52 Miss. 112 | Miss. | 1876
delivered the opinion of the court.
Judgment creditors were about to sell under execution certain land, when appellants enjoined them, claiming to have acquired the land by successive conveyances from the judgment debtor. The judgment creditors who were thus enjoined answered the bill, and made their answer a cross-bill, in which they aver that the claim set up- to prevent the sale under execution is a fraudulent one, having been marked
The solicitors’ fee of $1,200 above mentioned is by the-decree made a charge on complainants as well as upon the proceeds of the land aforesaid.
We are unwilling to disturb the conclusion reached by the-chancellor as to the facts of this case. The secrecy, the circuity, and indirection, and the inexplicable mystery which marked the history of the title from the first fraudulent conveyance, excite a suspicion which points very strongly to the view held by'the chancellor, and we cannot say he was-wrong in his finding upon the facts.
The decree is erroneous in the allowance of a fee to counsel for defendants to the injunction bill. We do not know of any warrant for such allowance.
It is claimed by counsel for appellants that the decree is erroneous because based on evidence of the fraudulent character of deeds and other muniments of title, which evidence was taken in this cause, to which the parties to such deeds and
The court does not so understand the case cited. The precise point decided in it is that a deed cannot be decreed to be canceled without having the parties to the deed or their heirs before the court. But it was expressly declared that the defendant to the injunction bill might defeat complainant’s claim by showing that the deeds under which she claimed to •enjoin were tainted with fraud, and therefore she could not maintain her bill. That is precisely what was done in the case at bar. In this case the decree directs a sale of the property under direction of the chancery court, and perpetually enjoins complainants in the injunction bill from asserting title, under the fraudulent conveyances by which they derain title, against the title conveyed by the chancery sale to be made. This is proper. The appellants went into the chancery court to arrest the sale under executions of the land they claimed. They called on defendants to answer their bill. They thereby voluntarily subj ected themselves to all the incidents of a chancery suit. One of these is not only to be defeated in the claim asserted fry the bill, but to be met by a cross-bill seeking affirmative relief. The judgment creditors, stayed from selling the land by execution, and called to say why they should not be per-perpetually stayed, answered that complainants had no valid title, but one tainted by fraud and worthless against the claim of judgment creditors; and they in their turn became complainants seeking the aid of the court, and asked that complainants in the original bill might be perpetually enjoined from making claim to this land, and that the court into which they had been called should sell the land and distribute the proceeds, and it is so ordered. The case cited and relied on does not hold, that this cannot be done. The decree ordered by the opinion in that case to be entered in lieu of that reversed was the same in legal effect, as between the parties to that suit, as if
. So much of the decree as directs the payment of the fee to-solicitors is reversed, and in all other respects the decree is affirmed. Appellants to recover costs in this court,' including-cost of transcript, but.to be taxed with all taxable costs in the-chancery court. , ,