Allen v. Holland
Tennessee Supreme Court
A, a stranger, furnished three hundred dollars to be laid out in negroes for the benefit of B’s children; B added the same amount, and purchased negroes for the benefit of his children, in the name of a trustee ; afterwards he applied to the trustee to sell the ne-groes first purchased, and permit him to withdraw his contribu-tiva share for his creditors ; this was done, and the three hundred dollars invested in other negroes for the use of the children.
Read the full summary
A, a stranger, furnished three hundred dollars to be laid out in negroes for the benefit of B’s children; B added the same amount, and purchased negroes for the benefit of his children, in the name of a trustee ; afterwards he applied to the trustee to sell the ne-groes first purchased, and permit him to withdraw his contribu-tiva share for his creditors ; this was done, and the three hundred dollars invested in other negroes for the use of the children. Held, that the latter purchase was not fraudulent against creditors, but'was valid, and passed the property to the children at law. Error…
1Opinion of the CourtWhyte, J.
This cause has been well argued, but the case itself lies within narrow bounds. The only question is, whether the property levied on was or was not the property of the execution debtor. The property levied on and in controversy between the parties, consists of two negro slaves, a woman named Charity, and her son Stephen, about two or three years of age, for the conversion of whom this suit is brought. The defendant claims title as purchaser under an execution sale, in which Francis M’Connel, (the father of plaintiffs, James M’Connell and Mrs. Allen,) was the debtor. The plaintiffs, who are…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Chumbley v. CarrickTennessee Supreme Court · 1953