Zaring v. Cox's assignee
Court of Appeals of Kentucky
Case 108 — EQUITY-— APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Whilst, as between Goar and Cox, their agreement may have been valid, it is certain that Goar’s equity could not attach to any thing that Cox acquired after the conveyance was made. (Ross v. Wilson, &c., 7 Bush, 29; Roberts v. Elliott, 22 Wallace, 525; Crosier v. Young, 3 M., 158.) 2. Goar, as assignee, is not to be held as a purchaser for value.
Read the full summary
Case 108 — EQUITY-— APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE CHANCERY COURT. 1. Whilst, as between Goar and Cox, their agreement may have been valid, it is certain that Goar’s equity could not attach to any thing that Cox acquired after the conveyance was made. (Ross v. Wilson, &c., 7 Bush, 29; Roberts v. Elliott, 22 Wallace, 525; Crosier v. Young, 3 M., 158.) 2. Goar, as assignee, is not to be held as a purchaser for value. (2 Johnson’s Cli’y, 188; 17 N. Y., 580; 19 Mo., 17; 23 lb., 237; 15 Gratt., 153; 2 Story’s Rep., 637; Lyons v. Fields, 17 B. Mon., 549; Bank U. S. v. Hath, 4 B. Mon., 434; 10 Ala., 185; 17…
1Opinion of the Court
JUDGE HINES
delivered the opinion of thf, court.
The conveyance by Goar to Cox, although unrecorded and without notice, gave Goar an equity superior to that of antecedent creditors of Cox, who had notice of the equity before they acquired a legal right to the property in controversy. In a contest between mere equities that which is prior in time must prevail. (Forepaugh v. Appold, 17 B. M., 630.) The subsequent conveyance by Cox to Goar for the payment of debts gave appellants simply an equitable right to claim their distributive share as creditors under the conveyance, and that *529equity, not…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Morton v. RobardsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1836
3Cited by3 opinions
- Loth & Haas v. CartyCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1887
- Skillman v. Frost'sCourt of Appeals of Kentucky · 1883
- Evans v. ParsonsCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1925