Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

question of good faith.53 On an issue as to whether a conveyance was made with intent to defraud the creditors of the grantor, evidence of the grantee's pecuniary condition at the time of the conveyance or transfer is admissible, as bearing on his ability to purchase at a fair price, and for the purpose of showing whether the consideration named in the conveyance was or was not in fact paid. The source from which the grantee secured the money with which he purchased the property in controversy may be shown.55 The reputation of the grantee in the community as to having property or means, in some cases, is held to be admissible, in others not.57 On the question of the adequacy of the consideration and the good faith of the transaction, the question of the value of the property or interest conveyed or transferred is material, and any competent evidence tending to establish the fact is admissible.58 But where the question of the value of the property is material on an issue as

53. Vansickle v. Wells, 105 Fed. 16.

54. N. Y.-Amsden v. Manchester, 40 Barb. 158. See also Raynor v. Page, 2 Hun, 652.

Ala.-Waxelbaum v. Ball, 91 Ala. 331, 8 So. 571; Borland v. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104.

Conn.-Olmsted v. Hoyt, 11 Conn. 376; Cook v. Swan, 5 Conn. 140.

Ill.-Ragland v. McFall, 137 Ill. 81, 27 N. E. 75, aff'g 36 Ill. App. 135; Rhoades, etc., Co. v. Smith, 43 Ill. App. 400.

Iowa.-Allen v. Kirk, 81 Iowa, 658, 47 N. W. 906.

La.-Hyman v. Bailey, 13 La. Ann.

450.

Mass.-Stebbins v. Miller, 94 Mass.

591.

Mo.-Farmers' Bank v. Worthington, 145 Mo. 91, 46 S. W. 745.

N. H.-Demeritt v. Miles, 22 N. H. 523.

Pa.-Hirsh v. Wenger, 182 Pa. St. 246, 38 Atl. 135; Hannis v. Hazlett, 54 Pa. St. 133.

Tex.-Belt v. Raguet, 27 Tex. 471; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Whitaker, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 380, 23 S. W. 520.

Wis.-Brickley v. Walker, 68 Wis. 563, 32 N. W. 773.

55. Ragland v. McFalls, 137 Ill. 91; Hannis v. Hazlett, 54 Pa. St. 133; Hamilton-Brown Shoe Co. v. Whitaker, 4 Tex. Civ. App. 480; Rindskopf v. Myers, 71 Wis. 639, 38 N. W. 185; Brickley v. Walker, 68 Wis. 563.

56. Stebbins v. Miller, 94 Mass. 591; Covanhovan v. Hart, 21 Pa. St. 495, 60 Am. Dec. 57.

57. Sanger v. Colbert, 84 Tex. 668, 19 S. W. 863.

58. N. Y.-Bier v. Kibbe, 52 Hun, 612, 5 N. Y. Supp. 152.

U. S.-Walker v. Collins, 50 Fed. 737, 1 C. C. A. 642.

to whether a conveyance was in fraud of creditors, evidence offered may be inadmissible for the purpose of showing such value.59

§ 33. Statements of parties; books of account. The declarations of the parties to a conveyance attacked by creditors as fraudulent are in some cases held to be admissible as evidence upon the question of the sufficiency of the consideration therefor, either as forming a part of the res gestae, as constituting admissions, or as falling within some general rule of evidence authorizing their admission. But in other cases they have been held inadmissible as being in the party's own interest, or as hav

60

Ala.-Howell v. Carden, 99 Ala. 100, 10 So. 640; Borland v. Mayo, 8 Ala. 104.

Ark.-Bowden v. Spellman, 59 Ark. 251, 27 S. W. 602, declarations of the seller.

Ill.-Welsch v. Werschem, 92 Ill.

115.

Iowa.-Goldstein v. Morgan, 122 Iowa, 27, 96 N. W. 897.

Mich. Long v. Evening News Assoc., 113 Mich. 261, 71 N. W. 492; Bedford v. Penny, 58 Mich. 424, 25 N. W. 381; West v. Russell, 48 Mich. 74, 11 N. W. 812.

Minn.-Baze V. Arper, 6 Minn.

220.

Tex.-City Nat. Bank v. MartinBrown Co., 20 Tex. Civ. App. 52, 48 S. W. 617, 49 S. W. 523; Harris v. Schuttler (Civ. App. 1893), 24 S. W. 989.

59. N. Y.-Commercial Bank v. Bolton, 87 Hun, 547, 35 N. Y. Supp. 138.

Ala.-H. B. Claflin Co. v. Rodenberg, 101 Ala. 213, 13 So. 272.

Neb.-Rogers v. Thurston, 24 Neb 326, 38 N. W. 834.

Pa. Zerbe v. Miller, 16 Pa. St. 488.

Tex.-Oppenheimer

V. Halff, 68 Tex. 409, 4 S. W. 562; Goldfrank v. Halff (Civ. App. 1894), 26 S. W. 778 (1899), 49 S. W. 1095.

Wis.-Norwegian Plow Co. v. Hanthorn, 71 Wis. 529, 37 N. W. 825. 60. N. Y.-Legg v. Olney, 1 Den. 202.

