Satterfield v. Malone

• Decision Date: 22 June 1888
• Citation: 35 F. 445
• Parties: SATTERFIELD v. MALONE et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

35 F. 445

SATTERFIELD v. MALONE et al.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

June 22, 1888

Roger Sherman, for complainant.

D. T Watson and J. W. Lee, for respondents.

ACHESON J.

This bill is in aid of an action of ejectment pending in this court, brought by the plaintiff, John Satterfield, against H P. Malone, and Emma E. Malone, his wife, two of the defendants herein, for the recovery of certain oil-producing lands situate in McKean county, Pa. The real parties to the controversy are the plaintiff and Mrs. Emma E. Malone, each of whom claims title to the lands under George A. Baker, who owned them in fee. By his two deeds, purporting to convey an indefeasible title in fee-simple, dated and acknowledged November 20, 1880, and duly recorded in McKean county on February 12, 1881, George A. Baker, for the expressed aggregate consideration of $150,000, conveyed said lands to Dr. Azariah Everett, who, by his deeds dated December 17 1883, conveyed the same to Lewis E. Mallory, who a few days thereafter conveyed the same to Mrs. Emma E. Malone, for the expressed consideration of $20,000. On May 19, 1881, Hilton &amp Waugh began suit by writ of foreign attachment in the court of common pleas of McKean county against George A. Baker, and on the next day the sheriff, by virtue of said writ, attached Baker's right, title, and interest in said lands. The action proceeded to judgment by confession against Baker for the sum of $38,401.04, entered December 12, 1884. Upon execution issued thereon, the sheriff, on January 10, 1885, sold said lands to John Satterfield, the plaintiff, for the sum of $6,430, and by his deed, acknowledged February 26, 1885, conveyed the same to Satterfield.

The bill charges that the deeds from Baker to Everett, although absolute in terms, were intended to be, and really were, mere mortgages to secure an indebtedness from Baker to Everett, or to a firm of which he was a member; that H. P. Malone procured Everett to convey said lands to Emma E. Malone, through Mallory, who was a mere conduit of the title, with full knowledge on the part as well of H. P. and Emma E. Malone as of Everett himself that the conveyances by Baker to Everett were not absolute, but mere mortgages, and that the lands had been attached as the property of Baker, by Hilton & Waugh; that no consideration was paid for the lands by Emma E. Malone to Everett or Mallory, and that the latter paid no money and received none; and, finally, that the title claimed by Emma E. Malone under said conveyances is 'wholly fictitious, fraudulent, and void in law.'

In her answer to the bill, Mrs. Malone denies the allegations made therein that the deeds from Baker to Everett were mortgages; she explicitly denies that she had any notice or knowledge that they were otherwise than as they appear on their face, or that it was claimed that they were intended to be mortgages; she denies that she had any notice or knowledge of the foreign attachment at the suit of Hilton & Waugh; she denies every charge of fraud contained in the bill, and avers that she is a bona fide purchaser of said lands for value, without notice or knowledge, either of the claim that the deeds from Baker to Everett were mortgages, or of the pendency of the foreign attachment; she denies that her husband, H. P. Malone, acted for her in the transaction, or induced Everett to convey said lands; she admits that Lewis E. Mallory acted for her in the purchase of said property, and avers that he paid Everett for the property the sum of $20,000 in cash, which money was her own, and that Mallory himself was a bona fide purchaser, without any notice or knowledge that the deeds from Baker to Everett were intended to be mortgages, or of the pendency of the attachment suit of Hilton & Waugh. The plaintiff not having waived an answer under oath, and responsive to the bill, is evidence for her, and must prevail, unless it is overcome by the testimony of two witnesses, or one witness and corroborating circumstances which are equivalent in weight to the testimony of another witness. Vigel v. Hopp, 104 U.S. 441; Morrison v. Durr, 122 U.S. 518, 7 S.Ct. 1215.

