
    Griffis v. Griffis.
    The uncontradicted evidence being that the father conveyed the premises in dispute to the son upon the promise and undertaking of the latter to support him during his life, and that the son had not violated the terms of this stipulation up to the time of the trial, and there being no evidence to show that the father owed any debts or was otherwise involved at the time of making the conveyance, or that he then contemplated the commission of any fraud, the verdict of the jury finding the property subject to a judgment rendered against the father long after the date of the conveyance, was without evidence to support it, although the father, with the consent of the son, remained in possession of the premises until about the time the judgment was rendered, and although during a part of such occupation he claimed the property as his own, declaring that the conveyance to the son was only a sham, it not appearing that such declarations were made in the son’s hearing or that he had any knowledge of the same or of his father’s adverse claim of title.
    March 26, 1892.
    Argued at the last term.
    Fraudulent conveyance. Parent and child. Verdict. Before Judge Atkinson. Clinch superior court. March term, 1891.
    Executions' in favor of S. L. Griffis against Berry Griffis were levied on land which was claimed by Samuel Griffis. The property was found subject, and the claimant’s motion for a new trial was overruled.
    The evidence for the plaintiff was: She married defendant twelve or fifteen years ago. He told her he had “shammed off” his place to Sam. Griffis, and that Sam. should never have it. Sam. paid the taxes out of defendant’s money. He lived on the same place during the time plaintiff stayed with him; claimed it and used it as his own. About ten years ago defendant offered to trade places with plaintiff’s father, and told him he (defendant) had “ shammed off” his place where he lived to Sam. Griffis, hut it would be all right. Defendant has lived on the land in question, up to 1889, for thirty or forty years, using and cultivating it as his own.
    The claim rested on a deed from the defendant dated September 16, 1870. Claimant testified: My father is about eighty years old. He made the deed to me in consideration that I should maintain and support him in his old age. This I have done by furnishing him with clothing and food for his support, and have paid his doctor’s bills and assisted him-in tending the land, and am novs^ tending and in possession of it. I received the deed in good faith, and have performed the agreement between us. I did not have the deed recorded, . because I did not think it necessary. I sold beef-cattle for him, and received the money; spent some in his support; don’t remember that any consideration was paid for the land when the deed was made. He lived on the land, cultivated and used it; never made support ; got no rent.
   Judyment reversed.

J. L. Sweat, by brief, for plaintiff in error.

S. W. Hitch, by Harrison & Peeples, contra.  