U. S.-Shauer v. Alterton, 151 U. S. 607, 14 Sup. Ct. 442, 38 L. Ed. 286.

Ala.-Pearce v. Nix, 34 Ala. 183; Goodgame v. Cole, 12 Ala. 77.

Ind.-Fleming v. Yost, 137 Ind. 95, 36 N. E. 705; Benjamin v. McElwaine-Richards Co., 10 Ind. App. 76, 37 N. E. 362.

Iowa.-Moss v. Dearing, 45 Iowa,

530.

Miss.-English V. Friedman, 70
Miss. 457, 12 So. 252.

Mo.-State v. Mason, 112 Mo. 374,
20 S. W. 629, 34 Am. St. Rep. 390.
Pa.-Reitanbach v Reitanbach, 1
Rawle, 362, 18 Am. Dec. 638.

Tex.-Titus v. Johnson, 50 Tex. 224; Cooper v. Sawyer, 31 Tex. Civ. App. 620, 73 S. W. 992.

62

ing been made when the grantees were in possession, or as not competent to affect the title of the grantees or beneficiaries.61 Where the consideration is denied, the grantee's entries against the grantor on his books of account are competent for the purpose of showing that the consideration of the conveyance was the indebtedness shown therein and to corroborate the grantee's assertion that the consideration was made up from such charges. So where the consideration of a transfer is claimed to be an indebtedness from the grantor to the grantee, a creditor attacking the conveyance may introduce in evidence the books of account of the grantor or grantee, kept in the regular order of business, to show that they contained no entry of the debt, or that the alleged indebtedness was largely fictitious.63

§ 34. Recitals in instrument of transfer.-Where a creditor of the grantor seeks to impeach the conveyance on the ground of fraud, a recital in the deed is not evidence of a consideration.64 On an issue as to whether a deed is fraudulent as against

61. N. Y.-Rousseau v. Bleau, 60 Hun, 259, 14 N. Y. Supp. 712; Tifft v. Barton, 4 Den. 171.

Ga.-Hicks v. Sharp, 89 Ga. 311, 15 S. E. 314.

Ill.-Meacham v. Hahn, 46 Ill. App.

144.

Iowa.-Harwick v. Weddington, 73 Iowa, 300, 34 N. W. 868.

Mich.-Blanchard V. Moors, 85 Mich. 380, 48 N. W. 542.

Tex.-Blair v. Finlay, 75 Tex. 210, 12 S. W. 983.

Va.-Thornton v. Gaar, 87 Va. 315, 12 S. E. 753; Keagy v. Trout, 85 Va. 390, 7 S. E. 329.

62. Fleming v. Yost, 137 Ind. 95, 36 N. E. 705; Stockbridge v. Fahnestock, 87 Md. 127, 39 Atl. 95; Archer v. Long, 38 S. C. 272, 16 S. E. 998.

63. White v. Benjamin, 150 N. Y. 258, 44 N. E. 956; Loos v. Wilkinson,

110 N. Y. 195, 18 N. E. 99, 1 L. R. A. 250.

64. N. Y.-Tifft v. Barton. 4 Den. 171.

Ala.-Ezzell v. Brown, 121 Ala. 150, 25 So. 832; Schall v. Weil, 103 Ala. 411, 15 So. 829; Howell v. Carden, 99 Ala. 100, 10 So. 640; Chipman v. Glennon, 98 Ala. 263, 13 So. 822; Bolling v. Jones, 67 Ala. 508; Houston v. Blackman, 66 Ala. 559, 41 Am. Rep. 756; Pool v. Cummings, 20 Ala. 563; Decatur Branch Bank v. Jones, 5 Ala. 487.

Ark. Valley Distilling Co. v. Atkins, 50 Ark. 289, 7 S. W. 137.

N. H.-Vogt v. Ticknor, 48 N. H. 242; Prescott v. Hayes, 43 N. H. 593. Pa.-Redfield, etc., Mfg. Co. V. Dysart, 62 Pa. St. 62.

Va. Flynn v. Jackson, 93 Va. 341, 25 S. E. 1; De Farges v. Ryland, 87

65

the grantor's creditors the real consideration may be shown by extrinsic evidence to be different from that recited in the deed, and a judgment creditor has a right to rebut the prima facie evidence of a recital of payment of a valuable consideration by parol evidence to show that the sum specified in the deed was not paid. It is held by some authorities that one claiming under a deed attacked as fraudulent may show a consideration different from that recited in the instrument,66 if the consideration expressed is not a contract stipulation. But, according to other authorities, a person claiming under a deed which is attacked as fraudulent cannot sustain its validity by parol proof of a consideration other than that expressed in the instrument," unless such consideration is consistent with, or of the same general character as, the consideration recited in the conveyance."

67

§ 35. Knowledge and intent of grantee generally. The declarations of the grantee or vendee are competent and admissible as evidence upon the issue as to the grantee's knowledge and intent at the time of taking the conveyance.70 In determining the

Va. 404, 12 S. E. 805, 24 Am. St. Rep. 659.

W. Va.-Butler v. Thompson, 45 W. Va. 660, 31 S. E. 960, 72 Am. St. Rep. 838; Himan v. Thorn, 32 W. Va. 507, 9 S. E. 930; Rogers v. Verlander, 30 W. Va. 619, 5 S. E. 847.

65. Amsden v. Manchester, 40 Barb. (N. Y.) 158; Myers v. Peck, 2 Ala. 648; Leach v. Shelly, 58 Miss. 681.

66. Ferguson v. Harrison, 41 S. C. 340, 19 S. E. 619; Jackson v. Lewis, 32 S. C. 593, 10 S. E. 1074; Featherston v. Dagnell, 29 S. C. 45, 6 S. E. 897; Casto v. Fry, 33 W. Va. 449, 10 S. E. 799.

67. Finn v. Krut, 13 Tex. Civ. App. 36, 34 S. W. 1013.

68. Houston v. Blackman, 66 Ala. 559, 41 Am. Rep. 756; Carmack v. Lovett, 44 Ark. 180; Glenn v. Mc

Neal, 3 Md. Ch. 349; Stolz v. Van-
atta, 32 Wkly. L. Bul. (Ohio) 100;
Ogden State Bank v. Barker, 12
Utah, 13, 40 Pac. 765.

69. Gordon v. Tweedy, 71 Ala. 202;
Hubbard V.
Allen, 59 Ala. 283;
Diggs v. McCullough, 69 Md. 592, 16
Atl. 453; Cole v. Albers, 1 Gill. (Md.)
412; Harris v. Alcock, 10 Gill & J.
(Md.) 226, 32 Am. Dec. 158; Clagett
v. Hall, 9 Gill & J. (Md.) 80; Sexton
v. Anderson, 95 Mo. 373, 8 S. W. 564;
Grote v. Meyer, 6 Ohio Dec. 1025, 9
Am. L. Rec. 623.

70. Conn.-Lesseh v. Brown, 75 Conn. 491, 54 Atl. 205.

Ind. T.-Foster v. McAlester, 3 Ind.
T. 307, 58 S. W. 679.
Iowa.-McNorton
Iowa, 369.

V.

Akers, 24

74

75

grantee's knowledge and intent, where the issue is as to whether or not a conveyance was fraudulent as to creditors, evidence is also admissible as to the use which the parties made of the conveyance," as to whether the grantee knew at the time of the purchase that the property had been invoiced at night or anything about it," as to the grantee's intoxication at the time of the conveyance, that he acted upon the advice of counsel, or that he had notice of a suit pending against the grantor, or any other fact which, under the general rules of evidence, tends to prove or disprove such knowledge or intent.76 Evidence as to the conduct of third persons, alleged to have been parties to the fraud, is admissible, although the grantee was not connected with them." But evidence as to declarations of the fraudulent grantor is inadmissible to charge the vendee or grantee with a fraudulent intent, since although it might prove fraud on the part of the grantor, it is only hearsay as to the intent of the grantee,78 unless there is other evidence connecting the grantee

[blocks in formation]

Tenn.-Harton v. Lyons, 97 Tenn. 180, 36 S. W. 851.

Wis. Gillet v. Phelps, 12 Wis. 392. 71. Constantine V. Twelves, 29 Ala. 607.

72. Hodges v. Coleman, 76 Ala. 103. 73. Bendetson v. Moody, 100 Mich. 553, 59 N. W. 252.

74. Brown v. Mitchell, 102 N. C. 347, 9 S. E. 702, 11 Am. St. Rep. 748.

Whether the grantee had sufficient notice is not affected by the fact that after the purchase he submitted the papers to an attorney for examination and advice. C. Aultman & Co. v. Utsey, 34 S. C. 559, 13 S. E. 848.

75. Coulter v. Lumpkin, 100 Ga. 784, 28 S. E. 459.

76. U. S.-Treusch v. Ottenberg, 54 Fed. 867, 4 C. C. A. 629.

Conn.-Smith v. Brockett, 69 Conn. 492, 38 Atl. 57.

Mich.-Ganong v. Green, 71 Mich. 1, 38 N. W. 661.

N. C.-Perry v. Hardison, 99 N. C. 21, 5 S. E. 230.

Wis.-Kalk v. Fielding, 50 Wis. 339, 7 N. W. 296.

The record of a prior suit against the grantor, in which part of the property was attached just after the grantee took possession, is inadmissible, where it appears that when the attachment was levied the grantee had given his note for the price, and his grantor credited on such note the value of the property seized. Mix v. Ege, 67 Minn. 116, 69 N. W. 703.

77. Pohalski v. Ertheiler, 18 Misc. Rep. (N. Y.) 33, 41 N. Y. Supp. 10.

78. N. Y.-Baldwin v. Short, 125 N. Y. 553, 26 N. E. 928, aff'g 54 Hun,

« AnteriorContinuar »