Buhl v. McDowell
| Decision Date | 30 November 1927 |
| Docket Number | No. 6224.,6224. |
| Parties | BUHL v. McDOWELL. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Hyde County; John F. Hughes, Judge.
Action by Carl Buhl, as administrator of the estate of James E. McDowell, deceased, against Marie McDowell. From a judgment for defendant, and an order denying a new trial, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.M. C. Cunningham, of Highmore, for appellant.
M. Harry O'Brien, of Highmore, for respondent.
This is an action brought by Carl Buhl, as administrator of the estate of James E. McDowell, deceased, to set aside as fraudulent a transfer of lands. The transfer involved is that of an undivided one-half interest in 960 acres of land in Hyde county. On October 14, 1920, the plaintiff's intestate held title to this property, and on that day said intestate and his wife, the defendant Marie McDowell, executed a deed of the property to one Effie E. Heywood, and said Effie E. Heywood immediately made a deed conveying the property to the defendant.
The undisputed evidence shows that the conveyance to Effie E. Heywood was made for the sole purpose of allowing her to act as an intermediary in the conveyance of the property by the intestate to his wife, the defendant herein. Therefore, for the purpose of this case, both deeds must be considered together, and to the same effect as if the conveyance to the defendant were made by a single deed direct from the intestate. At the date of the aforesaid deeds the land was incumbered by a mortgage for $7,000. There is some evidence that the intestate considered the property worth $16,000, but whether this was his estimate of the value of the land as a whole, or of his one-half interest therein, is not made clear by the record.
The deeds involved are similar in form, and each recites that it is made for $1 and other valuable considerations. The testimony of Effie E. Heywood shows that there was no consideration passing either to her or from her in the transaction. The defendant was asked whether there was any consideration for the deed to her, and she answered that there was. Further interrogated, she testified that the consideration was “about $2,500 for sums of money loaned at various times during my husband's illness and for me.” And she further testified that part of the $2,500 was paid after she got the deed, and that such payments were various sums of money for household expenses.
The undisputed evidence shows the due qualification of the plaintiff as administrator, the allowance of two claims, aggregating over $5,000 and based upon indebtedness of the intestate, which existed at the date of the deeds above mentioned. There is also evidence to show that the transfer of the property described in the deeds would render James E. McDowell insolvent, and that the plaintiff administrator had been unable to discover any asset of the estate, except his intestate's interest in the land described in these deeds.
The trial court made findings to the effect that the conveyance to the defendant was made “for a good and valuable consideration,” that James E. McDowell did not convey the premises, or cause them to be conveyed, with intent to defraud his creditors, and that the defendant did not take title to said premises for the purpose of aiding James E. McDowell to defraud his creditors. From these findings the trial court entered its conclusion of law and its judgment in favor of the defendant. From this judgment, and from an order denying a new trial, the plaintiff appeals.
[1] The appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to justify the decision of the court; and in this contention we are satisfied that the appellant is correct. The trial court found only that the conveyance from McDowell to his wife was made “for a good and valuable consideration.” But, as against creditors, a consideration that is merely good and valuable will not support a conveyance...
To continue reading
Request your trial