Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

the existence of outstanding claims against the debtor, and is assured by him that specified claims are the only ones against him, cannot be charged with notice of any fraud on the part of the debtor in concealing the existence of other claims, although the purchaser did not demand an inspection of the debtor's books. A purchaser of a stock of goods is not, as a matter of law, charge able with knowledge of all the facts which he might have ascertained by an inspection of the books and papers received as part of the purchase, although their contents are competent evidence on the question of fraud in making the sale."

62

§ 28. Knowledge of, or notice to, agent.-Knowledge of, or notice to, an agent, of fraud on the part of a grantor or mortgagor, is to be imputed to the beneficiary for whom such agent act, where he knowingly acts as agent and the principal accepts the benefits." But one buying property for full value of one who is his agent is not chargeable with constructive notice of the grantor's undisclosed purpose to hinder and delay his creditors. And if the agent has no authority to act in the matter, his knowledge is not imputable to his principal. The same rules apply where a husband acts as

65

61. Kelly v. Smith, 102 Ala. 336, 14 So. 764.

62 Richolson v. Freeman, 56 Kan. 463, 42 Pac. 772.

63. U. S.-Morris v. Lindauer, 54 Fed. 23, 4 C. C. A. 162, 6 U. S. App. 510.

Conn.-Trumbull V. Hewitt, 65 Conn. 60, 31 Atl. 492; Clark v. Fuller, 39 Conn. 238.

Md. O'Connell v. Kilpatrick, 64 Md. 122, 21 Atl. 98.

N. H.-Clark v. Marshall, 62 N. H. 498.

N. J.-Lund V. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., N. J. Eq. 355.

Okla.-Jaffray v. Wolf, 4 Okla. 303, 47 Pac. 496, knowledge of fraud in the execution of a chattel mortgage on the part of the mortgagee to whom

it is executed for himself and other persons, is chargeable to such other persons, and the mortgage will be held entirely fraudulent. See also Morris v. Lindauer, 54 Fed. 23.

See also Participation of trustee imputable to beneficiary, chap. XIII, § 13, supra.

64. Clark v. Marshall, 62 N. H. 498. See also Lindsey v. Lambert Bldg., etc., Assoc., 4 Fed. 48, where a corporation was held not chargeable with the treasurer's knowledge of his insolvency.

65. Bruen v. Dunn, 87 Iowa, 483, 54 S. W. 468; Cowell v. Daggett, 97 Mass. 434; Hargardine McKittrick, etc., Co. v. Krug, 2 Neb. (Unoff.) 52, 96 N. W. 286; Cooper v. Sawyer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 73 S. W. 992.

agent for his wife, and knowledge of, or notice to, the husband is imputable to the wife, and where an attorney represents his client, knowledge of, or notice to, the attorney is imputable to his client.67

§ 29. Knowledge or notice implied from relation of parties.Knowledge or notice of fraudulent intent will not be inferred or implied from the mere fact of the intimacy or relationship of the parties to the alleged fraudulent transfer.68 But knowledge or notice of the financial embarrassment of the debtor and of his intent to defraud his creditors is often implied or presumed from the relationship of the parties when taken in connection with other facts and circumstances, as for example, where they are husband and wife, parent and child,"1 brothers," attorney and client," or a corporation and one of its directors or trustees.74

70

69

66. N. Y.-Sommers v. Cottentin, 26 App. Div. 241, 49 N. Y. Supp. 652. Conn.-See cases cited in note 63 to this section.

Ill.-Jeffery v. J. W. Butler Paper Co., 37 Ill. App. 96.

Ind.-Phillips v. Kennedy, 139 Ind. 419, 38 N. E. 410, 39 N. E. 417. Mo.-Monarch Rubber Co. v. Bunn, 78 Mo. App. 55.

W. Va.-Hart v. Sandy, 39 W. Va. 644, 20 S. E. 665.

67. Shideler v. Fisher, 13 Colo. App. 106, 57 Pac. 864; Morrell v. Miller, 28 Or. 354, 43 Pac. 490, 45 Pac. 246. But see Burns v. Wilson, 28 Can. Sup. Ct. 207; Gibbons v. Wilson, 17 Ont. App. 1; Cameron v. Hutchison, 16 Grant Ch. (U. C.) 526.

68. U. S.-Evans v. Mansur, etc., Implement Co., 87 Fed. 275, 30 C. C. A. 640.

Colo.-Johnson v. Jones, 16 Colo. 138, 26 Pac. 584, an insolvent debtor and his preferred creditor.

