Barwick v. I. Moyse & Sons
Mississippi Supreme Court
From the chancery court of Amite county. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The test of the character of the transaction in giving 'the note and recording the deed for more than the true amount, admitting the $620.52 to be the true amount due Moyse, is, was it such as would have been held as fraudulent as against the cred■itor of Barwick, had such creditor attacked the same for fraud therein.
Read the full summary
From the chancery court of Amite county. The facts are stated in the opinion of the court. The test of the character of the transaction in giving 'the note and recording the deed for more than the true amount, admitting the $620.52 to be the true amount due Moyse, is, was it such as would have been held as fraudulent as against the cred■itor of Barwick, had such creditor attacked the same for fraud therein. If so, then the act is of such a character that a court of equity should leave the parties thereto where it finds them. Watson v. Tusten, 49 Miss., 576, and 8 Am. &■ Eng. Ene. L., 771, and…
1Opinion of the CourtStockdale, J.
Appellees filed their bill in the chancery court of Amite county to foreclose and enforce a deed of trust given by appellant, on December 5, 1891, to J. M. Ellzey, trustee, for appellees, to secure a note of that date, payable December 1, 1892, for $1,220.52. Said note bore a credit of $600 from date, and the bill sought to collect the balance, $620.52, and interest. Appellant (defendant below) answered said bill at the July term, 1895, of said court, and set up as defense thereto, after admitting that he executed the note and deed of trust described in the bill of complaint, that he owed…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Harvey v. VarneyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1867
- Walton v. TustenMississippi Supreme Court · 1873
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. Of MaryaldnCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1954
- Goodman-Buckley Trust Co. v. PoulosNebraska Supreme Court · 1933
- Lefmann v. BrillCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1905