Jamison v. Baggot

Citation106 Mo. 240,16 S.W. 697
PartiesJAMISON et al. v. BAGGOT et al.
Decision Date02 June 1891
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

1. In an action to subject certain lands to the satisfaction of a judgment, the complaint alleged that the legal title thereof was in one to whom the judgment debtor had conveyed fraudulently and without consideration, but stated that the wife of the latter claimed to own such lands, and she was therefore made a defendant. Held, that under such complaint it was competent to introduce evidence impeaching the wife's title.

2. Where, after the commencement of such action, the legal title passed to the wife, it is not necessary for plaintiffs to amend their complaint, though they may do so if they choose.

3. In such action, the petition, answers, and interlocutory and final decrees of the prior action establishing the debt, brought against the husband alone, are admissible against both husband and wife as part of the res gestæ to show his indebtedness at and prior to the date of such final decree, where the fraud is charged to have been begun during the pendency of such suit, and consummated after its close.

4. Where the wife claimed that she derived the money with which to purchase the property in question from land conveyed to her trustee 14 years before by her husband, the fact that plaintiff wrote such deed does not estop him from showing that there was no consideration therefor.

5. The introduction by plaintiff of a deposition of the wife, taken in another proceeding, does not make her his witness, and bar him from impeaching her statements; she being a party to the suit.

6. Where the wife claimed that the purchase money, $8,000, was furnished by her from the income of $13,000 received by her a few years before, and it appears that at this period more than twice as much money was invested in her name as could reasonably have been realized from such sum; and her bank account shows that she must have had remaining over $11,000, for which no account is given; and it appears that the husband was worth $100,000 at the commencement of the action, besides the property for which he became indebted to plaintiffs, and that he had a large income therefrom, and sustained no losses, and that, being sued for $400,000, he had a strong motive for doing business in his wife's name, — the evidence is sufficient to support a finding that the property was bought with the husband's, and not with the wife's, money.

Appeal from St. Louis circuit court; L. B. VALLIANT, Judge.

Action to subject certain lands to the payment of a judgment by D. A. Jamison, as administrator, and others, against Henry C. Baggot and others. From a judgment for plaintiffs, defendants appeal.

M. Kinealy, Jas. R. Kinealy, and Thos. Thoroughman, for appellants. H. A. Clover, T. J. Rowe, and H. A. Clover, Jr., for respondents.

THOMAS, J.

