Rhodes v. Wood

• Citation: 28 S.W. 294,93 Tenn. 702
• Parties: RHODES et al. v. WOOD et al.
• Decision Date: 25 October 1894
• Court: Supreme Court of Tennessee

28 S.W. 294

93 Tenn. 702

RHODES et al.
v.
WOOD et al.

Supreme Court of Tennessee.

October 25, 1894

Appeal from chancery court, Hamilton county; T. M. McConnell, Chancellor.

Bill in equity by A. G. Rhodes & Co. and others against H. B. Wood and others, to set aside a certain conveyance. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Chambliss & Chambliss, for appellants Rhodes & Co.

H. B. Case, for appellees.

McALISTER, J.

This bill was filed by judgment creditors of the defendant H. B. Wood, to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance from the defendant to his wife, Alice J. Wood. The property conveyed was a lot of household and kitchen furniture. The transfer purports to have been made to pay a pre-existing indebtedness of $400, due the wife for money borrowed. The bill charges there was no consideration for said transfer, that the alleged consideration of $400 was fictitious, and that the conveyance was a mere device to defraud creditors. Wood and wife, in their answer, deny that the consideration was colorable, but aver that the $400 was loaned the husband by the wife under an agreement that it should be paid back when demanded. Defendants do not show, in their answer, when nor how said loan was made, nor from what source the wife derived the $400 alleged to have been loaned. The only proof filed in the case was taken by the complainants, which consisted simply of a certified copy of the conveyance attacked, and proof to show the character and amount of complainants' debts. The complainants introduced no proof tending to show that said conveyance was fraudulent. The defendants took no proof at all, and the bill waived an answer under oath. At the hearing, the chancellor dismissed the bill. Complainants appealed, and have assigned errors.

The whole controversy in this court is in respect to the burden of proof. The insistence of complainants' counsel is that the money belonged to the husband, and the wife must show affirmatively that she acquired it in such a manner as to constitute a separate estate; that, in the absence of such proof, the presumption of law that the money belonged to the husband would be controlling. It is admitted that the general rule in Tennessee is to the effect that, when a conveyance is attacked, the burden of proof rests on the complainant. But it is insisted that this rule is satisfied, in the present case, by the presumption of law. The fallacy of the argument is in the assumption that there...