Baldwin v. Rogers
| Citation | 11 N.W. 77,28 Minn. 544 |
| Parties | Anna E. Baldwin, Administratrix, v. Charles F. Rogers, impleaded, etc |
| Decision Date | 24 December 1881 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Minnesota (US) |
This action was commenced by M. A. Baldwin, in the district court for Wabasha county, to subject certain land to levy and sale on an execution issued in his favor against the property of defendant Michael O'Laughlin, and which land -- a tract of 320 acres -- had been conveyed by O'Laughlin, (who was a widower,) to defendant Rogers, by deed absolute in form prior to the rendition of the judgment on which plaintiff's execution issued, but subsequently, as alleged, to the time when the indebtedness on which the judgment is founded, accrued. Defendant Rogers answered, and the case was tried by Mitchell, J., without a jury, who found the facts as recited in the opinion, and ordered judgment declaring the conveyance to Rogers void as to creditors. This appeal was taken by defendant Rogers from the judgment, and the respondent Baldwin having died, his administratrix was substituted as respondent by order of this court. (See ante p. 68.)
Judgment reversed, and a new trial directed.
Stocker & Matchan and Lloyd Barber, for appellants.
At the time of the conveyance by O'Laughlin, he was occupying eighty acres as a homestead, and under Gen. St. 1878, c. 68, § 8, he could make a valid conveyance of at least the eighty acres, although at the time insolvent. Smith v. Rumsey, 33 Mich. 184; Washburn v. Goodheart, 88 Ill. 229; Carhart v. Harshaw, 45 Wis. 340; Delashmut v. Trau, 44 Iowa 613; Derby v. Weyrich, 8 Neb. 174; Hixon v. George, 18 Kan. 253; Morrison v. Abbott, 27 Minn. 116; Ferguson v. Kumler, 27 Minn. 156.
Hahn & Benedict and Gordon E. Cole, for respondent.
In this case, the debtor was a widower and has not answered or appeared, or in any manner set up a claim of homestead to any of the land in controversy. The homestead right is a personal one, and a fraudulent grantee cannot be allowed to set it up as a defence. Howland v. Fuller, 8 Minn. 30 (50;) Ferguson v. Kumler, 27 Minn. 156; Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, § 438.
As the debtor himself does not set up a claim of homestead to this land, he is not estopped from setting up that claim to any other property which he may have, or may acquire; and if it is held that a stranger to the homestead right, like the defendant Rogers in this case, may set up this claim, there is nothing to prevent a debtor from claiming and disposing of all his property piecemeal as homesteads. Currier v. Sutherland, 54 N.H. 475; Thompson on Homesteads and Exemptions, § 419.
In all the cases cited by appellant, the claim of homestead was set up by those entitled to use and receive the benefits of homesteads.
The facts following are found by the court below:
On July 10, 1879, a judgment was duly entered and docketed in the district court for our county of Wabasha, in favor of plaintiff and against defendant O'Laughlin, founded upon an indebtedness of the latter to the former, existing for more than one year prior thereto. Execution, issued July 12, 1879, was on July 16, 1879, duly levied upon 320 acres of land, to-wit, the west half of section 35, township 111, range 13, Wabasha county.
On April 16, 1879, O'Laughlin was owner and in possession of said land, which was of the value of $ 10,000 to $ 12,000. He resided on it, he and his family occupying the north half of the south-west quarter (80 acres) as a homestead, the same being exempt from execution as such. The land (the 320 acres) was subject to encumbrances to the amount of $ 9,435.44, as follows: $ 4,278.86 by mortgages known as the Gates mortgages, $ 5,066.58 by mortgage to Scott, and $ 90 overdue taxes. The Gates mortgages were first, but covered the south-west quarter only (160 acres) of section 35. The Scott mortgage covered the whole west half (320 acres) of the section. Scott held his mortgage, and the debt secured by it, as trustee for the wife of defendant Rogers, and he was Scott's agent in its management and collection. Instalments of all the mortgages were overdue and unpaid.
On April 16, 1879, O'Laughlin conveyed all of the west half of section 35 to defendant Rogers, subject to said mortgages. The deed of conveyance is absolute on its face, but the real agreement between the parties was that Rogers should assume and pay off all of the mortgages and taxes, sell and dispose of the land, and pay over to O'Laughlin any surplus of the proceeds remaining after the encumbrances were satisfied. O'Laughlin was at that time insolvent, and threatened with suits by his creditors, (of which fact Rogers had notice,) and his object and intent in making the conveyance were to shield any surplus of the lands over and above payment of the encumbrance from his creditors, and save the same for himself. Of this object and intent Rogers had notice, but his own object and purpose in taking the conveyance was to protect his wife's mortgage. Rogers went into immediate possession of the premises (320 acres) under O'Laughlin's deed to him, and so continues. At the date of the deed, Rogers paid the delinquent taxes before mentioned to the amount of $ 90, and cancelled and delivered up to O'Laughlin an overdue note, secured by the Scott mortgage, for $ 480. On the 23rd of April, 1879, he paid $ 561.88 on the Gates mortgages, and on July 15, 1879, he paid up the balance of the Gates mortgages, ($ 3,731.76,) and delivered up the notes secured thereby to O'Laughlin. Except as above stated, Rogers has paid no consideration for the premises conveyed to him.
Upon these findings of fact the court below finds as a conclusion of law that the conveyance from O'Laughlin to Rogers is void as to plaintiff, and that the premises conveyed are subject to plaintiff's execution.
This case was determined by the court below in accordance with what has been generally understood to be the tendency and logical result of Piper v. Johnston, 12 Minn. 60, and before the decisions of this court in Morrison v. Abbott, 27 Minn. 116, 6 N.W 455; Ferguson v. Kumler, Id. 156; and Furman v. Tenney, ante, p. 77, were promulgated. So far as this court is concerned, the latter cases establish the rule that a debtor's transfer of property exempt from execution is not void, but valid, even against his creditors, though the transfer be voluntary. It is, of course, no less valid if made upon a consideration. It follows that the conclusion of law...
To continue reading
Request your trial