Year: 1861

was not sufficient merely 10 revive tne sun as "
the personal representative of Jones; the contes
was with the distributes, who were the owners
against all persons except creditors.


But we think the decree is erroneous IN refusing
relief as to the slaves sold by Porter to johnson
The lein of the attachment was fixed upon the
layes sooner-some considerable length OF time
before the registration Of the bill Of sale for the
slaves from Porter to johnson. And on this ground
alone, the attachment must prevail; irrespective OF
the adequacy of the consideration paid for the
slaves, the absence of intentions. fraud in the
transaction.


We are also of opinion, that the decree is erro-
neous in subJecting the tract Of land sold by Nelson
to Simpson to the satisfactOu CT complainant debt
The facts arc briefly these: Nelson had been en-
ployed in the purchase Of large quantity of wheat
for P. d. Gates, of New York. He had drawn va
rious bills on Gates for large amount, which the
latter had accepted. In order to effect the negotia-
tion of these bills at home, so to use the pro-
ceeds in the purchase Of wheaG, Nelson had pro-
cured them to be endorsed by different persons,
and, among others, by G. II. McGee, who in this
way had incurred liability, as an accommodation en-
dorser to the amount of twenty thousand dollars.


Gates suddenly failed, leaving said bills unpaid,
and without having furnished sny funds for their
discharge.


The failure of Gates involved Nelson, whose
means were small in utter and hopeless insolvency,
having incurred liability for Gates to an amount
far beyond his ability to meet. The unexpected
failure of Gates. and consequent insolvency Of Nell
son. created panic among those who had sold
wheat to Nelson without receiving payment Nell
son owned tract of land and negro woman and
child and he at once resolved, the proof shows,
to dispose of this property. The proceeds Of the
property distributed among all the creditors would
have been but mere trihe to each. McGee, who
was endorser as before stated, proposed to Nelson
that if he, Nelson, and the other parties who were
liable on the bills before him, McGee-who were all
probably reduced to insolvency by the failure of
Gates-would give him available notes. or securi-
ties to the amount of ten thousand dollars, which
was only ene-half his at iity the bills he would
take up said bills and discharge Nelson and the prior
endorsers from all liability account of the same.
This proposal of McGee's was accepted and there
upon Nelson in order to comply with this arrange
ment sold his tract Ofland to the defendant Simpson,
at the price of six Thousand dollars, which is found
to have been fair price. Simpson at the time of
his purchase is shown to have had full knowledge
of the purpose Of which Nelson was selling the
snd. Nelson was only the equitable owner OF SAID
land, at the time of sale. He had previously pur-
chased from the defendant Stanfeld, and held the
bond of the latter for the title when the purchase
money should be paid; of which upwards Of five
hundred dollars remain unpaid at the time Of the
sale by Nelson to Simpson and this title bend Nelson
assigned to Simpson at the time Of the sale.


BY the agreement, Simpson has to pay the pUr-
chase money as follows He was to discharge the
balance Of unpaid purchase money TO Stanfield
which formed lien on the land; bona Gde debt of
l.ZU II
to be extinguished; and the resIdue, amounting to
about 81 300 to be paid in instalments at one.
two and three years, for which notes were given
bearing interest from date. And it was further
agreed that Simpson would lease said land to Nelson
(being the place on which he lived for the term OF
three years, at annual rent OF $500, for which
Nelson executed his obligation.


These notes for 81 800 were actually handed over
to McGhee, in part performance of the agreement
with him before stated as his absolute property,


The negro woman and child was sold to Hardy
Jones' the father inlaw of Nelson, at the price Of
Sl,20O, which is proved to have been fair price;
and his obligation for that sum was taken and in
like manner Immediately transferred te MceThee, IN
pursuance of the arrangement with him. The proof
shows that Jones permitted the negro woman and
child to remain with his daughter, Mrs Nelson, to
wait on her.


With all the efforts of Nelson and the other prior
indorsers, only about the sum of SS.0O0 IN notes
and securities, could be raised for McGhee; less
than had been stipulated for-yet he accepted this
amount leaving himself subject to loss of ST.,
900 upon his purely accommodation Endorsements.


Now what is there to be found in all this trans
action which in strictest law, or even IN morals
can be regarded as blameworthy on the part of
Nelson or Simpson?


