Court Opinion

ID: 8079960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-09 13:56:12.498619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:38:22.682863
License: Public Domain

Judge Burnet’s
dissenting opinion:
I dissent from the opinion of the court in this case, principally, because the defendants, Truman Starr and Giles Griswold, have expressly denied the fraud imputed to them, and their answers have not been contradicted by a single witness.
They were creditors to Ephraim Starr, for money lent, to a greater amount than the estimated value of the land, and whatever might have been the fraudulent views of Ephraim Starr, or the imposition practiced by him, on his creditors, these defendants are not infected by it. Fraud must be proved; it can not be presumed. The facts from which unfavorable inferences might be drawn, against these defendants, appear to‘ be satisfactorily explained. They may all be true, and they perfectly innocent. On such grounds, I can not agree that the complainant, who is an after creditor, has a right to wrest from tl^em their tabula in naufragio, and effect, for his own exclusive benefit, the same object, which he alleges is a fraud in them. Their equity, to say the least of it, is as strong as that of the complainant. It is prior in point of time, and they have the law on their side. Equity being equal, the law prevails. Prior est in tempore, potior est injure.
The deed first executed, and delivered by Ephraim to Truman,was for a valuable consideration. It was made before his application for the benefit of the insolvent laws of New York, and when he was at liberty to prefer one creditor to another. The execution and delivery of this deed vested the legal title in the *330grantee, and the conveyance was complete. As the land was not received in fall discharge of the debt due to Truman, and to Gris-wold, it *was perfectly consistent with the nature of the transaction, that the notes of Ephraim should be retained until the proceeds of the land should be ascertained. When that was done, the amount was to be credited, and the residue, if any, would have continued a subsisting debt.
The redelivory of the deed to Ephraim did not divest the grantee of his title, or render the conveyance void, and the fraud that might have been practiced afterward, on the bankrupt laws of New York, could not relate back, so as to avoid a conveyance previously made, in good faith, and for a valuable consideration.
The second deed may be considered as a nullity, because there was no interest in the grantor that could be conveyed by it, and I can not discover how tho validity of the first deed can be affected by the subsequent conduct of the parties, in relation to third persons, who had no interest or concern in the transaction.