Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-06-20
and Gamble accepted II without quaIlnca'
ton. Nothing further was necessary
ERAIrDIYT EMIT CONVEYANCE.


and Gamble accepted It without qualifca'
ton. Nothing further was necessary.
FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE.
Stonebraker & Hutchlps vs.. Hicks; Al
f!rmed. Opinion by Harrison, J. Result
concurred In by Cardwell. J. a.. III.
In March. 1895. Hicks delivered 70 nd
wife . deed for land for. the expresss,eu
consideration OF 500 In cash, the cancelia-
tion OF his debt 10 her for va, moneys
divided from her parents and tent 70
him, and lie assumption OF dens %; TT
OF 500. secured by trass coed OF me isn.'
1880. and mean time Hickss creditors Cd.
tanned Judgments for about 500 against
him. which became liens on the ,ana'
snd had to be paid BY the wie IN Of " tbe
deed, Hicks and his son, as partners,
bought merchandise from appellants, FUR
nshed them during that summer 10 me
amount OF about s'o.. and suit was
leging that the deed to the wife was
without consideration. and made with in
tent 10 hinder, etc, creditors. Court pc
low held the deed was without fraud as
to the wife, and that she was q pona-nne
purchaser for value. except as TO tne casa
payment of 500, and the debt or sz0V ue-
rived from her PARENTS. that to tnat eS-
tent the deed was voluntary, ana sne
must pay that amount into court ior the
benefit OF her husbands creditors.
Held: Her legal right 10 buy is not
questioned: that she made the purchase is
not denied The only question u the pona-
fdes OF the transaction No'hlng ~ ne
deed suggests fraud. which cannot be
presumed, unless the instrument preclu1e
any other Inference.
SEGREGATION.
Bankers Loan and Investment company
VS.. Harnish, &c. Reversed. opinion py
Judge Harrison.
In August. 1880 Downey bought OF Mrs.
simmons n house and lot In Roanoke. a
deed was executed TO Downey, VINO exc
cuted 4 deed OF trust TO secure the oc-
ferred payments: The trust deeo WAS re
corded. but the deed was lost or destroy
ed and never recorded. one. note was
paid at maturity. The other two,
amounting TO 5000, were transferred 10
a security company, and Afterwards Mrs.
Simmons. at the request or powney inano
a new deed TO his wife, dated pack 70
the original sale. and ackn0wledged III
September. 1891, Mrs Downey assuming
the payment of the unpaid notes. Beng
pressed for the money by the owners OF
the notes. either Downey or ms VILE" VIII
does not appear whch--appied TO appel
lants for loan, and Downey ana wlle
conveyed the property herein TO secure
the same. Appellants paid off the notes
. IN full. and held them uncancehed ior
further protection.
of Downey to subject this house and iot
TO their liens The lower court held mat
the deed of trust, while good as between
the parties thereto. was not a valid Sc
curity superior to the augment appellees'
whose liens were superior to that or ap-
pellant.
Held: Appellant, upon weli-established
principles OF natural justice, was en-
titled TO be subrogated TO the Hen or the
deed of trust securing the notes paid by
IL. Gatewood vs.. Gatewood, 10 va ~
Hudson VS.. Dismukes, II Va. 242; Price
VS.. Davis. s. Va, $50; Cline vs.. Triplett,
% g. Il. r.. 1856.
An assignment OF the notes to the ep-
pellant was not necessary TO entl'e y 70
me benefit OF the lien. SuDrosa,lon IS "a =
very dinerent thing from assignment. III
IS the act Of the law. and the creature OF
q. court OF equity. Nor was II necessary
that appellant claim subrogation speeil,
cally TO be entitled TO II; IL is suhlclen'
If the facts and circumstances or the case
iustifv the court In extending ii.