufficient.
Three of them set up statutes OF llmlta-
tiou. Time to is not be counted until the
right of action accrues, and until tnal
settlement Of the estate of Moye, the
trust in the land did not cease. The six
wears statute has no application, be-
cause there is no effort to recover any
money paid. The seven years statute
has no application, because no effort Is
being made to enforce the decree under
which the land was sold. The ten years
statute was not bar; for time did
not begin to run so long as the trust
continued and the estate remained un
settled. When it it became proper to
call for these assets for the purpose OF the
estate, then, Cor the first time, right OF
action accrued with respect to the
charge upon the land. Until then, time
went for nothing. The plea of payment,
as counsel call it,-i. G., the plea
which AYERS the solvency of Moves es-
tate and the payment of the S499I. q
to tue Dancy children as an abso-
lutte partial distribution of their
shares of the estate, is not suthci
ent, because it contradicts the record OF
the transaction by which the defendants
claim the land. Their title is derivative
from the Dancy children, in whom it was
vested as stated above. The existence
| of this record, as set forth in the bill, IS
not denied, but it is contradicted by the
averment of the plea that the transac-
ton was not as the record shows it to
have been. that record oeing the foun-
dation of defendants title. This is not
allowable. The record shows the trans
action by which the title was put in the
Dancy children. 1t admits no averment
to the contrary BY it the defendants
must stand or fall, for they claim under
it.
There is no conflict between the views
announced in this case when here before
(61 Miss.), and those held in Cooper o.
Cooper, 81 Miss, as supposed by counsel
Rerersed and remdnded.
Humphries & Sykes, VIM. Baldwin, Tor
appellant.
Barry G. Beckett for appellees.