Neb.-Jones v. Dunbar, 52 Neb. 151, 71 N. W. 976, where the alleged

fraudulent vendee was a clerk in the vendor's store.

N. D.-Fluegel v. Henschel, 7 N. D. 276, 74 N. W. 996, 66 Am. St. Rep. 642.

Tex.-Cleveland v. Sims, 69 Tex. 153, 6 S. W. 634, where the parties were brothers.

Wis.-Mehlhof V. Pettibone, 54 Wis. 652, 11 N. W. 553, 12 N. W. 443.

69. Ill.-Beidler v. Crane, 22 Ill. App. 538, aff'd 135 Ill. 92, 25 N. E. 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 349.

Ind.-Phillips v. Kennedy, 139 Ind. 419, 38 N. E. 410, 39 N. E. 147.

Mo.-Roan v. Winn, 93 Mo. 503, 4 S. W. 736.

Neb.-Dorrington v. Minnick, 15 Neb. 397, 19 N. W. 456, where an embarrassed merchant sold his stock to one of his clerks and another person. N. C.-Nadal v. Britton, 112 N. C. 180, 16 S. E. 914.

70. Leich v. Dee, 86 Iowa, 709, 47 N. W. 881, 52 N. W. 209; Castro v. Illies, 22 Tex. 479, 73 Am. Dec. 277.

30. Transactions founded on consideration.-Any conveyance or transfer, or any sale, contract, or arrangement, whether founded on good consideration or not, if made or entered into by the parties thereto with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, is void as to them. Where there is an actual intent to defraud, no form in which the transaction is put can shield the property so transferred from the claim of creditors, even though a valuable and adequate consideration be received for the same."

See also Husband and wife, chap. IX, § 4, supra.

71. Dickerman v. Farrell, 59 Iowa, 759, 13 N. W. 422; Caudill v. Goeble, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 515; Dunlap v. Haynes, 51 Tenn. 476. See also Parent and child, chap. IX, § 8, supra.

72. Pope v. Andrews, 9 Miss. 135. 73. Summers v. Taylor, 4 Ky. L. Rep. 290. See also Transfers between persons not relatives, chap. IX, § 1,

supra.

74. Roan v. Minn, 93 Mo. 503, 4 S. W. 736.

75. N. Y.-Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 226, 4 N. E. 531; Davis v. Leopold, 87 N. Y. 620; Woods v. Van Brunt, 6 App. Div. 220, 39 N. Y. Supp. 896; Mohawk Bank v. Atwater, 2 Paige, 54.

U. S.-Chandler v. Van Roeder, 24 How. 224, 16 L. Ed. 633; Potts v. Hahn, 38 Fed. 682; Moline Wagon Co. v. Rummell, 12 Fed. 658, 2 McCrary, 307; Alexander v. Todd, 1 Fed. Cas. No. 175, 1 Bond, 175; Gilmore v. North American Land Co., 10 Fed. Cas. No. 5,448, Pet. C. C. 460; Parrish v. Danforth, 18 Fed. Cas. No. 10,770, 1 Bond, 345.

Ala.-Lehman v. Kelly, 68 Ala. 192; Bozman v. Draughan, 3 Stew. 243.

Ark.-May v. State Nat. Bank, 59 Ark. 614, 28 S. W. 431.

Cal.-Swinford v. Rogers, 23 Cal.

233.

Ga.-Cothran v. Forsyth, 68 Ga.

560.

Ill.-Beidler v. Crane, 135 Ill. 99, 25 N. E. 655, 25 Am. St. Rep. 349; Weber v. Mick, 131 Ill. 520, 23 N. E. 646; Boies v. Henney, 32 Ill. 130; Salzenstein v. Hettrick, 105 Ill. App. 99; Rahn v. Kniess, 74 Ill. App. 367; Oakford v. Dunlap, 63 Ili. App. 498; Hupp v. Hupp, 61 Ill. App. 445.

Ind.-Slagel v. Hoover, 137 Ind. 314, 36 N. E. 1099; Buck v. Voreis, 89 Ind. 116; Flannagan v. Donaldson, 85 Ind. 517; Ruffing v. Tilton, 12 Ind. 259.

Ky.-Lyne v. Commonwealth Bank, 28 Ky. 545; Mason v. Baker, 8 Ky. 208, 10 Am. Dec. 724.

Me.-Hartshorn v. Eames, 31 Me. 93; Pullen v. Hutchinson, 25 Me. 249; Clark v. French, 23 Me. 221, 39 Am. Dec. 618.

