35 circumstances which are such as to convince a reasonable man that the conveyance was made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.34 Where fraud is charged express proof is not required, but it may be inferred from strong presumptive circumstances. But while fraud must usually be gathered from circumstances, yet the finding of its existence must not result from mere suspicion, but from testimony sufficient to overcome the presumption of fair dealing.36 36 The evidence to prove the fraud, though it may be cir Ind.-Heaton v. Shanklin, 115 Ind. 595, 18 N. E. 172; Wright v. Nipple, 92 Ind. 310; Farmer v. Calvert, 14 Ind. 209; De Ruiter v. De Ruiter, 28 Ind. App. 9, 62 N. E. 100, 91 Am. St. Rep. 107. Iowa.-Smyth v. Hall, 126 Iowa, 627, 102 N. W. 520; Turner v. Younker, 76 Iowa, 258, 41 N. W. 10; McCreary v. Skinner, 75 Iowa, 411, 39 N. W. 674. Ky.-Bradley v. Buford, 2 Ky. Dec. 12, 2 Am. Dec. 703. La.-Succession of Dickson, 37 La. Ann. 795; King v. Atkins, 33 La. Ann. 1057; Fass v. Rice, 30 La. Ann. 1278. Md.-Baltimore High Grade Brick Co. v. Amos, 95 Md. 571, 52 Atl. 582, 53 Atl. 148. Miss.-Pope v. Andrews, Sm. & M. Ch. 135. Mo.-Gentry v. Field, 143 Mo. 399, 45 S. W. 286; New York Store Mercantile Co. v. West, 107 Mo. App. 254, 80 S. W. 923; Renney v. Williams, 89 Mo. 139, 1 S. W. 227; Burgert v. Borchert, 59 Mo. 80. N. H.-McConihe v. Sawyer, 12 N. H. 396. Pa. Kaine v. Weigley, 22 Pa. St. 179. S. C.-McGee v. Wells, 52 S. C. 472, 30 S. E. 602; Hudnal v. Wilder, 4 McCord 294, 17 Am. Dec. 744. Tex.-Burch v. Smith, 15 Tex. 219, 65 Am. Dec. 154; Briscoe v. Bronaugh, 1 Tex. 326, 46 Am. Dec. 108; Jack v. El Paso Fuel Co. (Civ. App. 1896), 38 S. W. 1139. W. Va.-Knight v. Nease, 53 W. Va. 50, 44 S. E. 414; Vandervoort v. Fouse, 52 W. Va. 214, 43 S. E. 112; Stauffer v. Kennedy, 47 W. Va. 714, 35 S. E. 892. Wis.-Kaufer v. Walsh, 88 Wis. 63, 59 N. W. 460; Breslauer v. Geilfuss, 65 Wis. 377, 27 N. W. 47. Eng.-Thompson v. Webster, 28 L. J. Ch. 700, 7 Wkly. Rep. 648. 34. Hutchinson v. Boltz, 35 W. Va. 754, 14 S. E. 267; Burt v. Timmons, 29 W. Va. 441, 2 S. E. 780, 6 Am. St. Rep. 664; Livesay v. Beard, 22 W. Va. 585; Goshorn v. Snodgrass, 17 W. Va. 717; Hunter v. Hunter, 10 W. Va. 321. 35. Parkhurst v. McGraw, 24 Miss. 134; Rinkle v. Nichols, 7 Mo. App. 591; Tognini v. Kyle, 15 Nev. 464. 36. Ala.-Smith v. Collins, 94 Ala. 394, 10 So. 334. D. C.-McDaniel v. Parish, 4 App. D. C. 213. Iowa.-Smyth v. Hall, 126 Iowa, 627, 102 N. W. 520. Ky.-Thomas v. Whitaker, 7 Ky. L. Rep. 43; Walker v. Smith, 6 Ky. L. Rep. 457. 37 cumstantial and presumptive, must be strong and cogent, clear and satisfactory, such as will satisfy a man of sound judgment of the fact. A finding that a conveyance was made with intent to defraud creditors is warranted where the general bearing of the evidence indicates fraud, although no one distinct fact proves it.38 § 45. Evidence of plaintiff's right to sue.-Where a party attempts, as a creditor, to impeach a conveyance as fraudulent, clear and convincing proof of the existence and good faith of his claim is necessary in order to enable him to set the conveyance aside.39 Evidence of an attachment suit and the papers and proceedings therein is not sufficient to prove that plaintiff is in fact a creditor and therefore entitled to contest the validity of a transfer alleged to be in fraud of creditors,40 in the absence of proof of a Miss.-White v. Trotter, 22 Miss. 30, 53 Am. Dec. 112. Mo.-Farmers' Bank v. Worthington, 145 Mo. 91, 46 S. W. 745; Waddington v. Loker, 55 Mo. 132, 100 Am. Dec. 260. N. H.