Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Supreme Court of Tennessee Volume 76 (Paperback)

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1882 edition. Excerpt: ...the purchaser of.the property, is estopped from denying the nullity of the deed, and that Nichol now stands in regard to the property as if the deed had never been made. To these views we cannot give our assent. The deed of Nichol to his wife was, to all intents and purposes, good and valid except as to creditors, who were simply allowed to disregard it so far as they were concerned. The title to the property was in Mrs. Nichol according to the terms of the deed to her, subject only tothe payment of such debts as 'might be asserted against it. As much in her as if there had been a lien upon the property which might be paid off. The principle upon which prop ' erty fraudulently conveyed is subject to the payment of debts, is merely that of non obstante. To be sure, if the property be sold for the debt and there is any Nichol v. Davidson County. one who being the head of a family is in possession of the homestead, his right would not be reached. But being the head of a family and merely living in the house is not being in possession of a homestead. The case of Cowan v. Johnson, MS., Knoxville, (cited by'Judge Cooper in Gibbs v. Patton, 2 Lea, 183, as reported in 2 Law & Eq. Reports, 78), has been cited here in support of the doctrine that by the fraudulent conveyance the'homestead right was lost.' This was a case arising under conveyances made after the adoption of the Constitution and the statute of 1870, in regard to homestead. In that case husband and wife made a conveyance to the wife's father, who af. terward recouveyed to the wife; both of these con veyances were held to be void as to creditors and' homestead was denied the wife. Judge Lea, w'ho gave the opinion in the case, says: ...