Bates v. Papesh

Citation166 P. 270,30 Idaho 529
PartiesMAGGIE A. BATES, Respondent, v. W. W. PAPESH, Appellant
Decision Date28 June 1917
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

HUSBAND AND WIFE-SEPARATE PROPERTY-BONA FIDE TRANSFER - PREFERENCE-ACTION TO QUIET TITLE.

1. A wife, who loans the proceeds of her separate property to her husband, becomes one of his creditors, and her rights as such are governed by the same legal principles as the rights of any other creditor.

2. Whenever there is a true debt and a real transfer for an adequate consideration, there is no collusion, and fraud in its legal sense cannot be predicated thereon, even though the transfer result in a preference; nor does the fact that the creditor obtaining the preference is the debtor's wife operate to change or modify the rule.

3. B and his wife while living in Montana made an agreement that the wife's earnings should be her separate property. These earnings she invested in cattle and horses, which were sold, B. retaining part of the proceeds of the sale and giving his wife his promissory note therefor, which was always treated by the parties as the wife's separate property. Afterward they moved to Idaho, and B. borrowed money of two different banks with which to buy a lot and build a house, giving his notes therefor. Subsequently he deeded this realty to his wife in payment of his note to her the amount of which was substantially the value of the property. Some time thereafter the bank notes were reduced to a judgment, the lot attached and sold on execution to P B.'s wife sued to quiet title.

Held under the facts stated, that the note from B. to his wife was her separate property, making a bona fide creditor of her husband, subject to preference the same as any other creditor.

[As to conveyances and contracts between husband and wife, see note in 99 Am.Dec. 599]

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District, for Shoshone County. Hon. William W. Woods, Judge.

Action to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed. Costs awarded to respondent.

James A. Wayne, for Appellant.

Lot 18 having admittedly been acquired during the existence of the marriage relationship between Bates and his wife, is presumed to be community property. (Douglas v. Douglas, 22 Idaho 336, 125 P. 796; Humbird Lbr. Co. v. Doran, 24 Idaho 507, 135 P. 66; Chaney v. Gauld Co., 28 Idaho 76, 152 P. 468.)

Property purchased with borrowed money is community property. (Northwestern etc. Bank v. Rauch, 7 Idaho 152, 61 P. 516.)

The conveyance from Bates to his wife was made for the purpose, and with the intent, and had the direct effect of defrauding the creditors of the husband, to wit, the defendant in this case who had acquired the notes of both the creditor banks. (20 Cyc. 439.)

The deed from John L. Bates to Maggie A. Bates recites a fictitious consideration, which is in itself evidence of fraud. (20 Cyc. 441, and cases cited.)

When a conveyance of land is made by an insolvent debtor to one of his creditors in satisfaction of an antecedent debt and is attacked by other creditors of the grantor, the grantee must show that the consideration for it was both valuable and adequate. (Mobile Savings Bank v. McDonnell, 89 Ala. 434, 18 Am. St. 137, 8 So. 137, 9 L. R. A. 645; Humes v. Scruggs, 94 U.S. 22, 24 L.Ed. 51.)

And this is doubly true when the antecedent creditor happens to be the wife of the grantor in the deed. (Potts v. Rubesam (Okl.), 156 P. 356; Bank of Orofino v. Wellman, 26 Idaho 425, 143 P. 1169.)

Chas. E. Miller, for Respondent.

Where property was purchased by a married woman in a foreign state and under the laws of that state such property became her separate property, and the property is thereafter brought into the state of Idaho, it will continue to be the separate property of the wife. (Gooding Milling etc. Co. v. Lincoln County State Bank, 22 Idaho 468, 126 P. 772.)

When the husband relinquishes to the wife all claim to her separate earnings, no creditor complaining of that act, such gift on the part of the husband is absolute. (Jackson v. Torrence, 83 Cal. 521, 23 P. 695; Douglas v. Douglas, 22 Idaho 336, 125 P. 796.)

The state insolvency law having been superseded by the federal bankruptcy act, there is no law in this state prohibiting the preference of one creditor over another in the absence of collusion and fraud. (Capital Lbr. Co. v. Saunders, 26 Idaho 408, 143 P. 1178; Wilkerson v. Aven, 26 Idaho 559, 144 P. 1105.)

BUDGE, C. J. Morgan, J., concurs. Rice, J., dissents.

OPINION

BUDGE, C. J.

This action was brought by respondent, Maggie A. Bates, for the purpose of quieting title in her to lot 18, block 4 Sunnyside addition to the city of Kellogg, Shoshone county. Appellant filed an answer and cross-complaint setting up an interest in the property adverse to respondent, under a purported sheriff's certificate of sale on execution to satisfy a judgment against respondent, John L. Bates, and alleging that he was the owner of the property, subject only to the right of redemption in the latter. And further alleging that the lot was purchased by John L. Bates on the 9th of October, 1913, from one Clarence C. Plemmons for the sum of $ 160, which was loaned to Bates for that purpose by the First State Bank of Kellogg, the bank taking his promissory note therefor; that about April 1, 1914, Bates entered into an oral contract with one Bellinger for the construction of a frame dwelling-house upon the lot; that during the period of construction a consignment of materials arrived and that in order to take up the bill of lading, so as to enable him to have the materials delivered, Bates borrowed $ 105 from the Weber Bank of Wardner, giving his promissory note therefor; that all payments upon the contract with Bellinger were made by John L. Bates except the sum of $ 50.14; that the note to the First State Bank of Kellogg was renewed several times but that neither this note nor the one to the Weber Bank had ever been paid; that on the 11th day of December, 1914, Bates attempted by deed to convey the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Rodgers v. Boise Ass'n of Credit Men, Ltd.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 28, 1921
    ...... (Bump, Fraudulent Conveyances, 2d ed., p. 187; Currie v. Bowman, 25 Ore. 364, 35 P. 848; Pettengill v. Blackman, 30 Idaho 241, 164 P. 358; Bates v. Papesh, 30 Idaho 529, 166 P. 270.). . . MCCARTHY,. J. Budge, Dunn and Lee, JJ., concur. Rice, C. J.,. disqualified. . . ......
  • Feltham v. Blunck
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • May 25, 1921
    ......751.). . . Under. the laws of our state a debtor has the right to prefer any. creditor, even though he is insolvent. (Bates v. Papesh, 30 Idaho 529, 166 P. 270; Pettengill v. Blackman, 30 Idaho 241, 164 P. 358; Wilson v. Baker. Clothing Co., 25 Idaho 378, 137 P. 896, 50 ......
  • Moody v. Beggs
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • March 1, 1921
    ...... obtaining the preference is the debtor's wife operate to. change or modify the rule. ( Bates v. Papesh, 30. Idaho 529, 166 P. 270; Wilkerson v. Aven, 26 Idaho. 559, 144 P. 1105; Coffey v. Scott, 66 Ore. 465, 135 P. 88.). . . ......
  • Aker v. Aker
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Idaho
    • February 15, 1933
    ......S.; 22 C. J., Evidence, secs. 14, 17; 21 C. J.,. Equity, secs. 184, 185, 186, 671, 672; Littler v. Jefferis, 36 Idaho 608, 212 P. 866; Bates v. Papesh, 30 Idaho 529, 166 P. 270; Wilkerson v. Aven, 26 Idaho 559, 564, 144 P. 1105.). . . The. husband, as the head and manager of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT