27 N.E. 616 (Ind. 1891), 15,957, McConnell v. The Citizens' State Bank of Petersburgh

Docket Nº:15,957
Citation:27 N.E. 616, 130 Ind. 127
Opinion Judge:McBride, J.
Party Name:McConnell et al. v. The Citizens' State Bank of Petersburgh
Attorney:L. C. Embree, for appellants. J. H. Miller and F. B. Posey, for appellee.
Case Date:May 12, 1891
Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Page 616

27 N.E. 616 (Ind. 1891)

130 Ind. 127

McConnell et al.

v.

The Citizens' State Bank of Petersburgh

No. 15,957

Supreme Court of Indiana

May 12, 1891

Petition for a Rehearing Overruled Jan. 6, 1892.

From the Gibson Circuit Court.

Judgment reversed, with instructions to the circuit court to grant a new trial.

L. C. Embree, for appellants.

J. H. Miller and F. B. Posey, for appellee.

OPINION

McBride, J.

This was a suit by a creditor to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance of land by his debtor. On the 19th day of January, 1889, James H. McConnell and Elisha E. Bell executed to appellee their note for $ 3,000, borrowed money. At that time McConnell owned the land in controversy, with other lands. On the 31st day of January, 1889, he, with his wife, Lotta McConnell, conveyed the land in controversy to the appellants, who on the same day conveyed the undivided one-half of the same to said Lotta for the term of her natural life. Appellant William T. McConnell is a son of said James H., and appellee claims that the conveyance to him and his wife by James H. and Lotta was voluntary and without consideration, and left the debtor without sufficient property remaining for the payment of his debts.

The appellants present and argue several propositions. The conclusion we have reached, however, after a careful examination [130 Ind. 128] of the evidence, renders it unnecessary for us to examine or pass upon more than two of these questions. The allegations of the paragraph of the complaint upon which the finding is based are sufficient.

The facts, as developed by the evidence, are substantially as follows, in so far as they bear on the question of consideration for said conveyance:

July 16th, 1861, the debtor, James H. McConnell, was a widower, with two children, both infants. One was the appellant William T., and the other was a daughter, named Isadora. He owned a tract of land in Gibson county, known in this litigation as the Barton township farm. This farm he conveyed to said children on that day. Afterward the daughter died intestate, leaving as her sole heirs her father and brother. February 26th, 1883, the appellant, having come of full age, conveyed the land to his father. He testifies that this was done because he had become dissatisfied with the Barton township land, and wanted instead the land now in controversy, which at that time was an undivided interest, in what was known as the Hargrove farm, and that it was then agreed between him and his father that he should deed the Barton farm back to the father, who should, in exchange therefor, convey to him the Hargrove farm as soon as he had cleared it of a mortgage then on it for purchasemoney; and that if it was not...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP