The Columbus weekly dispatch. (Columbus, Miss.) 1902-1905, 1904-04-14

( retained the deed III It's bank,
after its execution and delivery,
where the granter never again
saw it. and had no control over
it in law or in fact, they simply
failed to record it until shortly
after his death, believing that
their possession of the lands un-
der this unrecorded decd through
J. NJ. Billups managing it as
their agent, superintendent and
tenant of the bank as the land
lord of said lands was legal pro-
lection of the banks rights
against all persons. These in
struments were acknowledged
by the said grantOr before a no
tary public, who was teller of the
bank at the time They were
actually delivered by him to the
secretary and cashier of said
bank which continuously retained
them in the depository or vaults
of said bank, and never at any
time thereafter were they sub
ject to the control, dominion,
modification or revocation by
him, the said J. M. BiIlups. But
under the pleadings and the
proof there was not only an ac-
tuol delivery by him of said deed
to said bank defendant, but the
bank at all times, and so assured
him. reserved the option and the
right to record said deed and
trust dee DIS at pleasure, but out
of kindly consideration for his
feelings and believing that he
owed scarcely nothing but to said
bank and one other debt to the
said j. u. Banks, vice president
Of said bank, as aforesaid, the
bank did not feel the necessity of
placing said instruments on rec.
ord, and did not record them an
TILL a short while after his death,
and then soon after said record
ing these bills by complainants
were filed, as creditors of the
deceased, to subject all the prop
erty he had formerly owned and
later conveyed to said bank, as
assets for the payment of his
debts to them. 1t is also alleged
by complainants in their bills
that Billups after the execution
of said deed remained in the open
possession and occupancy of said
lands therein described, assess
ing and paying taxes on them as
his own property up to the time
of his death, but the defendant
bank AYERS, replying thereto in
its answer. that he was in pos
session of said lands solely and
only as tenant and agent of the
bank as landlord, and owner from
the date of the execution of the
said deed on the 9Th of Novem-
Der, 1894. about seven years an
terror to his contraction of said
debts to said complainants. For
the several years intervening
from the execution of said con-
Yeyance to said bank to his death
he was tenant of the said lands to
said bank and paid an annual
rent of 5000 to the bank for the
u Sc of the same. The bank gave
him $500 per year to superintend
these and other lands. The bank
also paid him 5000 per year as
salary as presidentsof said bank.
That while he paid the taxes an
nually on these and other lands
of the bank, the proof shows, by
the books of the bank, that the
bank furnished him the money
with which to pay said taxes. He
not only had these lands, but
other lands, about three planta-
tions in all, rented on which he
was producing annually about
two hundred bales of cotton, and
had he lived a short while longer
to enjoy our present prosperity,
he would have paid all his debts.
The legal question is. has the
failure of the vendee defendant to
avail of the registry laws post
poned the legal operation of these
instruments as against the rights
of these creditors under the
facts of these cases, and while
they are valid and legal, as be