majority"> MacRae, J.:

The plaintiff Allen tendered the following issues:

“1. Was the mortgage executed by S. H. McLendon and wife to the plaintiff J. M. Allen made to secure a bona fide debt to the plaintiff, and has the same, or any part thereof, since been paid ?

“2. Was the said mortgage executed with the intent to defraud the creditors of S. H. McLendon ?

“3. Did the plaintiff know of and participate in such fraud?”

The first exception was to the submission by the Court of the second issue submitted, and the refusal by the Court to submit the third issue tendered by the plaintiff.

The issue submitted confined the question to the knowledge of the grantee, while that tendered and refused extended the inquiry to a participation in, as well as knowledge of, the fraud. The rule is that" A mortgage deed executed to secure the payment of money loaned or of a valid pre-existing debt, but also with the intent on the part of the mortgagor to hinder, delay or defraud his creditors, will, nevertheless, be deemed valid and enforced by the Courts as against the claims of creditors other than the mortgagee or cestui que trust, unless the beneficiary under the deed had knowledge of and participated in the fraud.” Woodruff v. Bowles, 104 N. C., 197; Hudson v. Jordan, 108 N. C., 12; Battle v. Mayo, 102 N. C., 413. But the response of the jury to the third *325 issue, that the alleged indebtedness of McLendon tojplaintiff Allen was not bona fide — in other words, that there was no debt to be secured by the mortgage, and therefore that the conveyance was necessarily fraudulent as to both grantor and grantee — relieves us of the necessity of considering'the question whether the mortgage would have been vitiated simply by notice of fraud on the part of the mortgagor fixed upon the mortgagee.

The plaintiff Allen objected and excepted to the evidence offered to prove the judgment indebtedness of S. H. McLen-don to the new parties defendant, but that was a matter between defendant McLendon and the other defendants, who had put in a duty verified answer, in the nature of a complaint, charging that they were judgment creditors of said McLendon in the sums set out. He made no reply, and the alleged judgment creditors were entitled to judgment against him as to the indebtedness. Besides, it appears that most of the judgments were proved by the judgment docket, which was proof of the record itself; and if there was irregularity in proof of any of the judgments rendered by Justices of the Peace, it cannot now concern this plaintiff, by reason of the response to the first, second and third issues.

For the purpose of showing that McLendon was not indebted to Allen, it w'as entirety competent to offer the tax lists for several years in the county and township of said Allen's residence to show that he listed no solvent credits. While this may not have been absolute and convincing proof, it was surety some evidence competent to go to the jury upon the question stated.

J. M. Allen testified that he owned a tract of land in Anson County, worth $250, which he had bought in 1886 on credit. He was then asked by his counsel what other property, if any, he owned outside of the mortgage sued on. Defendants objected. The objection was sustained, and plaintiff Allen excepted. As the testimony is reported, there is no ground on which to base this exception.

*326 Defendant McLendon testified as a witness for plaintiff Allen that he (witness) owned several tracts of land, naming them and their values. Witness was asked on cross-examination if this land or a portion of it had not been allotted to him as his homestead, and at what price. Plis answer was objected and excepted to. Whatever may have been the object of the question there could be no valid objection to it and the answer, for it was asked and answered upon cross-examination.

The defendants were allowed to amend their answer during the trial by inserting the words “not due” and “illegal,” to which plaintiff Allen excepted. This was within the discretion of his Honor, and not subject to review. The amendment did not change the character of the action.

We see no error in the. charge of his Plonor that the law looks with suspicion upon a transaction of this kind— where the defendant McLendon is indebted to others, and conveys his property or a part thereof to his brother-in-law— that they were required to scrutinize the matter closely in reaching their conclusion as to its validity. The language seems to follow an approved precedent in Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C., 347.

The exceptions — “ (2) Because the Court did not put its charge in writing and read-it to the jury; (3) Because the Court stated in full the contentions of the defendants, and failed and neglected to state the contention of the plaintiff Allen; and (4) Because the Court failed to charge the jury as requested by plaintiff,” are met by the statement in the case that “the plaintiff Allen did not request the Court to put its charge to the jury in writing; the plaintiff Allen.did not tender or show to the Court any requests or prayers for instructions to the jury; and the Court in its charge did state to the jury carefully, particularly and fully the contention of the plaintiff Allen as to all the questions embraced by the different issues submitted to them.” These findings are binding upon us.

*327 There was also a motion for judgment non obstante vere-dicto, but we have not been furnished with the grounds of the motion, and we see nothing in the plea which confesses a cause of action, nor that the matter relied on in defence is insufficient. No Error.

Citation profile

How this case has been treated — in progress