Adams v. Bleakley

• Decision Date: 17 October 1887
• Docket Number: 81
• Citation: 10 A. 884,117 Pa. 283
• Parties: ANN E. ADAMS v. W. J. BLEAKLEY
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

10 A. 884

117 Pa. 283

ANN E. ADAMS v. W. J. BLEAKLEY

No. 81

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

October 17, 1887

Argued October 4, 1887

ERROR TO THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF VENANGO COUNTY.

No. 81 October Term 1886, Sup. Ct.; court below, No. 40 January Term 1885, C.P.

This was an ejectment by W. J. Bleakley against Ann E. Adams, to recover an inlot in the city of Franklin, on which were a two-story dwelling and other buildings, brought on January 6 1885. On April 27, 1885, Simpson Horner was added as a defendant.

The record title of the property in dispute accrued to the respective parties to the suit as follows:

On April 19, 1885, Josiah Adams, the husband of Ann E. Adams executed to Thomas Daft, his father-in-law, with whom he had been in business, a judgment bond in $9,600, conditioned for the payment of $4,800 with interest, on May 1, 1856; which bond on the day of its date was assigned by Thomas Daft to Simpson Horner, whose wife was a sister of Mrs. Ann E. Adams. On May 11, 1858, judgment was entered on said bond in favor of Thomas Daft for use of Simpson Horner.

On March 6, 1865, Charles H. Raymond conveyed the property in dispute to Mrs. Ann E. Adams, the deed being recorded on January 20, 1868. At this time the husband was indebted to persons other than to Horner on the Daft bond, among whom was P. S. Weaver, who had recovered a judgment against him in Allegheny county in 1860.

The judgment of Thomas Daft for use of Simpson Horner was revived from time to time, and on August 22, 1872, the property in suit was sold as the property of Josiah Adams on an execution issued on said judgment, and purchased by Simpson Horner who received a sheriff's deed therefor acknowledged August 29, 1872. Mrs. Adams in 1881, instituted proceedings for a divorce from her husband on account of ill treatment, and obtained the verdict of a jury in her favor on February 13 1882. Simpson Horner, then a party defendant, on September 1 1885, conveyed all his interest in the property to Mrs. Adams.

An exemplification of the Allegheny county judgment in favor of P. S. Weaver against Josiah Adams was carried to Venango county and judgment entered thereon in 1869. This judgment was revived and in 1884, upon an execution issued thereon, a sale of the property was made to W. J. Bleakley, who received the sheriff's deed acknowledged November 28, 1884, and who brought this ejectment on January 6, 1885.

The plaintiff claimed to recover on the grounds (1) that Josiah Adams was in debt to a large amount at the time of the conveyance by Raymond to Mrs. Adams; that the consideration for said conveyance was in fact paid by him, and the title in his wife was fraudulent and void as to the then existing creditors; and (2) that the bond and the judgment thereon from Josiah Adams to Thomas Daft and assigned to Simpson Horner was without consideration, was given and kept alive for the purpose of hindering and delaying creditors, and the sale thereon was therefore void.

On the trial, on March 16, 1886, before CHARLES E. TAYLOR, P.J., the plaintiff, having introduced evidence showing an indebtedness of Josiah Adams in 1865, the date of the Raymond conveyance to his wife, to a large amount, called Josiah Adams as a witness, who testified that he had been the husband of Mrs. Adams, but that the marriage was dissolved by a decree in divorce about four years before. The defendant objected to his competency.

The court: We will admit him to testify as to any matter not obtained through confidential communication or in consequence of the domestic relation.

The witness then testified that at the time of the Raymond conveyance he was indebted about $5,000. It was then shown that Thomas Daft died in 1864. C. H. Raymond, the grantor of said conveyance, testified that the purchase of the property had been made by Josiah Adams, who had paid the consideration and directed the deed to be made to his wife. Mr. Adams was then recalled, and having testified that out of his own funds he had paid the purchase money for the property conveyed by Raymond and he was then insolvent, proceeded to impeach the bond given by him to Thomas Daft and the judgment entered thereon for use of Simpson Horner, stating inter alia, that the bond had been sent to him by Mr. Horner, with a power of attorney to satisfy the judgment entered on it; that he had confessed the original judgment or had it done, and the several revivals thereof, for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding his creditors. The defendant again objected to the competency of Mr. Adams as to anything between himself and his wife, and as to any facts transpiring during the marriage; and also on the ground that, Mr. Daft being dead, witness was incompetent to testify to anything in relation to any conversation happening prior to Mr. Daft's death. The court overruled the objection; exception.