The petition in this case is in the nature of a creditors' bill, and it seeks to set aside and cancel certain conveyances mentioned therein, and to subject the land described in them, situated in the city of St. Louis, to the payment of a judgment in favor of plaintiffs against Charles Bobb, one of the defendants, for the sum of $82,185.16, rendered June 15, 1878. In substance, the petition avers that the debt for which said judgment was rendered by the circuit court of the city of St. Louis accrued during the years 1843 to 1869, inclusive; that John S. Miller held a deed of trust on the lands described, dated the 23d day of September, 1865, for $8,000 principal; that defendant Charles Bobb bought this deed of trust some time after its execution; that on the 6th day of February, 1879, said Charles Bobb caused the land described in this deed of trust, and which is the land involved in this suit, consisting of two tracts, to be sold by the trustee named in the deed of trust, and at the sale said Charles Bobb had Henry C. Baggot, who is also made a defendant herein, to buy said land, and take a deed to himself therefor; that no money was paid for the bid made at this sale, and that said Charles Bobb had the title placed in said Baggot for his own benefit, said Baggot not having any beneficial interest therein, nor having paid anything for it; that Baggot, at the instance and request of said Charles Bobb, conveyed said land to John Letcher without consideration, but that the latter had not then placed his deed on record. The petition then avers that the said defendant Charles Bobb so caused said real estate to be conveyed first to said Baggot, and afterwards to said Letcher, and also caused said conveyance to be withheld from record, with the fraudulent purpose and design of hindering and delaying his said creditors, and to prevent said property from being subjected to the payment of said judgments; that neither said Baggot nor said Letcher have or ever had an interest in said property, nor have they or either of them ever paid anything therefor, but said property in fact belongs to said defendant Charles Bobb, who has caused the title therefor to be placed successively in said Baggot and Letcher, with the fraudulent design aforesaid; that the defendant Martha E. Bobb is the wife of the defendant Charles Bobb; that as plaintiffs are informed and believe, and therefore state, the said defendant Martha E. Bobb now claims and asserts that she is in truth and in fact the owner of the real estate hereinbefore described, and that she was in truth and in fact the owner of the notes secured by deed of trust under which said real estate was sold, as hereinbefore set forth, and that the said real estate was bought in for her, and that she is now the equitable owner of the same, although said real estate now stands in the name of the said John Letcher; wherefore the plaintiffs make the said Martha E. Bobb a party defendant to this action; that nothing has ever been collected on said judgment excepting the sum of six dollars, and that as to the balance of said judgment returns of nulla bona have been made on the executions issued thereon to the sheriff of the said city of St. Louis; wherefore the plaintiffs pray the court that said real estate be decreed to be the property of defendant Charles Bobb, and, as such, to be subject to the lien of said judgments and decree so rendered as aforesaid against said Charles Bobb, and in favor of said John H. Bobb and Lucy G. Taylor, and the said estate of the said Charles L. Bobb, and that said real estate be decreed to be sold as the property of said Charles Bobb, in order that the same may be applied, as far as it will go, towards the payment of said judgments, and for such other and further relief as to the court may seem meet, and as in equity belongs. This petition was filed April 4, 1881. Defendants filed a general denial June 8, 1881. On the 15th day of October, 1887, defendant Martha E. Bobb, who alone actively defended the suit in the court below, filed her separate answer to the petition, as follows: "Now comes the defendant Martha E. Bobb, and by leave of court files this, her separate answer to plaintiffs' petition, and admits that she does claim the property described in plaintiffs' petition, and says that she is the true and sole owner thereof, and that neither defendants Baggot nor Letcher ever had any beneficial interest in said property, but merely held the legal title for short periods, as trustees of and for the sole use and benefit of this defendant, and this defendant states that she has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the facts stated in said petition." Upon the issues thus made, the case came on for trial and was determined. The plaintiff offered documentary evidence, whereupon defendant Martha E. Bobb objected to the introduction of any evidence against her, because no allegations sufficient to charge her property were made in the petition. The court overruled the objection, and defendant Martha E. Bobb excepted to the ruling; and this presents the first question for decision.

Defendants' counsel contend that on the trial the plaintiffs abandoned the case stated in the petition, and, without warning, sprung a new case of fraud, affecting Mrs. Bobb's title to the property, which was not alluded to in their petition, based on an entirely new theory. We do not concur in this view of the issues tendered by the petition. The averment is that Charles Bobb bought the land and paid for it, and had the title placed in Baggot and Letcher for the purpose of hindering and delaying his creditors, and to prevent the property from being subjected to the payment of the judgment in favor of plaintiffs; and then adds that plaintiffs are informed and believe, and so state, that Martha E. Bobb claims to be the equitable owner of the property, and to have paid for it, although the title stood in John Letcher; and it is prayed that she be made a party defendant. It is conceded in the argument that the allegations of the petition make out a good case against Baggot and Letcher; but, as there are no allegations that Mrs. Bobb was guilty of any fraud, it was error, it is claimed, to admit evidence affecting her title. This argument proceeds upon the theory that the pleadings admit the title to the property in controversy to be in Mrs. Bobb. This is an error. The petition positively asserts that the legal title is in John Letcher, and it was put there by Charles Bobb to cover up the property from his creditors. Mrs. Bobb, it is alleged, claims she was the owner of the property, in equity, and had paid for it. This claim of hers, which is alleged in the petition, cannot be held to nullify the previous statements of the petition that Charles Bobb was in fact the owner of the property, had paid for it, and had it conveyed to Letcher to defraud his creditors. Take the petition altogether, there is but one conclusion that can fairly be reached, and that is that whatever...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT