
    Gunn v. Chapman et al.
    
    No. 6430.
    April 16, 1928.
   Hines, J.

1. Every conveyance of real or personal estate, by writing or otherwise, had or made with intention to delay or defraud creditors, and such intention known to the party taking, is void as to creditors of the maker, and such persons other than creditors who have any rightful claim or demand against the grantor, for which such person is entitled to have a judgment in any court of law or equity; but a bona fide transaction, on a valuable consideration, without notice or ground for reasonable suspicion, shall be valid. Civil Code § 3224 (2); McDowell v. McMurria, 107 Ga. 812 (33 S. E. 709, 73 Am. St. R. 155) ; Boswell v. Boswell, 147 Ga. 734 (95 S. E 247).

2. Every voluntary deed or conveyance, not for a valuable consideration, made by a debtor insolvent at the time of such conveyance, is likewise void against creditors of the maker, and such persons other than creditors who have any rightful claim or demand against the grantor, for which such person is entitled to have a judgment in any court of law or equity.

3. Such conveyances, though void as to creditors and the other persons designated, are good between the parties, and all persons other than creditors and those above designated. Jones v. Dougherty, 10 Ga. 273; Tufts v. DuBignon, 61 Ga. 322 (5).

4. The first grant of a new trial will not be disturbed by this court, unless the plaintiff in error shows that the judge abused his discretion in granting it, and that the law and facts require the verdict notwithstanding the judgment of the presiding judge. Civil Code, § 6204.

5. We can not say that the law and facts require the verdict rendered in this case, for the reason that the existence of the debt of the plaintiff or some part thereof, at the time of the conveyance from the husband to the wife, was, under the evidence, an issuable fact, the evidence not demanding a finding that the debt or some part thereof existed at the date of the conveyance.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur„

Equitable foreclosure. Before Judge Perryman. Taliaferro superior court. December 2, 1927.

On April 25, 1917, G. R. and Lula Chapman gave to Delia Gunn their promissory note for the sum of $1400, with interest at seven per cent, per annum from November 15, 1916, with provision for the payment of ten per cent, of the debt as attorneys’ fees if not paid at maturity, and payable on November 15, 1917. Contemporaneously with the execution of said note the makers executed and delivered to the payee a mortgage upon certain described land to secure the same. The makers failed to pay said note, and the payee gave them due notice in writing of her intention to bring suit on the same to the August term, 1925, of Taliaferro superior court, said notice being given to hold the makers for the payment of attorney’s fees. On August 4, 1925, the payee brought suit against the makers of the note, to foreclose the mortgage given to secure the same. Lula Chapman filed her answer in which she admitted the execution of the note sued on, and alleged that said note was given for a debt of G. R. Chapman, who was her husband, that she merely signed the same as indorser, and that no consideration whatever flowed to her. She further alleged that the tract of land mortgaged to secure said note was her land, and that said mortgage was given at the suggestion and solicitation of the mortgagee to secure a past-due obligation of her husband. The evidence introduced on the trial demanded a finding of the following facts: The note sued on was given for money previously borrowed by G. R. Chapman from Delia Gunn, for which he had given her his individual notes. At the time the note was given the entire indebtedness of her husband to Delia Gunn had matured and was consolidated into the note sued on. The wife received none of the money for which the note was given. On December 24, 1909, R. G. Chapman, by warranty deed, conveyed to the wife the land embraced in this mortgage, and certain personal property, for the alleged consideration of $1000. This conveyance was made to defeat the claim of another creditor of the husband.

J. A. Mitchell and E. P. & J. Cecil Davis, for plaintiff.

M. L. Pelts and Hawes Cloud, for defendants.  