In the treatment of this case I will first address myself to the inquiry whether, under the proofs, any actual bad faith is imputable to Mrs. Malone in this transaction. The main facts bearing upon this question, as established by the evidence, are these: Mrs. Malone was the adopted child of William Hart, of Cleveland, Ohio. In 1865, shortly after her marriage, Mr. Hart gave, and conveyed to her a house and lot in the city of Cleveland, of the value of $20,000, which she sold a few years afterwards for $26,000. She then purchased and improved another property at a cost of $22,000, which she sold in November, 1873, for $43,000. At that time, undoubtedly, she had an estate in her own right of at least the amount last-named. Mr. Hart and Mr. Malone were then engaged in business as partners. Mrs. Malone loaned them money. They failed, and went into bankruptcy in 1875. They then owed her about $28,000, which she proved in bankruptcy, receiving a dividend of 25 per centum only. There is satisfactory proof that after Malone's discharge in bankruptcy he distinctly recognized his liability to his wife for the old indebtedness, and repeatedly promised her that he would pay it. She subsequently made him additional loans of considerable sums. Without going into further details, I content myself with saying that the proofs clearly satisfy me that in December, 1883, Mr. Malone justly owed his wife far more than $20,000.

In 1878 Mr. Malone went into the oil-producing business in McKean county, Pa., with George A. Baker; Malone superintending the putting down of wells and disposing of the product. The lands they operated upon (which included those in dispute) were purchased by Baker, and the title was in him; but by an unrecorded contract it was agreed that after Baker was reimbursed his purchase money, etc., he should convey an undivided share of the property to Malone. But it seems that Baker never was reimbursed, and he continued to hold the entire title. Baker, individually, and Baker & Malone, became largely indebted to Everett, Weddell & Co., bankers, of Cleveland, Ohio, of which firm Dr. Everett was a member. In 1880 that indebtedness in the whole much exceeded $300,000. On or about February 11, 1881, Baker and Dr. Everett sent Virgil P. Kline and W. L. Lord, from Cleveland to McKean county, with the two deeds dated November 20, 1880, already mentioned, from Baker to Everett, with instructions to put them on record, and take possession of the property for Dr. Everett; and this they did. Those gentlemen exhibited to Malone the deeds, and informed him that Baker had sold the property to Dr. Everett to liquidate the debt Baker & Malone owed Everett, Weddell & Co. Mr. Lord, who was then Baker's book-keeper, and who testified in this case for the plaintiff, speaking of what occurred at that interview, says:

'Mr. Malone made objection to it. He expressed great surprise at the 'summary proceeding,' as he called it, in closing up the firm. And he said he had no knowledge at all; supposed Mr. Baker was a very wealthy man, and was very much surprised at our coming down there, and taking possession of the property as we did; and Mr. Kline and I both labored with him a long while; and at last, by Mr. Kline, as the authorized agent of Dr. Everett, giving him a paper to the effect that he would be held harmless in the future, he consented to the transfer.'

Mr. Lord further testified that both Kline and himself represented to Malone that the sale by Baker to Everett was absolute, and called 'his attention to the fact that it would not begin to pay the indebtedness of Mr. Baker to Everett & Weddell. ' The paper which Kline gave Malone was a release of his liability to Everett, Weddell & Co. for the indebtedness of Baker & Malone. Kline's testimony corroborates Lord's. After they had thus taken possession of the property, they employed Malone to superintend it for Dr. Everett, at a salary, and he continued so to act until the subsequent sale.

It appears that before Mrs. Malone came to Pennsylvania she had bought and sold several pieces of real estate. She moved to McKean county in the spring of 1880. Shortly afterwards she bought an oil property. This purchase she made through one Townsend, an oil operator. She put down wells on that property, and then sold it at a profit of $7,000. It is shown that she had often spoken to Lewis E. Mallory about buying an oil property for her. He was a near neighbor, engaged in the oil-producing business, and in buying and selling oil lands. In 1883, and prior thereto, Mr. Malone was speculating largely in oil, and was much on the floor of the Oil Exchange at Bradford. Mrs. Malone testified that several times she had requested her husband to buy an oil property for her, and that he replied 'that whenever I found a property that suited me, he was ready to pay me. ' She states that she considered the speculative business in which her husband was engaged as hazardous, and was afraid he might lose her money, and she adds: 'I wanted it so that if anything happened to my husband I could take care of my parents and children.'

In December, 1883, Dr. Everett employed C. D. Angell, a real-estate broker at Bradford, Pa., to sell the lands in controversy. Angell informed Mr. Malone that they were for sale, and could be bought for $20,000. No communication whatever had taken place on the subject between Dr. Everett and Malone, and the latter was surprised to learn from Angell that the property was for sale. Mrs. Malone was then in the city of New York, where she had been for several months. Mr Malone wrote to her that the property was...