The clarion. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1883-1888, 1886-12-15

h9 been executed on Dseenb.. =
1904 Tor a consideration Of S24 Ada
paid.\ The bill charges that HI cash
was Executed without anv CO uesd
lawful consideration, with - ana
hinder, delay and defraud exi.t'eu ue %
subsequent creditors Of the "Yi..s,. ;al
Valley Bank, including corapIsjae.Pf'
that it the deed was in fact exacneaI
the day and for the copsida-.t.;uoa
received, IL was purposelv withheld e-
record, by Mrs. +. &. Klein ION
intent 10 give the KI-ins .1
their bank a credit to which, ll
we're not entitled, and thar cor,.l ,Ies
ants we're induced % deal win leu. i,''1-
and 70 extend them credit on Ala l' -
that they We're still owners of III. lie
erty. The bill prays thar thfs ~
/ from the kleins To Mrs Z. b Ejs:-.g-
cancelled, and that the propsrty -. rs
To satisfy the judgments al ro7,..I-.-'
ants unless Mrs. Klein paw tbe s" ','1'
Mrs. b. i. Klein answered. setting M
that the deed was made ana 5sEEs.-g5
| on December ., 1882, the dsv ON MAJ
it purporied to be done; that Size -asI
her husband and son $4,000 cssb e..
the same, more than $4,000 of wb,ct
she received from her mothers &C.,,
aud the balance money which sb. -
/ to her credit IN the bank. THAI fba -.
| veyance was not made % hinder a..
I or dcfraud creditors; that she did ~.
| record 1t Immediately, because size IA
not know that 1t WAS necessary. and IN
| ~ recorded on November %. 1889 h.
cause told 70 do SO by her son. lob,
Klein, and denying tina. she failed h
record II IN order To give credit 10 ,5a
| kleins and their bank.
The evidence all teud=d to show tia,
The deed was made on the dtv and Ia,
the consideration named. and tba1 r,a
money WAS derived from tHe s,.grcs
claimed by the defendant in her answer
The opinion of the court SETS out he
proof on the question of fraud.
the chancellor found for the com
plaiuants aud granted tue relief ASKED
The defendant Appealed.
| Campbell, j., delivered the opinion o!
the court.
This record does uot contain auy eyi.
denee on which 10 Impute 10 the appel
lant com plIcity III a scheme [, ae. raud
creditors, and therein thus ease a fer.
materially from HLiurd q. C8gLs 4
Miss, S09, where Tue creuiIols wer,
neid to have participated win tb,
doctor in scheme OF fraud which r-n
dered void the deed of trust they mac
obtained and Withheld from rreord by
agreement, bOta As 10 existing aud sub
sequenJ creditors OF the debtor. Or
q az ground the deed OF trust was held
VOID. There Is nothing "a the c0uduy
oi the appellant, as disclosed los tl,
record, inconsistent with The utmos
good faith on her part. She bought and
paid for he property, aud trusted her
husband aud son, wherein she did al
wives and mothers usually do. She did
not have her deed recorded until th,
daY before the attachments were levied
out that was Jlme enough, If Sue Wa,
not participant IN fraudulent
scheme; aud we fail to see that she WAS
Failure 10 Tie Il deed for record NAV
IKE any other pertinent tact, Ice cir
cumstance IN making up CONCLUSION
As 10 the presence or absence of fraud
but ali there Is H. it, per Sc, is the risk d
superyenlng right 70 or lien on The
land.
Decree reversed and bin dismissed &.
the cost of the appeilees In both courts
| Tho pa,Jroa5 tyorn,ulcc5o~ ana Undo.