Sudden ruin had fallen upon Nelson without fault
of his own by the unlocked for insolvency of Gates
and what did he do? Did he concoct some secret
scheme to place his property beyond the reach of
creditors, with view to future benefit to himself
and distressed family Not so. His very first and
instantaneous impulse, on hearing Of the disaster
that was to crush him, was that of a sternly just
and generous man-to give up at once, without per
suasion or the coercion Of law, everything in the
shape of property he possessed for the beneht OF
those who not strictly speaking his creditors,
but who through his agency had been induced to
assume heavy responsibility, for another prlmar-
ily, but for him contingenty.


But inasmuch as the small amount OF property
possessed by him, would have been but mite" 70
each, if distributed amongst all who had legal
claims on him, he thought fit, IN the exercise OF
that right of preference which the law tolerates,
rather to give it all to one who had been his most
efficient and generous friend and who, after receiv-
ing it all was still to be loser to the extent OF at
least twelve thousand dollars in all probability.
The law has no eensure TO denounce against such
conduct; do the most cogent principles Of easu-
istry condt mn it.


The circumstances relied upon as "badges of
fraud are of no force when applied to the present
case


The declaration Of Nelson, that he would dispose
of his property, coupled with the distinct ex-
preston of determination To appropriate the pro
ceeds to the sole benefit of credtors this was the
avowed motive of the sale, and the purpose was
promptly and faithfully executed.


The fact that the property was sold to his relauon
! ty afinity-though in general susplclon-casts no
shade over this transaction A sale was lndispen-
sible in order TO a compliance with the liberal pro-
posal of McGhee; the property was sold at us 1ai
yalue: and it is not intmated in the record thar
sale could have been made to any other person. al
the time on better terms, or even On any terms


Nor is the objection to the length OF the credit
! of any more weight The sale made on the
| best terms practicable; the notes though on time
| were to bear interest from date, and McGhee was
willing TO accept them in place of money IN hand
These facts obviate all objection as TO the length OF
| time given for payment of the purchase money.
| The circumstances of Nelson's remaining in pos
session of the land amounts to nothing He remains
! there as he might remain any where else, under
bona fde contract Of written lease and at full rent


Neither does the fact that the father Of Mrs. Mel
son after paying for the slaves-by giving negol
able note which was accepted by McGhee as cash
in hand-permitted Them to remain with his sonn-
law and daughter affect the complexion OF the
transaction The low, strict and inexorable as it i
upon this subject does not go to the length of ex'
acting that men shall forget tnGt tney eTe men, o.
that they shall be required either to ignore OF 4
| abnaoate the impulses and obligations of natura
| Affection. or sympathy towards the unfortunate
nroyided that in their exercise no injustice pre-
| iudice be done 70 the rights of others.


Rnt IL is also insisted that the sale or transfe
of his equitable interest in the land by Nelson 3
Slmpson was inoperstive and void, as against tn
creditors of Nelson by reason of the non registrs
ton of the title bond from Stan6eld e Nelson, anI
the assignment thereof by the latter to Simpson
This is mistaken assumption; the registry act ha
nothing to do with the 1t is true that by the
of 1881 ch go sec. "all bonds of agreement in wri
ting for the conveyance ofrea or personal property
are required to be proved and registered in the
manner provided, and if not thus proved and ri
Cistered they are declared null and void as to e.


isting and subsequent creditors" and also agains
bona tide purchasers without notice. But it mus


be borne in mind that it is only against the creditor


of the qraRtOr that the instrument is void for wal


of registration. This has been repeatedly hel.


4. Yerg. 375; Hump. 476, $50. As between II


parties the Instrument is valid and operative witt


out registration. If the contest was between Stal


field. the vendor, and his cedors, the objection thi


the bond made by him to Nelson had not been regi


tered until after the levy Of the cOmpsinans attacl


meut must prevail. 10 Hump. 40. But the creditor


of Nelson cannot successfully assal the transfer of


EQUITABLE intere.t TO Sampson BY assignment of ii


tile bond, which the former held no Stanfeld,


the ground that neither the bono ITSELF nor the a


sienment had been proved and registered prior


the levy of the attachment


The equitable interest Of Nelson by force Of d


title-bond was complete without registration


against all persons except the creditors of Stanfie
] or subsequent bona Jide purcasers from him witnO


notice ard this equitable interest he could transf
: TO another either by written assignment of q


bond for title, or even by parol delivery there
. bona flde and upon an adequate consideration pa
| -. ~ nefar ASSIGNMENT the FpOisfFv