Bernheim Bros. & Uri v. Dibrell & Hill

Citations

• 66 Miss. 199

Syllabus

<p>1. Practice. Hutting witness under rule. Sight of party to be present.</p> <p>The rule authorizing witnesses to be excluded from hearing the testimony of others, does not apply to parties to the cause. If a party proposes to testify in his own behalf, the extent of the court’s power is to require himi first introduced. In case of joint claimants, it is error to exclude one while: the other is testifying. It is the right of both to be present during the entire trial. French v. Sale, 63 Miss. 386, cited.</p> <p>2. Fraud. Evidence of other transfers about same time.</p> <p>In case of an alleged fraudulent transfer, evidence of what the grantor did at or about the time of mating it is admissible. It is not essential that the acts should be contemporaneous with the one under investigation. If they' are so closely related in time, before or after, that the intent governing in the one transaction may fairly be inferred to be the intent which controlled in the other, the evidence is competent.</p> <p>3. Same. Question for jury.</p> <p>If the intervening time is short, it is not for the court, as matter of law, to say that the one act does not shed light on the other. It is for the jury, in the light of all the competent evidence, to pass upon the question of the motive in making the transfer.</p> <p>4. Fraud. Claimant’s issue. Grantor’s insolvency.</p> <p>On the trial of a claimant’s issue, in such case, as the fraud of the grantor is a fact necessary to be proved by an attacking creditor, it is permissible to show that the debtor, at the time of making the transfer, owed more than the value of all his visible property subject to execution; and this, whether the purchaser knew of such debts or not.</p> <p>5. Peremptory Instruction. IIHien improper.</p> <p>Peremptory instruction to find a certain way is improper unless the court, • on the evidence, would set aside a contrary verdict.</p>