as to creditors may, generally speaking, render it fraudulent also under 27th Elizabeth as against purchaser, yet it is clear that deed is not fraudulent as against purchaser, merely because it was so as against creditors: Harris v. DeGraffenreid, 33-92; Fullenwider v. Roberts, 20-420. This section and sections 980 and 981, being the Connor act,, must be construed together with the view of preventing fraud: Austin v. Staten, 126-788. Registration is required for purpose of notice: Austin v. Staten, 126-788; Patterson v. Mills, 121-267; Hooker v. Nichols, 116-157; Barber v. Wadsworth, 115-29; Quinnerly v. Quinnerly, 114-145; Maddox v. Arp, 114-585 (rendering obsolete many cases in the reports which treat of constructive notice)-but it only has reference to the notice of a former conveyance and carries with it no taint or knowledge of actual intent to defraud, which vitiates the deed when it exists and is so found: Austin v. Staten, 126-783. As to who is a purchaser for value, see Carpenter v. Duke, 144-293; Brinkley v. Spruill, 130-48; Wallace v. Cohen, 111-103; Southerland v. Fremont, 107-565; Brem v. Lockhart, 93-191; Day v. Day, 84-408; Potts v. Blackwell, 56-449, 57-59; Harris v. DeGraffenreid, 33-89; Freeman v. Lewis, 27-91; Fullenwider v. Roberts, 20-420. Second purchaser, in order to avoid prior fraudulent deed, must show now, as before act of 1885, that he is bona fide purchaser for full value: Austin v. Staten, 126-788 -and this does not mean every dollar it is worth, but a reasonably fair price, Ibid. To render deed fraudulent as to subsequent purchaser, such purchaser must have paid full value for land, and must also have purchased without notice of prior voluntary conveyance: Taylor v. Eatman, 92-601; Hiatt v. Wade, 30-340-but registration of prior voluntary deed is notice to subsequent purchaser, Ibid. Bona fide purchaser of personal property, without notice, acquires good title as against prior fraudulent conveyance of same: Plummer v. Worley, 35-423. When bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration, without notice has acquired legal title, equity will not deprive him of this advantage: Crump v. Black, 41-321. Possession by fraudulent donee can not operate as notice of conveyance to him of any land except such tract or parcel as may be occupied by him at time of second purchase: Wade v. Hiatt, 32-302-and especially it can not so operate as to any parcel continuing in possession of donor, Ibid. One is not a purchaser for full value who gives for land not more than one-half or two-thirds of value: Harris v. DeGraffenreid, 33-89; see Austin v. Staten, 126-788; Worthy v. Caddell, 76-82; Fullenwider v. Roberts, 20-420. Deed in trust to sell property and pay creditors is valid as against prior deed of gift as being subsequent sale to purchaser for valuable consideration: Ward v. Wooten, 75-413. When one purchases land which he knows to be in possession of person other than vendor, he is affected with legal notice and must inquire into title of possessor: Bost v. Setzer, 87-187; see also Webber v. Taylor, 55-9. Section being intended for benefit of purchaser, first bona fide purchaser, whether from fraudulent vendor or vendee, is within its operation: Hoke v. Henderson, 14-12. Though conveyance voluntary it is not necessarily fraudulent as to subsequent purchasers: Bell v. Blaney, 6-171. Word "purchaser' under section defined: Fullenwider v. Roberts, 20-420. Purchaser of land with notice at time of former fraudulent conveyance is not protected in purchase, though paid full value therefor: Triplett v. Witherspoon, 70-589; Hiatt v. Wade, 30-340. Old cases prior to amendment which may be of some service: Bell v. Blaney, 6-171; Garrison v. Brice, 48-85; Long v. Wright, 48-290; Freeman v. Eatman, 38-81; Jones v. Hall, 58-26; Bynum v. Miller, 86-560 and cases there cited. 962. Gifts, indebtedness evidence of fraud. No voluntary gift or settlement of property by one indebted shall be deemed or taken to be void in law, as to creditors of the donor or settler prior to such gift or settlement, by reason merely of such indebtedness, if property, at the time of making such gift or settlement, fully sufficient and available for the satisfaction of his then creditors, be retained by such donor or settler; but the indebtedness of the donor or settler at such time shall be held and taken, as well with respect to creditors prior as creditors subsequent to such gift or settlement, to be evidence only from which an intent to delay, hinder or defraud creditors may be inferred; and in any trial shall, as such, be submitted by the court to the jury, with such observations as may be right and proper. Code, s. 