Rodney D. Wells & Co. v. Wooten

*50Opinion.

The deed of assignment involved in tbis ease is not fraudulent on its face, tried by tbe rules of law announced by tbis court tbis day in Mattison & McCarroll v. Max Judd & Co., and tbe instruc-tions given by tbe Circuit Court are correct, and that refused to be given at tbe request of tbe plaintiffs was properly refused. Tbe verdict was clearly right on tbe facts submitted to tbe jury.

Judgment affirmed.