Apple v. Am. Nat'l Bank

• Decision Date: 22 January 1924
• Docket Number: Case Number: 14565
• Citation: 104 Okla. 69,231 P. 79,1924 OK 59
• Parties: APPLE v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

1924 OK 59

231 P. 79

104 Okla. 69

APPLE v. AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK.

Case Number: 14565

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided: January 22, 1924

Syllabus

¶0 1. Appeal and Error--Decisions Appealable--Necessity for Judgment.

A mere recital in the record to the effect that "demurrer was overruled," or "sustained," is nothing more than a memorandum, wholly wanting in the essential elements of a judgment, and therefore insufficient to support an assignment of error.

2. Creditors' Suit--Fraudulent Conveyances by One Sued.

If a transfer is made by a debtor in anticipation of a suit against him, or after a suit has been begun, and while it is pending against him, this is a badge of fraud, and especially if it leaves the debtor without any estate or greatly reduces his property.

3. Appeal and Error -- Review of Equity Case--General Finding.

In an equitable action the presumption is in favor of the finding of the trial court, and it will not be set aside unless clearly against the weight of the evidence. Where the finding of the trial court is general, such finding is a finding of each special thing necessary to sustain the general finding.

Commissioners' Opinion, Division No. 5.

Error from District Court, Carter County; W. F. Freeman, Judge.

Action by the American National Bank of Ardmore against R. A. Peterson and others. From a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the defendant Bryon W. Apple brings error. Affirmed.

Sigler & Jackson, for plaintiff in error.

Dolman & Dyer, for defendant in error.

PINKHAM, C.

¶1 This action was originally commenced by the defendant in error, as plaintiff, in the district court of Carter county, against R. A. Peterson and T. C. Bridgman, upon two promissory notes, one in the sum of $ 12,000, and one in the sum of $ 460.Service was had upon the defendants January 13, 1923, and on January 18, motion to quash was filed, and overruled by the court on March 21, 1923, and defendants given 30 days within which to answer.

¶2 January 29, 1923, the defendant, T. C. Bridgman conveyed the property described in plaintiff's supplemental petition to his step-daughter, and on February 23, 1923, the property covered by these deeds was attached by the plaintiff as the property of T. C. Bridgman. On March 8, 1923, the plaintiff filed a supplemental petition in which it is alleged that the warranty deeds executed by the defendant T. C. Bridgman on the 29th day of January, 1923, to Bryon W. Apple, his daughter, plaintiff in error, were wholly without consideration and that the property described therein was fraudulently conveyed to the said Bryon W. Apple to defraud the creditors of the said Bridgman, and particularly the plaintiff herein, and that said Bridgman was wholly insolvent, and that a judgment at law cannot be collected from him.

¶3 Plaintiff prayed that the said Bryon W. Apple be made a defendant, and that the deeds given by T. C. Bridgman to said Bryon W. Apple, be cancelled of record as clouds upon the title of said property, and that the property be decreed the property of the defendant T. C. Bridgman, subject to the attachment lien of the plaintiff.

¶4 A demurrer was filed to the supplemental petition, but the action of the court thereon is not preserved in the record. Plaintiff in error filed her answer in said cause, in which she prays that the plaintiff's supplemental petition be denied, and that she be adjudged to be owner of the property described in said petition: that the attachment be dissolved, and that she have such other and further relief as she may in the judgment of the court be entitled.

¶5 The plaintiff filed a reply to the answer in the nature of a general denial.Upon the case coming on for trial the defendants R. A. Peterson and T. C. Bridgman withdrew their demurrer filed in the cause, and confessed judgment on the notes, and the court proceeded to try the issues joined between the plaintiff and the defendant Bryon W. Apple.

¶6 After both parties rested their case, the court found the issues in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendants Bryon W. Apple and T. C. Bridgman, and judgment was rendered that the said deeds covering the property described in the supplemental petition be decreed to be null and void, and the further judgment and decree that the attachment lien of plaintiff on the interest of defendant T. C. Bridgman, in and to said property be foreclosed, and said property be ordered sold, and the proceeds thereof be applied as by law required.To all of the finding of the court, and the judgment so rendered, defendants and each of them excepted.

¶7 The assignments of errors are as follows: First, that the court erred in overruling the demurrer to the supplemental petition; second, that the court erred in overruling the motion for a judgment; third, that the court erred in rendering a judgment for the plaintiff.

¶8 Under the defendant's first assignment of error it is contended that the supplemental petition was in the nature of a creditors' bill, and that it is necessary to obtain a judgment before the plaintiff can maintain the action.As to the first assignment of error it appears that the record does not contain nor purport to contain any copy of an order overruling the demurrer to plaintiff's supplemental petition, or that any such order was ever entered on the journal of the court It is true the record shows a mere recital that such an order was made.

¶9 It has been held by this court in a number of decisions that a mere recital in the record to the effect that an order was made is not a sufficient compliance with the statute. Section 685, Comp. Stat. 1921, provides:

"All judgments and orders must be entered on the journal of the court and specify clearly the relief granted, or order made in the action."

¶10 In the case of Courtney v. Moore, 51 Okla. 628, 151 P. 1178, it is said in the opinion:

"In Randall v. Wadsworth, 130 Ala. 633, 31 So. 555, a question very nearly identical with that under consideration was presented. In that case it is said: 'It has been repeatedly decided by this court that a mere recital in the record to the effect that "demurer was overruled" or "sustained," is nothing more than a memorandum, wholly wanting in the essential elements of a judgment, and therefore insufficient to support an assignment of error'."

¶11 In Negin et al. v. Picher Lumber Company et al., 77 Okla. 285, 186 P. 205, the first paragraph of the syllabus is as follows:

"Where the record fails to contain a copy of the final order or judgment sought to be reviewed and the same is not made to appear therein as of record in the trial court, such record presents no question to this court for determination, and no request by plaintiff in error for leave to amend the record to show that such judgment was rendered by the trial court and entered of record there, having been made, the appeal will be dismissed."

¶12 The record discloses that the defendant T. C. Bridgman sold and conveyed the property described in plaintiff's supplemental petition on January 29, 1923, while the action upon the said notes was pending against him; that the property conveyed by the deeds was attached by the plaintiff on February 23, 1923, and the supplemental petition of plaintiff was filed March 8, 1923. The plaintiff therefore had a lien on the property involved at the time of the filing of the supplemental petition, and it...