Bank of Liberal v. Anderson
Citation | 75 S.W. 189,100 Mo.App. 567 |
Parties | BANK OF LIBERAL, Appellant, v. MARTIN ANDERSON, Respondent |
Decision Date | 25 May 1903 |
Court | Court of Appeals of Kansas |
Appeal from Barton Circuit Court.--Hon. H. C. Timmonds, Judge.
REVERSED AND REMANDED (with directions).
Reversed and remanded.
G. H Walser and Thurman, Wray & Timmonds for appellant.
(1) Under the undisputed facts, the chattel mortgage was a conveyance to the use of the grantor, fraudulent and void. It permitted the mortgagor to remain in possession and dispose of the mortgaged property and apply the proceeds to his own use and benefits instead of in the discharge of the debt secured by the mortgage. Reed v. Pellitier, 28 Mo 173; Lodge v. Samuels, 50 Mo. 204; Weber v Armstrong, 70 Mo. 217; Bullene v. Barrett, 87 Mo. 185; Hubbell v. Allen, 90 Mo. 574; Barton v. Sitlington, 128 Mo. 164; Bank v. Powers, 134 Mo. (l. c.) 445; Mfg. Co. v. Supply Co., 134 Mo. (l. c.) 550; State to use, etc., v. O'Neill, 151 Mo. (l. c.) 86; Bagley v. Horman, 91 Mo.App. (l. c.), 29; Com. Co. v. Hunter, 91 Mo.App. (l. c.), 338. (2) Every man is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his acts intentionally committed. Dry Goods Co. v. Brown, 73 Mo.App. 245; Landis v. McDonald, 88 Mo.App. 335; State to use, etc., v. O'Neil, 151 Mo. (l. c.) 186; Com. Co. v. Hunter, 91 Mo.App. (l. c.) 338.
Marton & Van Pool, Cole, Burnett & Moore for respondent.
(1) Outside of the matter mentioned in paragraph 1, there is no question preserved by appellant for review in this case and nothing for the Court of Appeals to review, unless it be the record proper, and appellant makes no complaint as to the regularity and correctness of the record proper. No matters of exception are shown to have been preserved in a bill of exceptions. State v. Burdett, 145 Mo. 674; Critchfield v. Linville, 140 Mo. 191; State v. Clark, 147 Mo. 20; Clark v. Hughes, 73 Mo.App. 633; Ross v. Railroad, 141 Mo. 390; State v. Craig, 79 Mo.App. 412; O'Mohumbro v. Emerson, 80 Mo.App. 313; Landgraf v. Pressed Brick Co., 80 Mo.App. 538; Crenshaw v. Ins. Co., 71 Mo.App. 42; State v. Grant, 144 Mo. 56; Harper v. Oil Co., 74 Mo.App. 644; Force v. VanPlatten, 149 Mo. 446; Patterson v. Gallemore, 79 Mo.App. 457; State v. Reverly, 145 Mo. 660. (2) The right to dispose of one's property for an honest purpose is not terminated by indebtedness, or insolvency, although such a disposition may, or does, have the effect of hindering or delaying creditors. Daugherty v. Cooper, 77 Mo. 528 (531); State v. Laurie, 1 Mo.App. 371; Bank v. Russey, 74 Mo.App. 651; Milling Co. v. Burns, 152 Mo. 350. Fraud must not be inferred from the mere fact that the vender is indebted at the time of the conveyance. Feder v. Abraham, 28 Mo.App. 454. A fraudulent attempt to hinder and delay creditors can not be inferred from the mere fact that a conveyance had that effect. State to use v. Estel, 6 Mo.App. 6; Hardwick v. Cox, 50 Mo.App. 509; Colbern v. Robinson, 80 Mo. 541; Schreeder v. Bobbitt, 108 Mo. 289; Alberger v. Bank, 123 Mo. 325; Hargadine v. Henderson, 97 Mo. 386; Banking Co. v. Costello, 45 Neb. 119; Beessneck v. Coehn, 7 N.Y.S. 620; 2 Century Digest, semi page 319, art. 233 (s); Burgin v. Birgin, 23 N. C. (1 Ired.) 453; Black Hills Mercantile Co. v. Gardiner, 5 S.D. 246, 58 N.W. 557; Sprague v. Gardiner, Id. 5 S.D. 256, 58 N.W. 559. See, also, Goodpen v. Locke, 56 Ark. 314. (3) The mere fact that the security given to secure a note is more than is necessary is, of itself, no indication of fraud. Colburn v. Robinson, 80 Mo. 541; Furth Co. v. May, 78 Mo.App. 323; Kiely v. Hickox, 70 Mo.App. 623; Kingman v. Cornell-Tibbetts Co., 150 Mo. 300.
The plaintiff brought its action against defendant on a promissory note and sued out an attachment in aid. On a trial of the plea in abatement the verdict was for defendant and the attachment was thereupon dissolved.
The principal cause of attachment alleged was that defendant had fraudulently conveyed his property so as to hinder and delay his creditors. The evidence showed that defendant was largely indebted. That he owed the plaintiff and certain implement dealers doing business as Conrad Brothers, besides several other debts. The immediate or principal cause of the attachment, was a chattel mortgage given by defendant to the Conrads on September 8th, 1900, to secure six notes, aggregating $ 225, being the purchase price of two "McCormick Corn Binders." The notes were to fall due a few months apart in sums ranging from fifteen to forty-five dollars. The first for $ 15, was to become due in a few days from date, and the last, for $ 40, in two years thereafter. To secure these notes the defendant executed the chattel mortgage on all his personal property and growing crops, including nine head of horses, two milch cows, one heifer and one steer, four farm wagons, 125 acres of Kaffir corn, 75 acres of Indian corn, the two machines, to secure the payment of which the mortgage was given, and a variety of other farm property, in all aggregating, according to defendant's testimony, a value of between four and five thousand dollars. The mortgage provided that defendant might retain possession of the property, but any sale, disposal or depreciation thereof, should be cause of forfeiture.
The testimony given by Conrad and by defendant himself is all that need be considered in order to dispose of the case. It was substantially as follows: That defendant having bought one machine of the Conrads, in a few days concluded that he needed another in order to harvest his Kaffir corn. He went to one of the Conrads to make the purchase, but was informed that he must give a chattel mortgage; and he replied that he would give one on all his property. That in naming over the property, perhaps half in value of what he finally gave, Conrad said that was sufficient, but defendant put it all in and Conrad accepted it. We will not attempt to set out all the evidence of these two parties, for it is sufficient to say of it, that it shows, beyond doubt, they had a verbal understanding that defendant might sell, at least a large part of the property and use it in the payment of debts due other creditors than Conrad, as well as otherwise for his own benefit. Conrad said on recross-examination by Mr. Thurman:
He then said in answer to a question on re-direct examination by Mr Cole: By the Court: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Nephler v. Woodward
...... Shaw v. Dairy Co., 56 Mo.App. 525; Hughes v. Railroad, 127 Mo. 452; Bank v. Hatch, 98 Mo. 376; Perrette v. Kansas City, 100 Mo.App. 567;. Squiers v. Kansas City, 100 ...196; Meredith v. Wilkinson, 31 Mo. 1;. Hemphill v. Kansas City, 100 Mo.App. 567;. Anderson v. Union Terminal Co., 161 Mo. 411;. Owens v. Railroad, 95 Mo. 169; Crawford v. Doppler, 120 Mo. ......