Md.-Spuck v. Logan, 97 Md. 152, 54 Atl. 989, 99 Am. St. Rep. 427; Chatterton v. Mason, 86 Md. 236, 37 Atl. 960; Zimmer v. Miller, 64 Md. 296, 1 Atl. 858; Gebhart v. Merfeld, 51 Md. 322; Cooke v. Cooke, 43 Md. 522; Glenn v. Grover, 3 Md. Ch. 29. Mass.-Crowninshield v. Kittridge, 43 Mass. 520.

[blocks in formation]

In order to support a conveyance or transfer as against creditors it is not sufficient that it be upon good consideration; it must also be bona fide." Where the transfer is prompted by a motive on the part of both parties to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, or the grantee has knowledge that the grantor intends by the conveyance to defraud his creditors, the question whether consideration was paid is not material." A fraudulent conveyance to a person taking

Miss.-Vasser v. Henderson, 40 Miss. 519, 90 Am. Dec. 351; Pope v. Pope, 40 Miss. 516; Reed v. Carl, 3 Sm. & M. 74.

Mo.-McDonald v. Hoover, 142 Mo. 484, 44 S. W. 334; National TubeWorks Co. v. Ring Kefrigerating, etc., Co., 118 Mo. 365, 22 S. W. 947; Murray v. Cason, 15 Mo. 378; Frankenthal v. Goldstein, 44 Mo. App. 189; Fink v. Algermissen, 25 Mo. App. 186; Stewart v. Cabanne, 16 Mo. App. 517.

Neb.-Foley V. Doyle, 1 Neb. (Unoff.) 643, 95 N. W. 1067.

N. H.-True v. Congdon, 44 N. H. 48; Kendall v. Fitts, 22 N. H. 1; McConihe v. Sawyer, 12 N. H. 396; Carlisle v. Rich, 8 N. H. 44.

N. J.-Smith v. Muirheid, 34 N. J. Eq. 4; Randall v. Vroom, 30 N. J. Eq. 353; Sayre v. Fredericks, 16 N. J. Eq. 205; Doughten v. Gray, 10 N. J. Eq. 323.

[blocks in formation]

364; Phillips v. Cunningham (Ch. App. 1899), 58 S. W. 463.

Tex.-Tuttle v. Turner, 28 Tex. 759; Mills v. Howeth, 19 Tex. 257, 70 Am. Dec. 331.

Va.-Garland v. Rives, 4 Rand. 282, 15 Am. Dec. 756.

W. Va.-Frank v. Zeigler, 46 W. Va. 614, 33 S. E. 761; Lockhard v. Beckley, 10 W. Va. 87.

Wis.-Fisher v. Shelver, 53 Wis. 498, 10 N. W. 681.

Can.-Smith v. Moffatt, 28 U. C. Q. B. 486.

Eng. Bott v. Smith, 21 Beav. 511, 52 Eng. Reprint, 957; Harman v. Richards, 10 Hare, 81, 22 L. J. Ch. 1066, 44 Eng. Ch. 78; Corlett v. Radcliffe, 14 Moore P. C. 121, 4 L. T. Rep. N. S. 1, 15 Eng. Reprint, 251; Twyne's Case, 3 Coke, 80a, 1 Smith Lead. Cas. 1. See or also Knowledge notice equivalent to intent, chap. XIII, § 5, supra; Rights and liabilities of grantees as to creditors as to property and proceeds, chap. XIV, § 24, infra.

76. Billings v. Russell, 101 N. Y. 226, 4 N. E. 531; Blennerhassett v. Sherman, 105 U. S. 117, 26 L. Ed. 1080; Schmidt v. Opie, 33 N. J. Eq. 141.

77. Wiggington v. Winter, 28 Ky. L. Rep. 79, 88 S. W. 1082; McDonald v. Hoover, 142 Mo. 484, 44 S. W. 334.

with notice is actually void as against creditors, though a full consideration was paid." But a mere fraudulent purpose on the part of a grantor to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors will not invalidate a conveyance or transfer, which has been accepted by the purchaser in good faith and for a valuable consideration."

78. Russell & Erwin Mfg. Co. v. E. C. Faitoute Hardware Co. (N. J. Ch. 1905), 62 Atl. 421.

79. Birdsall v. Welch, 6 D. C. 316; Chandler v. Fleeman, 50 Mo. 239;

Haas v. Kraus, 86 Tex. 687; 28 S. W. 256. See also Effect of want of knowledge where transfer is for valuable consideration, chap. XIII, § 4, supra.

« AnteriorContinuar »