-Jones v. Emery, 40 N. H. 348. 37. N. Y.-Henry v. Henry, 8 Barb. 588. Ala.-Chamberlain v. Dorrance, 69 Ala. 40. Ariz.-Costello v. Friedman (1903), 71 Pac. 935. Ill.-Schroeder v. Walsh, 120 Ill. 403. 11 N. E. 70. La.-Summers v. Clarke, 32 La. Ann. 670. Utah.-Wilson v. Cunningham, 24 Utah, 167, 67 Pac. 118. 38. Harwick v. Weddington, 73 Iowa, 300, 24 N. W. 868; McDaniels v. Perkins, 64 Iowa, 174, 19 N. W. 902; Lehmer v. Herr, 1 Duv. (Ky.) 360. 39. N. Y.-Wright v. Douglass, 2 N. Y. 373, rev'g 3 Barb. 554; O'Con judgment, or of the existence of a debt for which judgment is demanded.41 42 § 46. Adjudication of creditor's claim.-As a general rule, where a judgment creditor attacks his debtor's conveyance as fraudulent, the judgment or decree is prima facie evidence only, and not conclusive, of the validity of the claim, and that the claimant is a bona fide creditor entitled to impeach the conveyance. But on a bill by a judgment creditor to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance antedating the judgment, the judgment is not even prima facie evidence that the debt existed at the time of the conveyance. 13 In an action to set aside a conveyance or assignment as a fraud upon creditors, judgments against the assignor are no evidence against the assignee or other strangers of the previous existence of the indebtedness on which they are founded.“ Ill.-Currier v. Ford, 26 Ill. 488. Kan. Morris v. Trumbo, 1 Kan. App. 150, 41 Pac. 974. Ky.-Sharp v. Wickliffe, 13 Ky. 10, 14 Am. Dec. 37. Mass.-Damon v. Bryant, 19 Mass. 411. Wis.-Jones v. Lake, 2 Wis. 210. 41. Chatterton v. Mason, 86 Md. 236, 37 Atl. 960; Wright v. Crockett, 7 Mo. 125. 42. N. Y.-Dewey v. Moyer, 9 Hun, 473; New York, etc., R. Co. v. Kyle, 18 N. Y. Super Ct. 587. Ala.-Lawson v. Alabama Warehouse Co., 73 Ala. 289. Ark.-Clark v. Anthony, 31 Ark. 546. Cal.-Hills v. Sherwood, 48 Cal. 386. Ill.-Weightman v. Hatch, 17 Ill. 281. Ky.-Alexander v. Quigley, 65 Ky. 399; Harlan v. Barnes, 35 Ky. 219. La.-Dumas v. Lefebvre, 10 Rob. 399; Lopez v. Bergel, 12 La. 197. See Fink v. Martin, 1 La. Ann. 117. Me.-Miller v. Miller, 23 Me. 22, 39 Am. Dec. 597. Mass.-Inman v. Mead, 97 Mass. 310; Reid v. Davis, 33 Mass. 388. N. C.-Hafner v. Irwin, 26 N. C. 529. Vt.-Church v. Chapin, 35 Vt. 223. Contra. Faber v. Matz, 86 Wis. 370, 67 N. W. 39. 43. Ala.-Means v. Hicks, 65 Ala. 241; Marshall v. Croom, 60 Ala. 121. Ill.-Sweet v. Dean, 43 Ill. App. 650. Minn.-Bloom v. Moy, 43 Minn. 397, 45 N. W. 715, 19 Am. St. Rep. 243; Hartman v. Weiland, 36 Minn. 223, 30 N. W. 815; Olmstead County v. Barbour, 31 Minn. 256, 17 N. W. 473, 944; Braley v. Byrnes, 20 Minn. 435; Bruggerman v. Hoerr, 7 Minn. 337, 82 Am. Dec. 97. Mo.-Eddy v. Baldwin, 23 Mo. 588. Vt.-Warner v. Percy, 22 Vt. 155. 44. Burton v. Platter, 53 Fed. 901, 4 C. C. A. 95, 10 U. S. App. 657. 47. Pleadings. Where the complainant proceeds to a hearing on the bill and answer, or on bill, answer, and exhibits, all well pleaded averments of the answer, whether responsive to the allegations of the bill or in avoidance, are admitted to be true, and, in the absence of a statutory rule to the contrary, where the answer is responsive to the charges contained in the bill or complaint, it must be taken to be true, unless proven to be false by the evidence.45 But, under the statute, a positive denial of fraud, in the answer to a bill to set aside an assignment as fraudulent, is not conclusive at a hearing upon bill and answer because of complainant's omission to reply, if it appears plainly upon the face of the assignment that it was intended to hinder and delay creditors." The facts may raise such a presumption of fraud as to overcome the answer of defendants, but a decree for complainant on no other evidence than the grantor's answer is erroneous. A deed may be decreed fraudulent over the denial of the maker in his sworn answer.19 Where a legal presumption of fraud is raised by the bill and it appears from the defendant's answer that the evidence is peculiarly within the defendant's power, the conveyance must be proved to be good by other evidence than the answer.50 48 N. J.-Evans v. Evans (Ch. 1904), 59 Atl. 564; Stoutenbourgh v. Konkle, 15 N. J. Eq. 33. N. C.-Hawkins v. Alston, 39 N. C. 137. Va.-Keagy v. Trout, 85 Va. 390, 7 S. E. 329. 46. Cunningham V. Freeborn, 1 Edw. Ch. (N. Y.) 456. 47. Vandall v. Vandall, 13 Iowa, 247. 48. Shirley v. Shields, 8 Blackf. (Ind.) 273. 49. English v. King, 57 Tenn. 666. 50. Callan v. Stratham, 64 U. S. 477, 16 L. Ed. 532. See also McCorkle v. Montgomery, 11 Rich. Eq. (S. C.) 114. § 48. Nature and circumstances of transaction generally.— In a suit to set aside a conveyance as fraudulent as to creditors, the fraudulent character of the transaction may be established by various facts and circumstances, such as appear in the cases cited in the note below.51 The assignment by a debtor of his book accounts, or wages,53 may be shown to be fraudulent by attending circumstances. The fact that articles of personalty were conveyed without inventory, measurement, or count, secrecy in the trans 52 51. N. Y.-Robinson v. Hawley, 45 App. Div. 287, 61 N. Y. Supp. 138; Iselin v. Goldstein, 35 Misc. Rep. 489, 71 N. Y. Supp. 1069; Watson v. Dealy, 26 Misc. Rep. 20, 55 N. Y. Supp. 563; Home Bank v. J. P. Brewster, 17 Misc. Rep. 442, 41 N. Y. Supp. 203; Angrave v. Stone, 25 How. Pr. 167; Hendricks v. Robinson, 2 Johns. Ch. 283, aff'd 17 Johns. 438. U. S.-McDonald V. First Nat. Bank, 116 Fed. 129, 53 C. C. A. 533. Ala.-Murphy v. Green, 128 Ala. 486, 30 So. 643. Ga.-Banks v. McCandless, 119 Ga. 793, 47 S. E. 332. Ill.-Whitley v. Scroggin, 95 Ill. App. 530. Ind.-Fitch v. Rising Sun Bank, 99 Ind. 443. Iowa.-Jordan V. Crickett, 123 Iowa, 576, 99 N. W. 163. Kan.-Wing v. Miller, 40 Kan. 511, 20 Pac. 119. Ky.-Harrison v. Calvert, 23 Ky. L. Rep. 890, 64 S. W. 521. Md.-Wise v. Pfaff, 98 Md. 576, 56 Mich.-Desbecker v. Mendelson, 117 Mo.-Bradshaw v. Halpin, 180 Mo. 666, 79 S. W. 685; Snell v. Harrison, 104 Mo. 158, 16 S. W. 152; Hunger 54 ford v. Greengard, 95 Mo. App. 653, 69 S. W. 602. Neb.-Pennett v. Warner, 53 Neb. 780, 74 N. W. 261. N. J.—Levy v. Levy (Ch. 1904), 57 Atl. 1011; Union Square Nat. Bank v. Simmons (Ch. 1899), 42 Atl. 489. Or.-Craig v. California Vineyard Co. (1896), 46 Pac. 421. Pa.-De Wolf v. McNabb, 1 Pa. Cas. 156, 1 Atl. 440. Tenn.-Berry v. Sofge (Ch. App. 1907), 46 S. W. 456. Tex.-Frost v. Mason, 17 Tex. Civ. App. 465, 44 S. W. 53. Wash.-Mosley v. Donnell (1906), 85 Pac. 259. Wis.-Sheboygan Boot, etc., Co. v. Miller, 99 Wis. 527, 75 N. W. 87. 52. Ballou V. Andrews Banking Co., 128 Cal. 562, 61 Pac. 102. 53. O'Connor v. Meehan, 47 Minn. 247, 49 N. W. 982. 54. Ind.-Seavey v. Walker, 108 Ind. 78, 9 N. E. 347; Fitch v. Rising Sun Bank, 99 Ind. 443. Iowa.-Redhead v. Pratt, 72 Iowa, 99, 33 N. W. 382. Kan.-Roberts v. Radcliff, 35 Kan. 502, 11 Pac. 406. Tenn.-Phillips-Buttorff Mfg. Co. v. Williams (1900), 63 S. W. 185. Tex.-Blossman v. Friske, 33 Tex. Civ. App. 191, 76 S. W. 73. |