63 S.E. 62 (S.C. 1908), Miller v. Wroton
| Docket Number | . |
| Citation | 63 S.E. 62,82 S.C. 97 |
| Date | 09 December 1908 |
| Parties | MILLER v. WROTON et al. [D] |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
Page 62
Appeal from Common Pleas Circuit Court of Orangeburg County; Geo. W. Gage, Judge.
Suit by Joseph H. Miller, as trustee of Charles L. Wroton, a bankrupt, against Charles L. Wroton and another. From a judgment dismissing the complaint, plaintiff appealed. Reversed and remanded for further consideration.
Woods, J., dissenting.
Page 63
The case was referred to Robert E. Copes, as special referee, who made the following report:
"This action is brought under sections 2369, 2372, 1 Civ. Code 1902, for the purpose of having the deed set forth in the complaint and executed by the defendant [82 S.C. 100] Charles L. Wroton to his codefendants adjudged fraudulent and void as against the plaintiff and the creditors of the said Charles L. Wroton. The defendants Charles L. Wroton and Alice Alston Wroton, by their answers, allege substantially that the deed in question was upon good consideration and bona fide, and they ask that the complaint be dismissed. The other defendants are infants, and file their answer, through their duly appointed guardian ad litem.
"From the evidence taken in the cause, I find as matter of fact: During the fall of 1893 and spring of 1894 the defendant Charles L. Wroton, for the sum of $1,300, then advanced him by his wife, the defendant Alice A. Wroton, promised her verbally that, when he came into it, he would give her and their children the real estate which would come to him from his mother's estate. On December 15, 1900, the said Charles L. Wroton, who had met with business reverses and failures, and who had become indebted to numerous creditors, owing them in the aggregate a large and considerable sum of money, by his deed of that date, and being the deed in question, conveyed the real estate which came to him from his mother's estate to his codefendants, his wife, and their children. The said Charles L. Wroton was rendered totally insolvent by the execution of said deed, and he executed same only after certain of his creditors had been pressing him vigorously for payment, and with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors. The said Alice A. Wroton knew nothing of this insolvency, and in no way participated in the fraudulent purpose of the said Charles L. Wroton, but accepted said deed in good faith, and in the fulfillment of said promise.
"As matter of law, having found that the transactions of Alice A. Wroton relative to said deed were bona fide, and were [82 S.C. 101] based on a promise made to her years before, by the said Charles L. Wroton, for money which she actually advanced, I recommend that the complaint be dismissed."
Upon hearing the plaintiff's exceptions to the report, it was confirmed by the circuit court, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
The first question that will be considered is whether there was error in finding that the deed executed by Charles L. Wroton
Page 64
whereby he conveyed to the defendants the land described in the complaint was made in pursuance of an agreement entered into between Charles L. Wroton and his wife in 1893 or 1894.
Charles L. Wroton testified in behalf of the plaintiff as follows: "Q. Mr. Wroton, the consideration named in this deed is $1,476. Will you please state to the court how that was paid? A. Well, it was paid from my wife to me. It was paid by my wife. My wife paid that money. Sent it from Rock Hill. Q. Was it paid at the time this deed was executed? A. Not at that time. It was paid previously. Q. Well, state the circumstances as to how it was paid? A. Well, when I went into business, when I went to go into business, when I was in Denmark, I had no money. I had been cashier at the bank. The salary I was earning was not a large one, and it took all the salary I was making to live on. When I left the bank, I did not have enough money to use as capital, and my wife offered to lend me this money. I told her I had nothing to secure her with at the present time, but in all human probability I would eventually come into possession of this Orangeburg property-that was my mother's property, my mother's estate-and I told her whenever I got the property 'I am willing to give you that property, so that you and the children, if anything happens to me, shall have something to fall back on,' and that was the bargain and understanding when that was done."
[82 S.C. 102] When recalled for the defendants, he testified as follows: "Q. Referring to the money that you got from your wife, will you please state what agreement, if any, you and wife had concerning money and concerning land? A. I had been cashier of the bank at Denmark and gave up that position, as I desired to go into business. When I got ready to go into business, I had no funds to start on, and my wife volunteered to lend me some money to start business on, in the neighborhood of $1,900. I told her I did not have anything to secure her this money, except that I would be entitled to some land when my mother died, at least when my father died, because my father was in possession of the land, and I could not feel that I had any moral right to try to dispossess him of the land. I borrowed this money from my wife, and I agreed to give her this farm when I came into possession of it. She let me have it on that basis."
Mrs. Alice Alston Wroton testified as follows in behalf of the defendants: "Q. What did your husband tell you when you let him have the money? A. He said several times that he expected to give me that property for that money. Not only one time either. He said it more than one time. Q. When did he say it in reference to his getting the money? You said he said it more than one time. A. He told me that from time to time. Q. When was the first time he ever mentioned it to you? A. It was long years ago; not recently. Q. Was it about the time he got the money? A. Yes, sir; it was when we were in the low country. Q. Just tell the referee again what your husband told you when you let him have that money. A. He said he was going to turn that place over to me and my children. It was not his at the time." Again she testified as follows: "Q. Did you consider that a loan to your husband or just a gift? A. I just let him have it, but he told me that it was what he would do. Q. You let him have it without regard to what he would [82 S.C. 103] do? A. Of course, I gave it to him free and willingly, but he told me he was going to give me that for it. Q. That was after you gave him the money? A. I don't know. I don't think it is necessary...
To continue reading
Request your trial