Bank of Versailles v. Guthrey

Decision Date05 March 1895
Citation127 Mo. 189,29 S.W. 1004
PartiesBANK OF VERSAILLES v. GUTHREY et al.
CourtMissouri Supreme Court

3. A father lived on land with his two children, a son and a daughter, both of whom were over 29 years of age, and who worked for him until their marriage without wages, as members of the family, regarding him as the head of the family. Held, that he was entitled, as the head of a family, to claim the land as his homestead.

Appeal from circuit court, Morgan county; D. W. Shackleford, Judge.

Bill by the Bank of Versailles against James S. Guthrey and Ann E. Waller. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

A. L. Ross, for appellant. J. A. Blevins, for respondents.

BURGESS, J.

This is an equitable proceeding to set aside a deed, made by the defendant Guthrey on the 29th day of December, 1891, to his daughters and codefendant, Mrs. Waller, to 108 acres of land in Morgan county. Defendant Guthrey bought the land in May, 1885. Prior to its purchase he lived in Saline county, Mo. His wife died in 1874. He bought the land for a homestead, and moved onto it with his son James B., then about 29 years of age, and his daughter Callie, somewhat older, they being the only members of his family. He continued to live on the land, and farm it, until his son and daughter both married and left home; and being then 80 years old, feeble and almost helpless, he conveyed the land to his daughter Mrs. Waller, upon the express condition and in consideration that she would maintain and support him during his natural life, and then moved to her house, where he has since remained, being taken care of and provided for by her. The land was all of the property that James S. Guthrey had at the time he deeded it to his daughter. It was worth from $1,200 to $1,500. The evidence was conflicting as to who was the head of the family while defendant and his son lived on the land, — whether it was defendant or his son. In August, 1892, plaintiff obtained judgment in the circuit court of Morgan county, Mo., against the defendant James S. and his son J. B. Guthrey for the sum of $155.50; and, being unable to make the judgment or any part of it, plaintiff instituted this suit to set aside the deed from defendant Guthrey to his daughter, on the ground that it was fraudulent as to his creditors, and to subject the land therein described to the payment of his debt. The court rendered judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appealed.

Plaintiff's first contention is that, as the land in controversy was all the property that defendant Guthrey owned at the time of the execution of the deed therefor to his daughter Mrs. Waller, the only consideration agreed upon being the grantor's support during his lifetime, the deed was absolutely void as to his creditors, as the law will not allow one to transfer his property in consideration of an obligation for support for life, unless he retains a sufficient amount to pay his debts. With respect to property which may be subjected to the payment of the debts of a debtor, we fully agree to the rule announced in Wait, Fraud. Conv. (2d Ed.) § 211; Crane v. Stickles, 15 Vt. 252; Stanley v. Robbins, 36 Vt. 432; Woodward v. Wyman, 53 Vt. 647; that is, that he cannot convey his property which is subject to the payment of his debts in consideration of an obligation for support for life, or any considerable length of time, unless he retain whatever is necessary to satisfy his creditors, as the law will not allow any person having means to make provision for himself and family during life at the expense of his creditors. To do so would be to encourage fraud, by permitting a debtor, possessed of an unlimited amount of property, to place it beyond the reach of his creditors, by conveying it for and in consideration of the support of himself and wife or any member of his family for and during the life of any one or all of them. But the law as thus announced has no application to property which is exempt from seizure and sale under attachment and execution, such as a homestead. Creditors have no interest in such property, as it cannot be subjected to the payment of their debts by proceedings in equity, any more than it can be seized under attachment or execution. Kendall v....

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