Blackmore v. Parkes

• Decision Date: 06 July 1897
• Docket Number: 457.
• Citation: 81 F. 899
• Parties: BLACKMORE v. PARKES et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

81 F. 899

BLACKMORE v. PARKES et al.

No. 457.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

July 6, 1897

Champion Head & Brown, for appellant.

Henderson & Eggleston, for appellees.

Before TAFT and LURTON, Circuit Judges, and SEVERENS, District Judge.

LURTON Circuit Judge.

This is a bill by a judgment creditor of the defendant J. L. Parkes to reach and subject to the satisfaction of complainant's judgment certain real estate in the town of Franklin Williamson county, Tenn., theretofore conveyed by Parkes to the defendant J. P. Hanner by deed bearing date March 12 1886. The deed mentioned was duly registered, and conveys to said Hanner two lots and storehouses in consideration of the assumption and payment by him of certain debts particularly described as due from the grantor to the several persons named in the deed, and aggregating some $6,000. This bill was filed October 25, 1894. The other defendants to the bill are J. L. Parkes, Jr., a son of the grantor, and W. A. Roberts to whom a lease of one of the storehouses has been made by the grantee with an option of purchase. It appears that in 1892 one of the storehouses so conveyed to said Hanner was sold by the grantee to Maria and Mattie Vaughn in consideration of $3,000 paid to said Hanner, and deed with covenants duly executed and registered. The bona fides of this purchase by the Misses Vaughn is not assailed, and the purchasers are not, therefore, made parties. In this situation no further consideration need be given to so much of complainants' bill as seeks to set aside the conveyance of that particular property to the defendant Hanner. So far as the defendant W. A. Roberts has acquired any interest in the remaining storehouse by virtue of his contract of purchase and under his lease, he is entitled to protection as an innocent purchaser without notice of any fraudulent purpose; and complainants practically concede that any recovery by them must be subject to his rights under his lease and option, the purchase money to be paid by him under his contract standing in the place of the property, should he exercise his option of purchase. Subject to the equitable rights of said Roberts, we come to the question as to whether the circuit court erred in dismissing complainants' bill. The conveyance to Hanner was upon consideration that he should assume and pay off certain specified debts of the grantor, aggregating $6,000. The bona fide character of these debts is abundantly established, and it is also shown that the property conveyed did not exceed in value the consideration upon which the deed was made. The grantor, J. L. Parkes, was largely indebted at the time of this transaction, and was involved in liabilities upon which suit was then pending which culminated in a large judgment. He then owned the property described in that deed, his home place, and a third parcel of land, containing some five acres. The home place was valued at between $3,000 and $4,000, and was at the same time conveyed by deed to his son, the defendant J. L. Parkes, Jr., in consideration that he would assume and pay off debts of the grantor named in the deed aggregating $3,600. The third parcel was also conveyed at same time to one W. J. Petway in payment of a debt due the grantee of $1,000. The evidence makes it clear that all the debts described as due from the grantor in these several conveyances were in fact existing bona fide debts, and that the property conveyed did not appreciably exceed the debts assumed or paid as the consideration by the several grantees. This agreement by the vendee, Hanner, to pay off the debts of the vendor specified as the consideration for the deed, made the vendee personally liable in equity to the creditors of the vendor, and was a promise to pay his own debt to the persons designated by the vendor. This assumption constituted the purchase price which, by direction of the vendor, was made payable to the creditors, of the latter. O'Conner v. O'Conner, 88 Tenn. 76-82, 12 S.W. 447; Moore v. Stovall, 2 Lea. 548; Lawrence v. Fox, 20 N.Y. 268; Burr v. Beers, 24 N.Y. 178; Thompson v. Bertram, 14 Iowa, 476; Thompson v. Thompson, 4 Ohio St....