Rockford Boot & Shoe Manuf'g Co. v. Mastin
| Decision Date | 07 September 1888 |
| Parties | ROCKFORD BOOT & SHOE MANUF'G CO. ET AL. v. MASTIN ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from circuit court, Grundy county.
Action by the Rockford Boot & Shoe Company and others, judgment creditors of Robert Mastin, against said Robert Mastin, and Leonora Mastin, George W. Mastin, and Alanson T. Mastin, to set aside a conveyance by said Robert to the other defendants. There was a judgment for the defendants Leonora and George W. Mastin, and against the defendant Alanson T. Mastin. Both parties appeal.Rea & Hayes, W. J. Moir, and H. L. Huff, for plaintiffs.
George Ward and Boies, Husted & Boies, for defendants.
Robert Mastin came to Iowa from New York, in 1871, and shortly afterwards he purchased, and there was conveyed to him, 400 acres of land. On March 7, 1882, he conveyed 200 acres thereof to his wife, Leonora Mastin; 100 acres to each of his two sons, Robert W. and Alanson T. At that time he was largely indebted to the plaintiffs and others, but whether he knew the extent of such indebtedness is a controverted question. In 1878 his son-in-law, Kelley, was engaged in the mercantile business, and, being indebted to said Robert, the latter purchased the stock of goods, continued the business in his own name, but Kelley acted as his agent, and had full charge of the business. The defendants claim that Robert Mastin did not know that he was insolvent or largely indebted until after the conveyances of the real estate were made, and he so testifies; but we think he did know, or was bound to know, that Kelley as his agent was doing an unprofitable business, and was incurring debts which to a greater or less amount were being pressed for payment. The defendants claim that nearly 50 years ago Robert Mastin purchased some real estate in the state of New York, and, being indebted therefor, he obtained from his wife, 40 years ago, some money which she obtained from her father, and that about 10 years afterwards he obtained from her more money, which was due her as her share of her father's estate. They claim the said Robert promised at various times to pay his wife said money, with 7 per cent. interest. The plaintiffs insist there was no valid obligation or promise on the part of said Robert to repay such money, but that the same was a gift from his wife. It is true there was no written promise to pay; but that she did not regard it as a gift is clearly established, and we also think that he at least acknowledged the indebtedness, and somewhat indefinitely agreed to pay her whenever she wanted it. The money so obtained was invested in the land purchased in New York, which he sold for upwards of $16,000. Both Robert Mastin and his wife testify that the latter refused to sign the deed unless the money so received by her husband was paid or secured to her, and that the amount was then computed and agreed to be $7,800, for which amount a mortgage, given for a part of the purchase money on the real estate in New York, was assigned and transferred to her. That such a mortgage was so assigned and transferred must be regarded as established, for it appears of record in the proper office in New York. Such transfer, we think, vested in Mrs. Mastin the title to such mortgage and the money due thereon. There is no evidence in the record tending to show that Robert Mastin was indebted at that time. Certainly he was not to any of the plaintiffs. Conceding the assignment to be an executed gift, the plaintiffs cannot legally make any valid objection thereto. But we think there was a valid and sufficient consideration for the assignment of the mortgage. Afterwards, and prior to the conveyance of April 7, 1882, Mrs. Mastin permitted her husband to collect the amount due upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial