From Transcribe Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

If a gift thus evidenced cannot pass the right; did the possession of Johnson previous to the execution of the deed vest the title in him? Did it continue 5 years, was it adverse to Victor. That the possession to give a title should be adverse, vid: Boatright vs Meggs. 4. Mun: 145. Garland vs Enos 4 Mun. 504. Givens vs Manns 6.Mun 191. The affiant Johnson states that the gift was to Lucy the daughter of the grantor; is this not entirely reconcilable with the disposition of the trust deed. Johnson's signature to the trust deed is an acknowledgement that the gift at the time of the marriage was not absolute, & was a dereliction of all claim under it. He had afterwards a title but as trustee; & could convey no better title than he possessed. If embarrassment in his circumstances occasioned a surrender of his rights (if a right he had) creditors alone can complain thereof. "In case of fraud in a settlement, some creditor must complain of it, & must state that he is defrauded by it, to obtain the interference of equity, to set the instrument aside Nrs. Jr. 100. Colman vs Croker (This book, I have not been able to obtain, but if the point is material, the authority shall be produced to-morrow, if it can be gotten in Lynchburg) It will be further observed that independent of the consideration before set forth the fact of possession had been accountable in such a case (that is denied) is not proved. It is asserted in the answer but the defendants have produced no testimony on that point On the merits it matters not whether Charles S Johnson had a qualified, or absolute title at the time he executed the deed of Trust. If his title had ever been unquestionable by becoming a party to that instrument he consented that the property should answer the purposes of the Court order. He can not resume any right he had before. As to the ground assumed by the defts that the conveyance of the 26 April [1820?] was fraudulent against creditors & purchasers, no such defense is set up in the defendants answer. The fact is therefore not before the Court vid: Beasley vs Owen 3 H. & M, Garth vs Barksdale 5 [Mun?] Boyd &c vs Stainback 5 Mun