Appeal from the Chancery Court of Yazoo County.

Hon. E. G. Peyton, Chancellor.

On the 22d of February, 1878, J. R. Tucker executed a deed of trust upon certain lands to W. S. Epperson, as trustee, to secure the payment of a promissory note of that date, given by Tucker to Richard Boyd, for the sum of eight thousand eight hundred and thirty-eight dollars, and to become due on the 22d of February, 1879. On the 30th of May, 1881, Tucker executed another deed of trust upon the same lands to John Warmack, as trustee, to secure the payment of a debt of four thousand and thirty-two dollars and ninety-one cents, which the grantor owed Emma C. Warmack, and which became due on the 1st of January, 1882. There was a breach of the condition of both deeds of trust. On the 28th of February, 1883, the lands were sold under the first deed of trust, and were bought by Boyd for ten thousand and fifty dollars. On the 12th of March, 1883, the lands were again sold under the second deed of trust, and Emma C. Warmack became the purchaser thereof upon a bid of two hundred dollars. *

On the 28th of January, 1885, Emma C. Warmack filed the bill in this case against Boyd, Tucker, and Epperson, alleging, in addition to the facts above stated, that a large part of the debt secured by the deed of trust in favor of Boyd, and to satisfy which the lands were sold to Boyd, consisted of usurious interest; that complainant did not know the nature of such indebtedness at the time of the sale under Boyd’s trust-deed ; that if she had then known the true amount due Boyd she would have paid it off, and she is now willing to pay the same if substituted to his rights and security; that Tucker is insolvent and has no property liable to execution; that the lands referred to are worth enough to satisfy the legal amount of Tucker’s debt to Boyd and also pay complainant, and unless she can subject them to her claim she will lose the greater part of her debt. The prayer of the bill is, in the alternative, either that the sale under Boyd’s deed of trust be set aside; that the lands be re-sold and the proceeds of the sale be applied (1) to the payment of the amount legally due Boyd by Tucker, (2) to the satisfaction of complainant’s claim against Tucker, and (3) if there be any residue then that it be paid to Tucker; or that the amounts due Boyd and complainant respectively be ascertained and a decree rendered requiring Boyd to pay her the amount he may have received from Tucker in excess of his legal demand, and that such amount be made a lien on the lands purchased by Boyd. Boycl demurred to the bill of complaint on the ground, substantially, that the complainant is entitled to no relief based upon usury in the contract between Tucker and the demurrant. The demurrer was overruled and Boyd appealed.

…

Citation profile

Relationships

How this case has been treated — in progress