1547; R. C., c. 50, s. 3; 1840, c. 28, ss. 3, 4. Voluntary conveyance is fraudulent in law as to existing creditors when grantor does not at time of conveyance retain property fully sufficient and available for satisfaction of his then creditors: Clement v. Cozart, 112-412; McCanless v. Flinchum, 89-376; Warren v. Makely, 85-14. Evidence that grantor retained $11,625 to pay debts to amount of $11,500 not sufficient to show that grantor retained property sufficient to pay debts: Williams v. Hughes, 136-58-neither is evidence that 22 negroes and 2 small tracts of land valued at $7,250 retained to pay debts amounting to $6,848, Black v. Sanders, 46-67. The amendment of 1840 is only applicable to voluntary conveyances made after act went into effect: Houston v. Bogle, 32-496. Husband can make valid voluntary conveyance to wife if not made with fraudulent intent and he retains property sufficient and available to pay all of his debts: Woodruff v. Bowles, 104-197; Walton v. Parish, 95-259; Taylor v. Eatman, 92-601. Voluntary conveyance to child valid if not made with fraudulent intent and grantor retains property sufficient and available to pay all his debts: Worthy v. Brady, 91-265; McCanless v. Flinchum, 89-376; Thacker v. Sanders, 45-145. Conveyance providing that grantee shall support invalid brothers and comply with conditions imposed is not voluntary under section, but rests upon valuable consideration: Worthy v. Brady, 91-265. Evidence of value of tract of land adjoining that retained by donor in deed of gift incompetent to show that donor did not retain property sufficient and available to satisfy existing debts: Warren v. Makely, 8512. Section qualifies maxim that a man must be just before he is generous in cases where donor at the time of gift retains property fully suficient and available to satisfy his then creditors: Pullen v. Hutchins, 67-428but modification confined to gifts inter vivos, Ibid. Amendment of 1840 only requires that question of fraud be submitted to jury where property fully sufficient and available to pay all creditors is reserved: Black v. Cox v. Wall, 132-733; Credle v. Carrawan, 64-424. 963. Marriage settlements, as to existing creditors. Every contract and settlement of property made by any man and woman in consideration of a marriage between them, for the benefit of such man or woman, or of their issue, whether the same be made before or after marriage, shall be void as against creditors of the parties making the same respectively, existing at the time of such marriage, if the same is antenuptial, or at the time of making such contract or settlement, if the same is postnuptial. Code, ss. 1270, 1820; 1871-2, c. 193, s. 11; R. C., c. 37, s. 25; 1785, c. 238, s. 2. See section 2108; also Credle v. Carrawan, 64-422; Teague v. Downs, 69-280. This section applies to instruments entered into since enactment: Walton v. Parish, 95-264. 964. Bona fide conveyances to innocent purchaser for value, valid. Nothing contained in the preceding sections shall be construed to impeach or make void any conveyance, interest, limitation of use or uses, of or in any lands or tenements, goods or chattels, bona fide made, upon and for good consideration, to any person not having notice of such fraud. Code, s. 1548; R. C., c. 50, s. 4; 13 Eliz., c. 5, s. 6; 1785, c. 7, s. 6. This section was intended to act as a proviso to the other sections as to fraudulent conveyances, and one claiming the benefit of it must bring himself within it by competent evidence: Cox v. Wall, 132-734 and cases there cited. Purchaser for value and without notice of any fraud gets good title by conveyance or transfer from fraudulent vendor: Cox v. Wall, 132-730-or from donee or vendee who has himself taken with knowledge of fraud, Wallace v. Cohen, 111103; Odum v. Riddick, 104-515; Saunders v. Lee, 101-3; Davis v. Council, 92-725; Wade v. Saunders, 70-270; Young v. Lathrop, 67-63; King v. Cantrel, 26-251; King v. Trice, 38-568; Martin v. Cowles, 18-29-but the burden is on him to show that he is such purchaser for value and without notice, Morgan v. Bostic, 132-743; Cox v. Wall, 132-730 and cases there reviewed; Stephenson v. Felton, 106-114; Odum v. Riddick, 104-521 and cases cited; Saunders v. Lee, 101-3; Tredwell v. Graham, 88-208. As to who is innocent purchaser for value hereunder, see Carpenter v. Duke, 144-293; Cox v. Wall, 132-730; Brinkley v. Spruill, 130-48; Wallace v. Cohen, 111-103; Southerland v. Fremont, 107-565; Brem v. Lockhart, 93-191; Day v. Day, 84-408; Worthy v. Caddell, 76-82; Sharpe v. Williams, 76-87; Potts v. Blackwell, 56-449; 57-59; Harris v. DeGraffenreid, 33-89; Bona fide pur Freeman v. Lewis, 27-91; Fullenwider v. Roberts 20-420. Cases bearing upon subject matter of section: Newlin v. Osborne, 51-128; Cases referring to section: Peeler v. Peeler, 109-633; Glenn v. Bank, 70-205. 