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

puted under the registry stat
utes by the fact Of not placing a
deed on record. IF the law does
not require it to be recorded and
if within the time within which
the law permits the deed to be
recorded it is recorded, then
creditors capnOt complain. It is
then no legal fraud and the evi.
dence in these cases discloses no
actual fraud against the defend
ant. But, as the learned Judge
Campbell states in the case of
Good bar VS. Day, 69th Mississip-
pi, one holding unrecorded in-
struments may never place them
on record, only assuming the
risk of superyening liens and
conyeyances by the mortgagor
or vendor confidently relying on
the fact that his vendor or debt
or will protect him if danger
arises and that no proclamation
of debts by creditors or title
deeds and mortgages by owners
is required to be made. only as
suming such risk as above stated.
Solicitors for the plainants
have relied confidently on the
case of Hilliard against Kagle,
10th Mississippi. Clayto rs Ex-
change Bank, 121st Federal Re
porter by the district Federal
court of Georgia and the case of
Blennerhassett VS. Sherman, 105,
page, to support their con
tention. but a perusal Of the
Good bar-Day case supra shows
that the said Kagle Hilliard case
10th Mississippi, is materially
modified, if not ruled by the
said Good bar Day case and it is
conclusive of the subject there
treated so far a~ the NV of our
state extends, and the case at
bar in legal contem pIation is an
alagouS and on all-fours with the
said Good bar Day case. There
is vast difference between the
facts in the said Georgia Clayton
case and the one at bar, for the
mortgage in that case. would be
denounced as a fraud by the de-
ciSionS of most Of the states, and
by a mum Der of decisions in Mis-
sissippi, it being mortgage GOV
ering a running stock of goods
giving the right to replenish and
sell in due course of trade and
to use the proceeds as the mort
gagor saw fit; Harmon VS. Hos
kins, 56th Mississippi; Joseph
VS. Levy, 58th Mississippi; John
son VS. Tuttle, 65th Mississippi.
In this Federal court Clayton
case, the debtor was a merchant
who had to buy goods and make
debts and his bank creditor not
only knew this, but knew that he
was going to New York to make
a purchase of goods. Unlike the
case at bar, because BilupS had
no store or any other public busi-
ness as trader or dealer which
might be presumed to require
the contraction of debts, besides
in the said Clay ton case the debt
or made positive fraudulent mis-
representations to the CONNER
cial agencies of which his bank
creditor had actual notice. The
president of the bank in the Clay
ton case swore that he knew that
the debtor, JosephsOn, was buy
ing goods oD a credit, AID the
bank did not put his mortgage
on record because its record
would destroy his credit. In
these cases before this court
now under consideration, as
above stated, the bank defendant
did not know that Billups owed
a dollar except to said bank and
TO Col. Banks, vice president of
said bank, with whom they were
engaged as cotton mill partners.
The delay in this case brought
no profit to the bank and it is
conceded that Billups owed moth
ing at the time he executed the
deed and deeds of trust about
seven years anterior to the con-
traction of these several debts to
creditors during the last year or
so of his life. The facts in the
case of BIennerhassett vs. Sher-
man United States Supreme
court, 105, page -, are dissim-
liar to the question involved in
this litigation and that authority
is not applicable or binding in
this case, because predicated on
different facts. The law requir-
ing traders and persons engaged
in any public business to disclose
it by signs, publicnotice and reg
istration. has no application TO
agricultural pursuits and the
possession of realty as in this