The leader. [volume] (Brookhaven, Miss.) 1895-1905, 1897-04-07
MORGAN, WRIGHT co. VS.. w. II.
BRADSHAW Er AL.

BY agreement of counsel, Chancellor
Conn sat in vacation and tried the
above stated case at the Court House
last Wednesday afternoon. The com
plainants we're ably represented by
Hon. A. G. McNair and the defense by
Messrs. Cassidy & Cassidy. At the
conclusion of counsers argument,
Judge Conn took the case under ad-
visement and Friday rendered his de-
cision. AS the case is one of consid-
cradle local interest, The LEADER
gives below the summing up of the
facts and the opinion of the Chancel-
lor in full
STATEMENT OF FACTS AND OPINION.
In 1896, prior to the time of the sever
al transactions hereinafter recited, w.
E. Bradshaw and Mrs. Angelina Magee
were conducting a business as mer
chants in Brookhaven under the firm
name Of W. Z. Bradshaw a. Co. The
sign at the front of the store was, "W
+. Bradshaw
On Sept. 10th, 1896, Mrs. Angelina
Magee executed a deed or bill of sale
conveying all her interest in the prop
erty and assets of the firm to f. +.
Brennan. Possession was not deliver
ed under this deed and Bradshaw knew
nothing of it, This deed remained in
Brennan's possession until about the
time of the filing of this suit and has
been produced and is now filed in the
papers of the cause.
On Oct 23rd, 1896, Mrs. Magee,
through her husband, sold all her in
terest in the firm to Edward Magee for
$o15 in cash. The business was then
conducted by w. f. Bradshaw and Ed
ward Magee until the 18th of Nov,
1896, when Mrs. Angelina Magee
bought an interest in the business.
She was to pay $500 in cash and $500
Jan. 1st, 1897. Only 800 was paid by
her. The business was continued as
before, G.. NJ Magee, the husband of
Mrs. Angelina Magee, also taking part
in the sale of goods, etc. g. M. Magee
transacted all the business of his wife
in reference to her connection with
the firm.
No change was at any time made in
the name of the firm nor the "sign.''
On Dec. 2Sth, 1896, w. E. Bradshaw
sold all his interest in the firm proper
ty and assets to his wife, Mrs. Jennie
r. Bradshaw, making her deed duly
signed, acknowledged and recorded.
He owed his wife $1,000 which was
paid by the sale.
On the same date Edward Magee
sold his interest in the property and
assets of the firm to his wife, Mrs. An
Ma I. Magee, to pay her $1,000 which
he owed her. He also made deed ac-
knowledged and recorded. These
deeds were made at 12:10 on the morn,
ing of Dec. 2Sth, being Monday.
Possession was delivered to one
Henry Meyer, agent for the vendees,
and sign displayed with the names OF
Mesdames Jennie r. Bradshaw and
Anna L. Magee thereon.
i Mrs. Angelina Magee made no dispo,
sition of her interest in the business
and both she and g. NJ. Magee deny
consenting to or having any knowledge
of the deeds being made. Mr.. Brad
shaw, however, testified that g. M. Ma
gee did consent to the sales, having
had an understanding that Mrs. Brad
shaw and Mrs. Anna Magee would sat
isfactorily settle her interest in the
matter. Mr.. Edward Magee testified
that he C. NJ. Magee) did consent tc
the arrangements, but was promised
nothing.
Upon this complainants, some o.
whom are creditors of w. E. Bradshaw
and some creditors of the firm, fileC
this bill to cancel the deed from Mrs
Angelina Magee to Brennan and the
deed from Edward Magee and Brad
shaw to their wives.
The evidence is that the debts oi
Messrs. Bradshaw and Edward Magee
were valid debts due and owing by
them to their wives, but not debts OF
the firm.
Both the firm and the members of il
were insolvent and all the property Of
the firm was devoted to the payment
of these two debts, leaving the firm
creditors unprovided for.
The deed of Mrs. Angelina Magee i;
is void, being voluntary and without
consideration. The two deeds made
by w. E. Bradshaw and Edward Maget
to their wives are void as to firm cred
itors, because they could not law wfully
devote firm assets to the payment o
individual debts.
This case falls clearly under the rul
ing of the court in Durfey VS.. Bank,-7:
Miss, OIL.
1t is contended that Sec. 1924 of tn,
Code, as construed in Howe VS.. Kerr
60 Miss, 81, distinguishes this case
: from the Durfey case, and that tn,
deeds to Mrs. Bradshaw and Mrs. Ma
gee are valid, but glance at the fact!
of this case clearly, in my opinion, viii
demonstrate that the case last citeC
has no application in this case.
This business was transacted by w
Z. Bradshaw and Edward Magee anC
probably also by G.. w. Magee in tn,