Walton v. Tusten

Citations

• 49 Miss. 569

Syllabus

<p>1, Conveyance of Partnership Property. — Where one partner conveys tho joint interest of the firm in property, and the deed is signed In the name of the firm, hut acknowledged by only one partner, as his act and deed, it is necessary for the party receiving tho conveyance, to show that tho partner had the authority thus to convey, otherwise the deed will only pass the individual interest of the signing partner.</p> <p>2. Same — What Necessary to have Title Cancelled — It is well seltlod that a party filing a bill for cancellation, must exhibit a complete legal or equitable title. He must bo, in tlie wprds of the statute, tho “true owner; ” and must satisfy Thecourt that the adversary’s claim is “shadowy” rather than substantial, “apparent” rather than “real.” Huntington v. Allen, 44 Miss. R., 662; Banks v. Evans, 10 S. & M., 62 ; Boyd v. Thornton, 13 S. &M., 345.</p> <p>S. Ebaddulent Conveyances — How Good. — Such conveyances are goodasbotweon the parties, and all other persons except those who are injured by them, to-wit: Creditors of tho grantor. Shork v. Enders, 3 Watts & Serg., 255; Dyer v. Horner, 22 Pick., 253; Bandall v. Phillipps, 3 Mason, 378, et seq.</p> <p>4. Fraudulent Conveyance — Executed and Executory_The difference in effect between an cxecutod and executory fraudulent contract is, that in tho former, the courts will decline altogether to cancel tho deod and restore tho title, while in the latter, the fraudulent grantee remains owner of the estato against the grantor and his heirs, and against all other persons except, the creditors of the grantor.</p> <p>5. Same — Effect of Ekaudulent Reconveyance_A voluntary reconveyance of the fraudulent grantee to the original grantor, will be fraudulent and void against the creditors of tho former. Chapin v. Pease, 10 Conn. R., 69.</p>