Seay v. Hesse

• Decision Date: 31 January 1894
• Citation: 24 S.W. 1017,123 Mo. 450
• Parties: SEAY v. HESSE et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

24 S.W. 1017

123 Mo. 450

SEAY v. HESSE et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 2.

January 31, 1894.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — WIFE'S SEPARATE PROPERTY — HUSBAND'S SERVICES.

1. Act March 1875. (Rev. St. 1879, § 3296,) which preserves separate to the wife personalty inherited during coverture, unless reduced to possession by the husband with her written assent, applies to a half interest in a mortgage inherited by a wife in 1872, and applied by her husband in 1876, after passage of the act, to the purchase of the mortgaged land; and when, after investment in and exchange of several properties in his own name, he takes title in his wife for property of about the same value as said interest, he having acquired no property of consequence before or since his marriage, unless from product or profit of her investment, she may hold such property as against his creditors.

2. The husband having acquired no property, since marriage, except the product of his wife's estate, the results of his personal labor, and the amount paid by him on property bought for his wife beyond her original fortune, are not subject to levy by his creditors, since his obligation to support his family authorized him to work on her land, without wages, for their support.

Appeal from circuit court, Dent county; C. C. Bland, Judge.

Action by A. J. Seay to charge certain real estate owned by Elizabeth Hesse with a judgment against her husband, George Hesse. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

E. A. Seay and L. B. Woodside, for appellant. J. B. Harrison, for respondents.

BURGESS, J.

This is an action to charge real estate known as the "Victor Mill Property," which was deeded to the defendant Elizabeth Hesse, with a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against George Hesse, her husband, upon the ground that the property was purchased with money and means of her husband, George Hesse, while he was indebted to this plaintiff, and conveyed to his wife, Elizabeth, for the purpose of hindering and defrauding plaintiff in the collection of his debt. The defense is that the property which was conveyed or traded for this real estate, although in the name of George Hesse, her husband, was in fact the property of the wife, and the taking of the deed to the Victor mill property in the name of the wife was but an act of justice to her. The deeds to Elizabeth Hesse to the half interest in the Victor mill property recite a consideration of $2,450, but Headrick, who made one of the deeds, testified that they estimated the interest in the mill which was conveyed at $1,750, and the personal property — stock in the mill — at $300, which was all conveyed to Elizabeth Hesse, and George Hesse gave therefor what was known as the "Bressie Farm," (subject to a mortgage,) at $1,200, and balance in a note, secured by mortgage on some personal property. When the father of Elizabeth Hesse died, in 1872, there was due him on a note from one Chris Hesse the sum of $2,000, secured by deed of trust on real estate one-half of which belonged to Elizabeth. In 1876 George Hesse bought from Chris the land last mentioned for $2,000, and in part payment therefor put in Elizabeth's half interest in said note, which amounted at the time to $1,300, including interest, and gave his note for the balance. He says that he paid this note from the profits made on the farm, but Knippenberg, a witness for defendants, says that he borrowed $750 from one Fred Bower to pay off this note. Both defendants stated that Chris Hesse owed her more than $1,300, but only that amount was collected. In 1880 George sold this farm that he had bought from his brother, Chris, for $1,800, including some personal property; the farm, however, only brought $1,500. In 1881 he bought a mill in Crawford county from one N. G. Clark for $4,000, of which he only paid $500 in cash, and gave his notes for the balance, part of which were the foundation for plaintiff's judgment. He stayed there two and a half years, and paid on those notes $1,500, and then sold the mill to one Fulton for $1,800 cash, Fulton agreeing to pay the balance of the notes. After selling this mill to Fulton, he bought the Bressie farm, in Dent county, for $1,800, paying $1,200 cash, and giving a deed of trust thereon, executed by him and his wife, for $600, and taking the title to the farm in his own name. This deed of trust for $600 was still against the Bressie farm when he traded it to Headrick, and it was assumed by Headrick. It was in January, 1890, when he bought the Victor mill property, and gave the Bressie farm therefor, subject to the deed of trust, giving his note for the balance, secured by a mortgage on some personal property which he mortgaged. Mrs. Hesse never at any time, so far as the evidence discloses, gave her husband and codefendant, George Hesse, her assent in writing, or authority to sell, incumber, or otherwise dispose of her money or property for his own use and benefit. She would not consent to a sale of the Bressie farm, unless the deed to the Victor mill property was made to her. The court found for defendants, and rendered judgment accordingly, and plaintiff perfected his appeal to this court.

The evidence in this case clearly shows that at the time of the marriage of defendants the husband had but little property of any value, not exceeding, all...