Beam v. Bennett
Decision Date | 22 June 1883 |
Citation | 16 N.W. 316,51 Mich. 148 |
Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Parties | BEAM v. BENNETT and others. |
A bill may be filed for the double purpose of aiding an execution and to reach property not open to execution.
The evidence in this case establishes the fact that defendant executed a deed of his property to his son, with intent to prevent plaintiff from realizing anything in satisfaction and payment of any judgment she might obtain against him in a suit pending at the time of the conveyance; and although such conveyance may not be a fraud on defendant's other creditors, whose claims the son agreed to pay in full, it is a fraud on the rights of plaintiff, and the land should be sold under the mortgage and the balance applied in satisfaction of her judgment.
Where a party, to whom a conveyance of land has been made in fraud of creditors, executes a mortgage to some of those creditors to secure the payment of their claims, such mortgage cannot be set aside as a fraud on a party who subsequently obtains a judgment against the original owner in an action pending at the time of the conveyance.
Appeal from Wayne.
Moore & Moore, for defendants.
The bill in this cause was filed for the double purpose of aiding an execution and to reach property not open to execution. It is perfectly regular. Williams v. Hubbard, Walk.Ch. 28. In November, 1878, the complainant brought her action at law against the defendant John M. Bennett to recover damages for breach of promise of marriage, and due notice of trial was given for the term which began May 5, 1879, and the trial was immediately set down to take place on the twenty-eighth of the same month. In this interval between the commencement of the term and the day fixed for trial, the defendant John M. Bennett executed a conveyance of the land in question to his son, the defendant William H. Bennett, a young man 22 or 23 years of age. This transaction was on the sixteenth of May. No consideration was paid; but an instrument of which the following is a copy was given back:
The mortgage specified at the close of this document was never executed.
The defendant John M., who had in immediate prospect the trial on the charge against him of breach of promise, and who was here making provision to be protected and maintained by his youthful son, was of good age and ability to take care of himself. He was only 51, was strong and robust, and an efficient blacksmith.
On the twenty-ninth...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ahlhauser v. Doud
...of a receiver of the property of the defendant upon which the execution has become a lien, see Rose v. Bevan, 10 Md. 466;Beam v. Bennett, 51 Mich. 148, 16 N. W. Rep. 316. In the case at bar all the parties who have any claim to the condemnation money are before the court, and it is clear th......
-
Beam v. Bennett
...51 Mich. 14816 N.W. 316BEAMv.BENNETT and others.Supreme Court of MichiganFiled June 22, A bill may be filed for the double purpose of aiding an execution and to reach property not open to execution. The evidence in this case establishes the fact that defendant executed a deed of his propert......