Armstrong v. Lachman

• Citation: 6 S.E. 129,84 Va. 726
• Parties: Armstrong et al. v. Lachman et al.
• Decision Date: 17 April 1888
• Court: Supreme Court of Virginia

6 S.E. 129

(84 Va. 726)

Armstrong et al.

v.Lachman et al.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

April 17, 1888.

Fraudulent Conveyances—Action to Set Aside—Evidence of Fraud.

In an action to set aside a trust deed preferring certain creditors, it appeared that defendant, as agent for his wife, bought of plaintiffs a large quantity of goods, obtaining credit by false statements as to his pecuniary condition. Within three months defendant and his wife conveyed all the goods in her store to a trustee to secure alleged debts to her father and brother-in-law, the latter having no visible means, and who had on oath returned to the commissioners of revenue his entire estate at five dollars. Evidence showed that nearly all the goods purchased had disappeared, leaving no trace on the books or elsewhere; that a large number of trunks belonging to defendant had disappeared, and that numerous new trunks had been bought by him, and sent by rail, full of something, to the father's store at R.; that the father had shipped to himself since defendant's purchase a large quantity of goods from the latter's town; that plaintiffs' clerks had called at the father's store, and identified goods there as sold by them to defendant. Held, that there was ample evidence of fraud, and that the deed must be set aside.

Appeal from circuit court, Henry county.

Armstrong, Cator & Co. brought an action against Louis Lachman et al., to set aside a deed preferring certain creditors, on the ground of fraud. Judgment for defendants. Plaintiffs appeal.

Anderson & Staples, for appellants.

Green & Miller, Hardaway & Hairs-ton, and H. G. Cannon, for appellees.

Lacy, J. This is an appeal from a decree of the circuit court of Henry county, rendered on the 20th day of July, 1887. The bill was filed July 23, 1886, having for its object the overthrow of a deed in trust, executed by the Lachmans, the appellees, during that month, preferring a debt of $950 to M. Harris, the father of Mrs. Lachman, and a debt of $1,150 to Lipman Lachman, clerk, and brother of Mr. Lachman, and a small debt of $125 due their landlord, admitted to be due, and deferring debts of $6,871.03 due to the appellants, 12 mercantile firms, from which goods of that value had been bought the April preceding. A receiver was appointed, and the goods realized when sold $1,233.73. The evidence was taken, and the case heard, when the circuit court dismissed the bill, being of opinion that the evidence was insufficient to establish the charge of fraud, and establish the allegations of the plaintiffs' bill, and ordered the proceeds of the sales of the goods to be paid over to the defendants or their counsel; whereupon the plaintiffs applied for and obtained an appeal to this court.

The chief question raised by this appeal is as to the sufficiency of the evidence to establish the charge of fraud made by the bill. As to the proof necessary to establish fraud it is not safe to undertake to define what degree or kind of proof will justify a court of equity in granting relief against fraud, for the proof must satisfy the conscience of the court, and no man would deem it prudent to attempt to define the extent of that indispensable qualification in a judge or a court. The requisite amount of his sense of justice and men's views are as varied as their forms or their features. 1 Story, Eq. Jur. § 190. The proof must be sufficient to satisfy the mind...