On the part of the defendant, the wife testified in her own behalf that she had a separate estate of her own; had the title to two lots in Franklin in her own name, and several thousand dollars in addition, the amount she could not state; and that in the purchase of the Raymond property her husband had used her money and estate. The defendant offered the deposition of Simpson Horner, taken under a rule on October 17, 1885, wherein the witness had testified inter alia that the bond of Josiah Adams before referred to had been transferred to him by Thomas Daft, the obligee, in payment of an indebtedness existing at the time of the assignment, and that Josiah Adams always recognized the bond as a valid obligation; that he did not recollect whether he personally had entered judgment on the bond or not; that Mr. Adams had had it revived once at least and the judgment was the first lien on the property; the property was sold upon the judgment and he had given to Mrs. Adams a deed for it and several hundred dollars besides, because she was in poor circumstances at the time. The plaintiff objected to the reading of the deposition as incompetent, because the testimony related to matters that were prior to the death of Mr. Daft.

The court: We will rule out the deposition except so far as the testimony relates to matters occurring since the death of Mr. Daft; exception.

The defendant then offered to read that part of Mr. Horner's deposition in reference to the assignment of the judgment to him, for the purpose of contradicting Josiah Adams. The plaintiff objected.

The court: We will rule out the offer.

The following are the points presented with the answers of the court thereto:

The plaintiff's points:

1. That there is no evidence in this case on the part of the defendant, to submit to the jury, to show that the property in question was purchased from Raymond with her separate money or estate.

Answer: We submit this question to the jury.

2. That the jury must find from clear and full proof that the property in question was paid for with her own separate funds derived from some other source than from her husband; otherwise it would be liable to be sold to pay a debt due at the time of said conveyance.

Answer: Affirmed as regards the title claimed under the deed from Raymond.

3. That if the jury find from the evidence that Josiah Adams was largely indebted in March, 1865, and it is not proven by full, clear and rigid proof that the property was paid for by Mrs. Adams out of her separate funds, it was liable to be sold as the property of Josiah Adams to pay a debt due at the time of said conveyance.

Answer: Affirmed, with the same addition as the preceding point.

4. That if the jury find that the judgment of Daft was given to Adams for his own use by Daft, with knowledge of Horner, with power to satisfy the same, and it was kept alive for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding creditors of Adams, of which P. S. Weaver was one (and this was known to Horner), it was void as against said last creditor, and a sale under said Daft judgment would pass no title as against the P. S. Weaver judgment.

Answer: Affirmed, as far as regards the title claimed under the sheriff's sale.

The defendant's points:

1. If the jury find from the evidence that the premises in question were purchased by the husband of Ann E. Adams, and conveyed to her at his request by Raymond; and that Josiah Adams was solvent at the time; that he then had means sufficient, in money or property, to pay all his debts then existing, including the purchase of this house and lot, then Ann E. Adams took a good title to the property so conveyed, and the plaintiff cannot recover in this action.

Answer: Affirmed, if you further find that such property or effects of Adams were not so concealed or held that creditors could not have collected their claims.

2. If the jury find from the evidence that the consideration paid for the house and lot was furnished by Ann E. Adams from money received by her from Simpson Horner, or any person other than her husband, she acquired a good title to the same whether her husband was indebted at the time or not, and the verdict should be for the defendants.

Answer: Affirmed, with this addition, if the jury find the facts assumed in the point, from full, clear and satisfactory evidence.

3. The presumption of law is that the bond or obligation given by Josiah Adams to Thomas Daft was honestly given for good and sufficient consideration; and, to overcome such presumption the burden of proof is upon the plaintiff to satisfy the jury, by clear and satisfactory evidence, that the judgment was not honestly given and that Thomas Daft, in taking said obligation, was a co-conspirator with Josiah Adams to assist him in defrauding his creditors, and if the jury are not so satisfied, their verdict should be for the...