964a. Sale of merchandise in bulk presumed fradulent, when; how presumption removed. The sale in bulk of a large part of the whole of a stock of merchandise, otherwise than in the ordinary course of trade and in regular and usual prosecution of the seller's business, shall be prima facie evidence of fraud, and void as against the creditors of the seller, unless the seller, at least seven days before the same, make an inventory showing the quantity and, so far as possible, the cost price to the seller of such articles included in the sale, and shall within said time notify the creditors of the proposed sale, and the price, terms and conditions thereof: Provided, if the owner or owners of said stock of goods shall at any time before the said sale execute a good and sufficient bond, to a trustee therein named, in an amount equal to the actual cash value of said stock of goods and conditioned that the seller of said stock of goods. will apply the proceeds of said sale, subject to the right of the owner or owners to retain therefrom the personal property exemption or exemptions as are allowed by law, so far as it will go in payment of debts actually owing by said owner or owners, then the provisions hereof shall not apply. Nothing herein shall prevent voluntary assignments or deeds of trust for the benefit of creditors as now allowed by law, or apply to sales by executors, administrators, receivers or assignees under a voluntary assignment for the benefit of creditors, trustees in bankruptcy, or by any public officers under judicial process. 1907, c. 623, ss. 1, 2. 965. Innocent purchaser for value protected against illegal consideration. No conveyance or mortgage, made to secure the payment of any debt or the performance of any contract or agreement, shall be deemed void as against any purchaser for valuable or other good consideration of the estate or property conveyed, sold, mortgaged or assigned, by reason that the consideration of such debt, contract or agreement shall be forbidden by law, if such purchaser, at the time of his purchase, shall not have had notice of the unlawful consideration of such debt, contract or agreement. Code, s. 1549; R. C., c. 50, s. 5; 1842, c. 70. Purchaser for value without notice under deed in trust in which some of debts secured are fictitious or usurious gets good title: McNeill v. Riddle, 66-290; McCorkle v. Earnhardt, 61-300. This section does not purport to protect the innocent holder of a mortgage note which is tainted with usury, but the "purchaser of the estate of property' at sale under mortgage who buys without notice of the usurious taint in debt secured: Ward v. Sugg, 113-494. 966. Purchasers entitled to remedy of creditors. Purchasers of estates previously conveyed in fraud of creditors or purchasers shall have like remedy and relief as creditors might have had before the sale and purchase. Code, s. 1550; R. C., c. 50, s. 6. Section merely referred to in Kenner v Mfg. Co., 91-425. 967. Debts mature on execution of; schedule of preferred debts filed. Upon the execution of any voluntary deed of trust or deed of assignment for the benefit of creditors, all debts of the maker thereof shall become due and payable at once; a schedule of all preferred debts shall be filed under oath by the assignor in the office of the clerk of the superior court of the county in which such assignment is made, stating the name of preferred creditors, the amount due each, when the debt was made, and the circumstances under which said debt was contracted, and said schedule shall be filed within five days of the registration of such deed of assignment. 1893, c. 453. Requirements of section mandatory: Cooper v. McKinnon, 122-447; Pearre v. Folb, 123-241. Note of assignor, with sureties, not yet due becomes due upon assignment being executed and sureties are bound to pay at once: Pritchard v. Mitchell, 139-54. When schedule of preferred debts affirmed to before justice of peace who is one of the trustees in deed of assignment, assignment void: Martin v. Buffaloe, 128-305, and cases cited. Failure to file the schedule of preferred debts within the time and in the manner prescribed will render assignment void: Taylor v. Lauer, 127161; Cooper v. McKinnon, 122-447; Bank v. Gilmer, 116-684, 117-416; Frank v. Heiner, 117-79; Glanton v. Jacobs, 117-427-but if schedule is filed in time and there are preferred debts insufficiently described or stated, it will not vitiate the assignment entirely, but these debts will be |