Renney v. Williams

• Citation: 1 S.W. 227,89 Mo. 139
• Parties: RENNEY, Interpleader, v. WILLIAMS.
• Decision Date: 07 June 1886
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

1 S.W. 227

89 Mo. 139

RENNEY, Interpleader, v. WILLIAMS.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

June 7, 1886.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — INSOLVENCY — EVIDENCE OF FRAUD.

Neither the insolvency of the grantor, nor his relationship to the grantee, establishes fraud, though both are suspicious circumstances, and should be allowed to go to the jury. Testimony reviewed, and found for the creditor, on the peculiar circumstances of the case.¹

Appeal from Cape Girardeau circuit court.

Controversy between plaintiff in attachment and intervening claimant as to the ownership of the property. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

R. L. & R. P. Wilson, for plaintiff in error. No appearance for defendant in error.

RAY, J.

This was a controversy between an interpleader in an attachment suit and the plaintiff in said action as to the ownership of the property attached in said suit. The facts and transactions out of which the controversy arose, as we gather from the record, are substantially as follows: In the fall of 1877 one Joseph M. Hamilton, a resident of Cape Girardeau, Missouri, died, possessed of an estate of considerable value, consisting of real and personal property, leaving as his only heirs at law his two brothers, William M. Hamilton and David J. Hamilton, who formerly lived in the same county.

On October 9, 1880, the probate court of said county, having charge of said estate, made an order of distribution of said estate among the heirs. Some years prior thereto it appears that said William M. Hamilton, one of said heirs, was a United States revenue collector for one of the revenue districts in Missouri, and as such defaulted, and then moved to the state of Texas, and became insolvent. Harrison H. M. Williams was one of his bondsmen. The United States sued Hamilton's securities, and obtained judgment against them, and said Williams, as such bondsman, had to pay part of said debt and judgment; and thereafter brought a suit, by attachment and publication, against said William M. Hamilton for the amount so due from him, and caused his interest in the estate of his said brother to be levied upon in due form. Two writs of attachment were issued and levied in this cause, — the first was issued and served on the eleventh of February, 1880, and the second on May 11, 1880. Due notice of the suit also was filed in the recorder's office on February 11, 1880, showing the levy of the writ of attachment on that day. A few days thereafter, on February 24, 1880, there was filed for record and recorded a deed from said William M. Hamilton to his son-in-law, James W. Renney, dated March 2, 1878, for his said interest in the estate of his said brother, and by virtue of this deed said Renney, interpleading in said attachment suit, claimed the property thus attached, alleging in his said interplea that he had purchased the same in good faith, and for a valuable consideration. To this interplea Williams, the plaintiff in said attachment suit, filed his answer, containing — First, a general denial; second, that if said purchase was made by Renney it was without consideration, fraudulent, and void as to him; third, that said sale by Hamilton to Renney was made to hinder, delay, and defraud Hamilton's creditors, and that Renney knew of said intent. To this answer of Williams, Renney, the interpleader, filed a general denial, and upon these pleadings, and the issues thus made, and the evidence in the cause, a trial was had before the court without a jury, and without instructions asked or given, and the finding and judgment of the court was against the interpleader, Renney, and in favor of Williams, the plaintiff in said attachment suit, from which Renney, the interpleader, has brought the case here by writ of error.

The substance of the evidence for the interpleader, Renney, was as follows: (1) A warranty deed from said William M. Hamilton to said James W. Renney, dated March 2, 1878, recorded in the recorder's office of Cape Girardeau county, Missouri, twenty-fourth of February, 1880, conveying his interest in the estate of his said brother Joseph M. Hamilton to said James W. Renney, the interpleader, for the consideration, as therein expressed, of $1,000 in hand paid by said Renney. (2) The deposition of said Renney, the interpleader, who said: "About March 1, 1878, I purchased from William M. Hamilton his interest in the estate of Joseph M. Hamilton, deceased, for which I paid him the sum of $1,000. I purchased the same in good faith. I did not know at that time that William M. Hamilton was indebted to any one. Cross-examination. I was a son-in-law of William M. Hamilton at the time of the purchase, and both of us lived in Houston, Texas, but did not live together. Hamilton first mentioned the trade. I had never been in Missouri. All the information I had about the property I got from Hamilton. He said his interest in the estate of Joseph M. Hamilton was worth at least $1,400, besides a piece of property that had been sold and not paid for, the purchase money of which was due the heirs of Joseph Hamilton. I expected to get the property in a short time. At the time of the sale to me I paid Hamilton $1,000 in cash. Hamilton's financial condition at that time was bad, having just been burned out. I considered him insolvent. I did not know that a judgment had been obtained against Hamilton or his bondsmen. My business at the time of the trade was fishing, and had money ahead." This was all the evidence offered by interpleader.

