Bennett v. President of the Bedford Bank

11 Mass. 421
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court·Decided October 15, 1814·Published·Cited by 19 cases

Opinion

Parker, C. J.,

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The title of the demandant is by deed from his father, Robert Bennett, dated March 9, 1802, acknowledged and recorded; and he entered and took possession under the deed soon after its execution and delivery.

The title of the tenants is by judgment and execution against the same Robert Bennett, recently levied upon the same land, the debt upon which the judgment was rendered [ * 423 ] f having accrued several years after the conveyance was made from the said Robert to his son.

It is found by the verdict that the said Robert was not an embarrassed man when he made his deed: there were no circumstances of secrecy, or any evidence of trust in the conveyance. On [383] the contrary, it appears that, about the same time, he executed other conveyances of other parcels of his land to divers of his children ; and that he retained, and still has, sufficient real estate to pay all his debts.

Under these circumstances, there can be no pretence that the conveyance was fraudulent against creditors; certainly not against the tenants, who did not exist at that time as creditors of the grantor. And although the conveyance was voluntary, there having been no valuable consideration, it is good against all persons but such as were creditors at the time.

Judgment according to the verdict.

Footnotes

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Bennett v. President of the Bedford Bank, 11 Mass. 421 (Mass. 1814).

11 Mass. 421 (Bennett v. President of the Bedford Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Barker v. Barker's Assignee
2 F. Cas. 807 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Louisiana, 1874)
Wright v. Campbell & Strong
27 Ark. 637 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1872)
Winchester v. Charter
94 Mass. 606 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1866)
Horn v. Volcano Water Co.
13 Cal. 62 (California Supreme Court, 1859)
Bullitt, Miller & Co. v. Taylor & Richardson
34 Miss. 708 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1858)
Clayton v. Brown
17 Ga. 217 (Supreme Court of Georgia, 1855)
Beal v. Warren
68 Mass. 447 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1854)
Johnston v. Zane's trustees
11 Va. 552 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1854)
Pike v. Collins
33 Me. 38 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 1851)
Bogard v. Gardley
12 Miss. 302 (Mississippi Supreme Court, 1845)
Hutchison v. Kelly
39 Am. Dec. 250 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1842)
Paul v. Crooker
8 N.H. 288 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1836)
Carlisle v. Rich
8 N.H. 44 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1835)
Smith v. Lowell
6 N.H. 67 (Superior Court of New Hampshire, 1832)
Seward v. Jackson ex dem. Van Wyck
8 Cow. 406 (Court for the Trial of Impeachments and Correction of Errors, 1826)
Ridgeway v. Underwood
20 F. Cas. 760 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of New Jersey, 1821)