Virden v. Murphy
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Murphy, the appellee, was complainant and Virden and wife, appellants, were defendants in the court below. The object of the suit was to vacate as fraudulent a conveyance of property, real and personal, executed by appellant, George S. Virden, to his wife, Ellen.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court, first district, of Hinds county. Hon. Henry C. Conn, Chancellor. Murphy, the appellee, was complainant and Virden and wife, appellants, were defendants in the court below. The object of the suit was to vacate as fraudulent a conveyance of property, real and personal, executed by appellant, George S. Virden, to his wife, Ellen. The appellee, Murphy, claimed that he was a creditor of the grantor in the deed at its date, and he based his suit upon the individual promissory note of said grantor, George S. Virden. It appeared that the debt for which the note in suit was…
1Opinion of the CourtWhitfield, C. J.
We cannot concur in the result reached by the learned chancellor in this case. We are satisfied, after careful consideration of the record, that the business of Virden & Company was what is well known as a “bucket-shop” business, a gambling business, pure and simple, and that appellee knew the nature of the business. We deduce this conclusion from his own testimony taken as a whole. He was to be paid, not at all events, but out of the net profits of the business. It is clear that the notes were without consideration; there was no legal novation, or no new or different consideration passed,…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Lemonius & Co. v. D. Mayer & SonMississippi Supreme Court · 1893
- Adams v. PowerMississippi Supreme Court · 1873
- Duval v. NealMississippi Supreme Court · 1892
3Cited by2 opinions
- Cohn v. BrinsonMississippi Supreme Court · 1916
- Crosby v. Farose Trading Corp.Mississippi Supreme Court · 1946