Thereupon plaintiff in attachment introduced: (1) The will of Joseph M. Hamilton, dated September 2, 1877, and probated December 1, 1877, in which he makes certain specific bequests; one, the third, being as follows: "Third, my watch I leave to my nephew, Joseph E. Hamilton." In addition the will disposes of about $400, and leaves the residue of the property undisposed of. Neither William M. Hamilton nor David J. Hamilton is mentioned in the will, directly or indirectly. (2) A letter from William M. Hamilton to plaintiff in attachment, H. H. M. Williams, dated March 22, 1878, containing the following: "With regard to my brother's estate, whatever right be derived from it was merely devised to me in trust for the education of his namesake, (my son,) and, in order to enable me to comply with the injunctions of my brother in that respect, I, on the seventh inst., sold all interest in the same to Jas. W. Renney, of this city, for cash in hand. If there were a dime in it by which I could have profited individually I should have turned it over to you long ago." (3) The deposition of William M. Hamilton, as follows: "I resided about thirty years in the state of Missouri, prior to 1872. Since then lived in Houston, Texas, until six or seven months since, when I came to Belton, Texas. In 1877, I lived in Houston, Texas. I have a brother Joseph M. Hamilton, who resided occasionally in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and who died in the summer of 1877. At the time of his death he owned a piece of real estate in Cape Girardeau county, Missouri, also some notes secured by mortgage. Do not remember the value, but think about $3,000. I had at one time the correct data, but it was destroyed by fire while I resided in Houston, Texas, and I am compelled to rely on memory. My brother left a will at his death, but am informed by my attorney, Robert L. Wilson, that no action was taken under it, but the property was allowed to descend, under the laws of the state of Missouri, to his legal heirs. I am one of them. A short time after my brother's death, while I expected to receive my share under the will, I sold my interest to James W. Renney for the sum of $1,000 in cash. My interest would have been about $1,500. Renney is my son-in-law. I last heard from my attorney, Robert L. Wilson, about 18 months ago. When I sold my interest in said estate I was in need of money to start a job-printing office in Houston, and was anxious to get my business started, and I made a sacrifice in order to get the cash to invest in my business. I invested it all in the job-printing business, and continued in the business till July, 1879, when I was burned out by fire, when I lost it all, except some insurance." (4) Two writs of attachment issued in the case of H. H. M. Williams v. William M. Hamilton, with the returns indorsed, — the first issued February 11, 1880, and served on the same day, the second dated May 11, 1880, and executed on the same day; and the plaintiff in the attachment suit then offered sheriff's return May 11, 1880, levying on S. E. ¼ of S. W. ¼ section 27, township 31, range 13, six lots in the city of Cape Girardeau, (property of the estate of Joseph M. Hamilton,) and attaching the interest of W. M. Hamilton in the hands of R. H. Whitelaw, administrator of J. M. Hamilton, deceased. Then, certified copy of the record filing notice of attachment in the recorder's office; then, certified order of distribution of the probate court of Cape Girardeau county, Missouri, on the administrator of Joseph M. Hamilton, to distribute the assets of the estate at February term, 1881, to heirs and legatees of said Joseph M. Hamilton; and this was all the testimony offered by Harrison H. M. Williams, defendant in the interplea.

Interpleader, Renney, then offered Robert H. Whitelaw, who stated: "The deed from W. M. Hamilton to Renney was sent to me from Texas to be recorded. Am not certain who sent it to me, — Hamilton or Renney, — but think it was sent by J. W. Renney. I had it in possession some time. I did not have it recorded, because the fee to pay the recorder was not sent. There was some correspondence about it, and it was afterwards recorded, but don't think the recorder's fee was sent; but I wrote and told the party who sent the deed to send the money for recording, or I would not file it for record. The money never came. I may have turned the deed over to Robert L. Wilson, or some other person."

This is, in substance, all the evidence...