Hill v. Bugg
Mississippi Supreme Court
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Ohiclcasaw County. Hon. W. D. Feazee, Chancellor. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of ■this case. It is assigned for error that ‘ ‘ The court erred in sustaining the complainant’s bill of injunction and in dismissing defend.ant’s cross-bill.” Where the husband invests his means for his wife and ■ children, it may or may not be fraudulent, according to the facts.
Read the full summary
Appeal from the Chancery Court of Ohiclcasaw County. Hon. W. D. Feazee, Chancellor. The opinion of the court contains a sufficient statement of ■this case. It is assigned for error that ‘ ‘ The court erred in sustaining the complainant’s bill of injunction and in dismissing defend.ant’s cross-bill.” Where the husband invests his means for his wife and ■ children, it may or may not be fraudulent, according to the facts. Edmondson v. Meachum, 50 Miss., 39. If to hinder and delay creditors, see 9 S.&M.,394. The transaction must be in good faith. Hunt v. Knox, 34 Miss., 656 ; ib., 377. A trust…
1Opinion of the CourtCampbell, J.
Hill obtained judgment against Thomas E. Bugg in 1870, .and had fieri facias issued on it levied on certain land, which the sheriff was about to sell when Emma Bugg, wife of Thomas JE. Bugg, enjoined the sale, alleging that the land is her *400property and not liable to the judgment, and that it became-hers by purchase from the trustee in a deed of trust executed by said Thomas E. Bugg before said judgment. Hill exhibited a cross-bill, attacking the title of Emma Bugg and claiming that the deed of trust mentioned was made to hinder,, delay, and defraud creditors, and that this was known to Mrs.…
2Cited by7 opinions
- Marcellus v. WrightMontana Supreme Court · 1916
- Kline v. RaglandSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- Shanahan v. CramptonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1891
- Willis v. GattmanMississippi Supreme Court · 1876
- Thomson v. HesterMississippi Supreme Court · 1878
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.