Humphrey v. . Ward

Byjstum, J. This is a suit in equity, begun in 1867, under the old system. Gf. J. Ward, as principal, and Robert White, as surety, were indebted to William Humphrey by note, in the sum of $3,471.20. Ward died insolvent, and on the 9th of January, 1866, White, for the alleged consideration of $10,000, payable in ten equal yearly instalments with interest, conveyed by deed all his real estate, consisting of a large and valuable plantation, to the defendants, Sanderlin and Tenters. He also, at the same time, conveyed by deed, to the same parties, all his chattel property, with some small exceptions, taking as the consideration therefor, their obligation to support him during his life. William Humphrey, the creditor, died, leaving the plaintiffs as his executors ; and both Ward and White are dead, the defendant, R. W. Ward, being tho executor of the one, and the defendant, Etheridge, being the administrator of White. The prayer of the bill is, that the said deeds made by White, may be declared void for fraud, and the property thereby conveyed be decreed to the satisfaction of the said debt. The defendants answered that they were purchasers in good faith, for a valuable and fair consideration, and denying any fraudulent intent. The cause being-heard in the Superior Court, upon the pleadings and proofs, the bill was dismissed, and the plaintiffs appealed to this court. See 70 N. C. Rep., 280. This court, not undertaking *786 to decide the issues of fact involved, upon which muck evidence was sent up with the record, ordered, among others, the following material issues, to be sent down and tried in the Superior Court by a jury, to-wit: “Was the deed, set forth in the bill, from Robert White to D. E. Sanderlin and S. W. Tenters, dated the 9th of January, 1866, for the real estate, executed with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud the creditors of Robert White ?” “ Was said deed executed with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud William Humphreys, his executors, administrators or assigns ?” Similar issues were submitted in respect to the deed for the chattel property. Upon the trial in the court below, the jury responded in the negative, upon each of these issues, and the case is now before us for final hearing. As the jury is the tribunal, whose peculiar province it is to try issues of fact, their finding, though not conclusive, in a Court of Equity, will, as a general rule, be adopted as the finding of this court, when such issues are submitted by our direction. The bill seeks to avoid the two deeds upon the single ground of fraud, but the jury, by their verdict, negative any idea that the deeds were made with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors, and the evidence before us fully supports the verdict. It establishes that White sold his land for the sum of $10,000, which wasji fair price for it; that the defendants purchased in good faith and have paid all the purchase money except $2,000, which they admit to be yet unpaid; that White owed no other but this security debt due to the plaintiffs; and of tiro existence of this the defendants had no knowledge at the time of their purchase; nor had they any reason to sus pect a fraudulenUpurpose in the bargainor, because he had a good character for economy, prudence and honesty in his life and dealings. But an absolute conveyance, for a valuable consideration, is good, even notwithstanding the intent of the *787 maker to defraud, if tbo grantor was not a party to tlie fraud and bought without any knowledge of the corrupt intent. Reiger v. Davis, 69 N. C. 185; Lassiter v. Davis, 64 N. C. 498. The deeds being good upon their face, and the jury having negatived fraudulent intent on the part of the defendants, the plaintiffs have failed to make out a case, and the judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the bill, must be affirmed. It was suggested by the counsel of the plaintiffs that they might have a decree for the amount of the two unpaid notes, admitted to be due and unpaid by the defendants. This cannot be allowed,' because it would be wholly inconsistent with the frame and prayer of the bill, and because it may be that the unpaid notes have been assigned for value to third persons. If unassigned they may, by the proper action, be subjected to the plaintiffs’ debt. There is no error. Pkr Cubiam. Judgment affirmed.