About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

Michigan Central Railroad Company, Plaintiffs in Error, v. The Michigan Southern Railroad Company et al. U.S. 378 (1857)

handle is hein.slavery/ussccases0200 and id is 1 raw text is: SUPREME COURT. Irsegan Central Railroad Co. v. Mchi'gan Southern lairoad Co. et at. manner in which the property was held and managed, are causes of very grave suspicion. The bill charges, that if this property was conveyed to her, it was. so conveyed with intent and for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding the creditors of the said John D. Bracy. The answer of Mrs. McRae does not deny this allegation. In the course of responding to the claim of the bill founded on the trust-deed, her answer says: She therefore charges, that there was no encumbrance whatever on the said slaves, or any of them, at the time she purchased them; and avers that she purchased them in good faith, and without any notice or knowledge whatever of a subsisting, lien upon them by virtue of said deed-of trust. We understand this averment of good faith on her part to relate simply to her ignorance of a lien by the trust-deed, and that it does not meet the explicit allegation in the bill, that the purpose of the sale was to conceal the prop- erty from creditors;. and though the failure of the answer to meet this charge in the bill does not operate as a technical confession of its truth, it does lay a foundation for the belief that if the defendant could have truly denied it, she would not have foregone the decided advantage of such a denial in an answer which puts the complainant on proof of the contested fict by more than one witness. The answer alleges, that the agreed price of the sale was $3,500, payable. in iustalments of 8875 each, in five, six, seven, and eight years; and that four promissory notes were executed accordingly. It does not say what was done with the notes, after they were executed. 1o such notes'were found among the effects of Bracy, to be inventoried. Neither of these notes, if in existence, had become payable when this bill was filed, and we think the attempt to show that something had been paid on account of them by the delivery qf some cotton is not successful. In our opinion, the charge in the bill, that the sale was fraud- ulent as to creditors, is made out inproof, and this is sufficient to sustain the decree of the Circuit Court. Tten decree of the Circuit Court is affirmed with costs. THE MICHIGAN- CENTRAL RAILROxD 'CoMPANY, PLAINTIFFS n? ERROR, V. -THE MICHIGAN SOUTHE .N RAILROAD COMAN Y ET AML. Where a case is brought up to this court by a writ of'error Issued to the Supreme Court of a State, under the twenty-fifth section of the judiciary act, if it appears

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most