
    John A. Garrett vs. John C. Rhame, late Sheriff.
    If one not a creditor, bona fide purchases a chattel at sheriff’s sale, and permits it to return into the debtor’s possession, such possession is no fraud upon the creditors of the debtor.
    K., not a creditor, purchased a negro at sheriff’s sale, and permitted him to return immediately into the possession of G., the debtor. G. afterwards refunded the purchase-money to K„ who thereupon, at G.’s request, conveyed,the negro to an infant sou of G. — G. being insolvent all the time. Held, That the legal title of G. was divested by the sheriff’s sale; and the subsequent payment of the money to R. did not re-invest him with the title so as to make the negro again liable to be levied on and sold under execution against G.
    BEFORE WARDLAW, J., AT SUMTER, SPRING TERM, 1856.
    The report of his Honor, the presiding Judge, is as follows :
    “ Trover for a slave named Bob.
    “ Bob was, in 1840, sold at sheriff’s sale .underfi. fa. against Thomas Garrett; was purchased by W. E. Richardson, who had been merely requested by T. G. to befriend him, and who paid his own money and took a bill of sale to himself; and was in 1844, after the money with interest had been refunded to W. E. R. by T. G. transferred by bill of sale made by W. E. R. at the request of T. G. to the plaintiff, son of T. G. and then an infant, not over twelve years old. The defendant, in 1854, again sold Bob under fi. fa. against T. G.; and in behalf of creditors he contended that the plaintiff’s title was fraudulent and void. T. G. was insolvent at all times after 1840.
    “ The statements made in the grounds of appeal are correct, with this addition, that the plaintiff, after 1840, lived with his father on the plaintiff’s land.
    “ I submitted to the jury the questions of fact, especially all concerning possession, and the main question, was there' any covinous agreement between W. E. R. and T. G. before W. E. R. acquired title. If not, I held that a good title was in W. E. R., and that the transfer of it to thé plaintiff was not so affected by a subsequent payment of purchase-money by T. G. that thereby there was vested in T. G. any legal title subject to execution.
    “The jury found for the plaintiff four hundred and thirty-two dollars and fifty-two cents, about half of the value of Bob, and his hire since 1854, as they were proved.”
    The defendant appealed, and now moved for a new trial on the ground:
    It was preved, both by plaintiff and defendant, and was part of the case made on both sides, that the negro Bob belonged to Thomas Garrett in 1840; was sold at sheriff’s sale in November, 1840, as his property, and was bid off by the purchaser for his benefit; that the negro returned immediately, on the day of sale, into the possession of the said Thomas Garrett; that he, Thomas Garrett, refunded to the purchaser at sheriff’s sale the purchase-money, (the whole as defendant contended— the greater part as plaintiff admitted;) that the deed, dated in 1844, to the plaintiff for the negro from the purchaser at sheriff’s sale, was not made until after the whole of the purcase-money had been refunded; that it was made to the plaintiff at the request of the said Thomas Garrett, and that the said negro remained in possession of the said Thomas from the sale in 1840, until his son, the plaintiff, arrived at .age in July, 1853, and even until the levy was made by the defendant; that upon this state of facts, the negro Bob was in law liable to the execution creditors of the said Thomas Garrett, and his Honor, it is respectfully submitted, should have so instructed the jury.
    Spain, for appellant.
    Blanding, contra.
   The opinion'of the'Court was'delivered’by'

Glover, J.

By the sheriff’s bill .of sale, Bob was legally transferred to W. E. Richardson, and the purchase-money was applied to the satisfaction of judgments against Thomas Garrett. To impeach the title for fraud, the defendant must show that W. E. Richardson purchased with a secret intent of defeating the claims of creditors, But all the facts of this case directly contradict such a conclusion; Richardson was not a creditor, the- sale was public, -and the possession óf Thomas Garrett, which immediately followed, was consistent with fair dealing. That a stranger permits property to go into the possession of another, from benevolent motives, cannot be regarded ft badge of fraud. After judgment creditors have appropriated the fruits of a first sale, they may not afterwards recapture the property in the hands- of bona fide purchasers, and resell it in satisfaction of their debts. • ■

While the title continued in Richardson and the possession in Thomas Garrett, the circumstances of this case are in no respect different from-the case of Kidd vs. Rawlinson, 2 Bos. & Pull. 59. B. became the purchaser of A.’s goods, which were sold by the sheriff; he took a bill of sale and permitted them to remain in A.’s possession. A- afterwards executed a bill'of sale of the same goods to 0., a creditor, who took possession ; whereupon B. brought an action against C., and it was held that he was entitled to recover. Lord Eldon, C. J., says: “ It ¿ppears to me that this case does not fall within the.principle of Twine’s case, 3 Rep. 80, and the other cases on this subject, where the parties stood in the relation of .debtor arid, creditor, and where their object was to defeat other creditors. This seems to me a new case; for here the goods were purchased at a public sale by a person who had never acquired the character of a creditor, and were then lent to the original owner for a temporary and honest purpose.”

But it was argued, that when Thomas Garrett refunded the purchase-money and interest, and at his request Richardson transferred Bob by bill of sale to the plaintiff, it was with a fraudulent purpose to prevent the payment of his debts. It may be that the amount refunded to Richardson was the money of Thomas Garrett; but has the legal title to Bob ever been in Thomas Garrett, and has he ever had such a legal interest in him as would be subject to levy and sale under a fieri facias? His possession, while the title was in Richardson, was never adverse to Richardson’s right of property; and his possession, after the title passed to the plaintiff, who was an infant, will be intended to be a possession as guardian.

On refunding the purchase-money and interest, if Bob had been conveyed to the plaintiff in trust for Thomas Garrett, with the view of protecting him from his creditors, they might reach such a trust in Equity, and if within the 29 Car. 2, by an execution at law. If a trust resulted in favor of Thomas Garrett, it is not the subject of levy and sale. Bauskett vs. Holsonback, 2 Rich. 624.

• Whether the possession of Thomas Garrett conferred a title, and whether there was any fraud in the transaction which could defeat the legal rights of the plaintiff, were submitted to the jury by the Circuit Judge, with proper instructions, and we are satisfied with their verdict.

Motion dismissed.

O’Neall, Wardlaw, Withers, Whitner, and Munro, JJ., concurred.

Motion dismissed.  