Case Name: The Executor of Bush against The Trustees of Waring
Court: South Carolina Court of Common Pleas
Jurisdiction: South Carolina
Decision Date: 1789
Citations: 1 Bay 90
Docket Number: 
Parties: The Executor of Bush against The Trustees of Waring.
Judges: 
Reporter: South Carolina Law Reports
Volume: 1
Pages: 90–91

Head Matter:
The Executor of Bush against The Trustees of Waring.
To give a bona .fide as-j;I '-iiment, ?.»;d* for the Lene-in. of c^edit-ri's* <* -niori-tj ovta judg.eeatp it is not necessary that it be recorded.
THIS was a feigned action brought against the trustees of the defendant, to try whether certain property, which had been assigned to them by him, for the benefit of all his creditors, should be liable to the plaintiff’s execution or not; he having obtained a judgment'against Waring.
The facts were these. Previous to the late war, the defendant was in affluent circumstances. He had contracted considerable debts, but not out of proportion to his property. During the war, his property suffered much ; so that in the year 1787, he found it inadequate to the payment of his debts. Desirous to close his embarrassments, be came forward to his creditors, with a statement of his losses and present circumstances, and proposed to surrender up all his property to trustees, for the benefit of all his creditors, and obtain from them discharges. Most of them finding that nothing was secreted, and no improper intention manifested in his conduct, agreed to accept of his proposals. A general assignment of all his property, for the benefit of those creditors who would accept upon the terms mentioned, was accordingly executed in October, 1787, and most of his creditors signedhmd sealed the same. The plaintiff refused, and obtained judgment on the 22d November, 1787. The assignment was not recorded till judgment was obtained.
For the plaintiff] it was contended, that the assignment was fraudulent and void, under 13 Eliz. c. 5. That the
judgment would have priority, because the deeds were not recorded until after it was duly entered up of record.
For ihe defendant, it was answered, that these deeds were not made in secret, but were advertised in the gazettes, and the different creditors called on to assent and sign them. That the statute of Elizabeth was made to vacate such deeds as conveyed debtors* property to other persons, to defraud creditors, but not to destroy deeds which convey lo, and not from them, for the joint benefit of all. Such is justice, and not fraud. The case is divided into two questions. First, whether a debtor can lawfully ( dispose of his property, for a fair purpose, before any judgment is entered against him ; and second, whether it is necessary to record the conveyance by which such fair disposition is made, in order to preserve the priority which the date gives over judgment by creditors. On neither of.these questions can the court entertain a reasonable doubt.
Pinckney, for plaintiff.
Rutledge and Desaussure, for defendant.

Opinion:
The Court
heard with attention the arguments, and were clear and unanimous, that a bona fide assignment made, not for partial but general benefit of all the creditors, and comprehending all the debtor's property, is not fraudulent, but highly beneficial and equitable to'creditors. The plaintiff had no lien at the time of assignment. His judgment was obtained after. The act of assembly gives priority to ihe first recorded sale or mortgage, but is silent as to judgments. Neither the reasoning nor law applies. The assignment must be supported,
See the case of Penmar v. Munt, 2d vol. Also the case of Ashe v. Executors of Aske.