Gleitz v. Schuster

• Decision Date: 29 March 1902
• Citation: 168 Mo. 298,67 S.W. 561
• Parties: GLEITZ v. SCHUSTER et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

67 S.W. 561

168 Mo. 298

GLEITZ v. SCHUSTER et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

March 29, 1902.

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES — CONSIDERATION — EVIDENCE.

An insolvent conveyed property worth $6,000 to some of his children, who were conceded to be his creditors to an amount of about $3,400. There was evidence that the debtor was further indebted for money received for the children from their grandfather; that another child was also a creditor of the debtor; but that, as she had received various sums from the debtor when he was prosperous she waived her right to any claim therefor in favor of her brothers and sisters. The debtor was permitted to receive the rents, as he had nothing to live on. After the conveyance, the property was attached by a creditor of the debtor, and judgment obtained, and the creditor purchased the same under execution, and, after selling sufficient to pay his claim, conveyed the rest to some of the children. Held, that the evidence sustained a finding that the conveyance was valid as against another creditor of the debtor.

Appeal from circuit court, Andrew county; A. D. Burnes, Judge.

Suit by Francista Gleitz against August Schuster and others. From a decree for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Plaintiff, a judgment creditor of defendant August Schuster, files this suit in equity to set aside two deeds made by her debtor to the other defendants, who are his children, on the ground that they were made to defraud his creditors in general and the plaintiff in particular. The petition sets forth the plaintiff's judgment at law for $1,675; the insolvency of the judgment debtor; his ownership of the property, which consists of certain lots, with improvements, in the city of Savannah; the conveyance to the other defendants, his children, which it alleges was "without any consideration whatever," and for the purpose of placing the same beyond the reach of his creditors. The answer was a general denial. There was a decree for defendants dismissing the bill, and the plaintiff appeals.

Chas. M. Street and Culver & Phillip, for appellant. Johnson, Rusk & Stringfellow, and Booher & Williams, for respondents.

VALLIANT, J. (after stating the facts).

The only statement in the petition as of a fact constituting the alleged fraud is that the insolvent debtor made the conveyance to his children "without any consideration whatever." The consideration for the deeds was the only point in dispute at the trial. It was agreed that the property conveyed was worth $6,000. It is conceded by appellant that at the date of the deeds, March 3, 1894, defendant August Schuster owed his six children $4,087.83, but it is contended that one-sixth of that sum was owing to a daughter, Mrs. Smissen, who was not named in the deeds, or had previously been paid to her, and that the amount then due the five children who were grantees in the deeds was only $3,406, which was about $2,600 less than the value of the property. The amount conceded to be due was made up of $1,000 given by the children's grandfather to their father for them in 1885, and a legacy left them in their grandfather's will, of which their father was executor, amounting to $1,749.28, and 6 per cent. interest on those two sums. The testimony on the part of the defendants tended to show that in addition to those two sums the grandfather of these children had, as far back as 1860, 1862, and 1873, given to their father the sums of $150, $200, and $500 for them, and that he agreed to hold it for them in trust, use it, and pay them interest on it. The grandfather, Graff, had six children, and at the times he made these three last-mentioned gifts he gave an exact equal amount to each of his other children, giving the several amounts to each of his other five children in person; but the share to the plaintiff's mother, who was then living, was given to her husband, and the plaintiff contends that under the common law, which was then in force, the gifts of money to the wife into the hands of her husband made it his. Although the only testimony in the case as to the express terms on which these three sums were given is that of the defendant August Schuster himself (the grandfather of the children and their mother being now dead), and his testimony being that it was given him in trust for his children, the plaintiff contends that that statement is unworthy of belief, in the face of the fact that when the several sums were thus given to the father of those children, their mother being then alive, their grandfather gave like sums direct to each of his other five children for their own immediate use. But for defendants the evidence shows that August Schuster at that time was a very prosperous business man, and his wife did not send the money as the others did, and that there was this reason for treating the gifts to her differently from those to the others.

The plaintiff at the trial was at a disadvantage...