Baldwin v. Little
Mississippi Supreme Court
Baldwin v. Little, 64 Miss. 126 (Miss. 1886)
Campbell
Baldwin v. Little
Opinion of the Court
delivered the opinion of the court.
The deed of trust does not in express terms provide for the continuance in business of the grantors selling and replenishing stock in the usual course of dealing, and therefore is not void on its face. It is true that the evidence shows such a course of dealing under the instrument as to make it fraudulent in fact as to creditors, but the right of the appellee is to be determined by the deed of trust. He stands on that as the foundation of his title, and is not implicated in the fraudulent conduct of the grantors in the deed after it was executed. As he is unaffected by their subsequent fraud, and the deed of trust is not per se fraudulent, his claim must prevail over that of the appellants.
. Affirmed.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- A. Baldwin & Co. v. B. J. Little
- Cited By
- 4 cases
- Status
- Published
- Syllabus
- 1. Deed op Tbtjst. On stoole of goods. Whether void for continuing business of grantor. A deed of trust on a stock of goods and merchandise is not void on its face, on the ground that it provides for the continuance in business of the grantor, selling and replenishing stock in the usual course of dealing, where such provision is not made in express terms, but can only be gathered by implication. 2. Same. Case in judgment. And a clause in a deed of trust on a stock of goods which conveys “ all the goods, wares, and merchandise that may be hereafter purchased by the said parties of the first part, to be sold in their store before satisfaction of this deed of trust,” is not such an express provision for the continuance in business of the grantor in the usual course of dealing as to render this deed of trust void on its face. 3. Same. Rendered fraudulent by dealings thereunder. Rights of innocent purchaser. Where a deed of trust is valid on its face, though rendered fraudulent as to creditors by the dealings of the grantor under it, the rights of a purchaser under the deed are not affected by such fraudulent conduct, and his title will prevail over a judgment against the grantor rendered subsequent to the execution of the deed of trust.