Bean v. Patterson

• Decision Date: 01 January 1881
• Citation: 12 F. 739
• Parties: BEAN and others v. PATTERSON and others.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

12 F. 739

BEAN and others v. PATTERSON and others.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Missouri, Western Division.

October Term, 1881

Botsford & Williams and John P. Lewis, for complainants.

Vories Pike & McKillop, for defendants.

KREKEL D.J.

The bill in this case alleges that complainants in 1873 contracted with defendant William Miller for work to be done on a railroad then building in Ohio; that during the years of 1873 and 1874 work amounting to $16,000 was done under said contract; that on defendant failing to pay for same suit was instituted by plaintiffs in Atchison county, Missouri, and sundry tracts of land attached by virtue of process sued out that judgment for $14,276 was obtained in the suit; that execution issued, and $3,257 and costs were collected thereunder; and that the remainder remains unpaid. The bill proceeds to allege further that on examination of the title of the land attached, such as was not sold under the execution spoken of was found to be encumbered by liens namely, a deed of trust given in 1873 by William Miller, the defendant in the attachment suit, to Patterson, as trustee for his wife, Mary Miller, for $10,000, due in 1876, and a judgment lien of Koontz for $2,071, which encumbrances it is claimed were made and sought to be maintained for the purpose of hindering and delaying the enforcement of liabilities of said William Miller, and specially the complainants, who instituted proceedings in the state courts to remove the clouds upon the title so as to enable them to sell the land and collect their claims. The proceedings spoken of, instituted in the state courts, were, by change of venue, removed into this court, and constitute the subject-matter in litigation. The bill further charges that, after the institution of their attachment suit and proceedings to remove the clouds from the title of the land attached, defendants William Miller and wife, on the third day of January, 1876, conveyed the whole of the land in litigation to Horn and Weaver, two of the defendants, but that, aside from them, other defendants were interested therein; that at the time of said conveyance the trust deed heretofore spoken of was pretended to have been assigned to defendant, Saeger, in consideration of $12,000; that said conveyance and assignment were in fact for the mutual benefit of the defendants named in the bill, and were contrivances to defraud the creditors of William Miller. The bill proceeds further to charge that the Koontz judgment was in reality paid off and satisfied, and kept alive by assignments, so as to encumber and cloud the title. The bill next proceeds to state that when the deed of trust fell due in 1876, Saeger, as assignee thereof, as stated, had the land thereby conveyed sold, and that he, Saeger, became the purchaser thereof, but that in fact said sale and purchase were made under the collusive arrangements charged, for the benefit of the conspirators. The bill thereupon prays that the deed of trust from William Miller to his wife be declared null and void; that the Koontz judgment be declared no lien; and that the defendants interested be made to account for the rents and profits of the land during the time they had the same in possession.

The defendants, answering the bill, say that the transactions had regarding the lands in controversy were all made in good faith and for valuable considerations; deny the intent of hindering or delaying creditors and...