Blake v. Boisjoli

• Decision Date: 17 November 1892
• Citation: 53 N.W. 637,51 Minn. 296
• Parties: BLAKE v BOISJOLI ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

51 Minn. 296

53 N.W. 637

BLAKEvBOISJOLI ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Nov. 17, 1892.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Action to enforce an alleged trust in favor of creditors in land, the consideration for which had been paid by the debtor, but the conveyance made to his wife.

2. The evidence was that the debtor owned 200 acres of land, 80 of which was exempt as a homestead; that the land was subject to incumbrances considerably in excess of the value of the nonexempt 120 acres; that the debtor exchanged the entire tract subject to incumbrances (which the purchaser assumed) for the land in suit. Held, that this evidence justified the court in finding that the statutory presumption of fraudulent intent had been disproved.

Appeal from district court, Morrison county; BAXTER, Judge.

Action by Peter Blake against Joseph Boisjoli and others to enforce an alleged trust in favor of plaintiff, as creditor of defendant Boisjoli, in certain land. Finding for plaintiff. A new trial was refused, and defendants appeal. Affirmed.

A. P. Blanchard, for appellants.

Taylor, Calhoun & Rhodes, for respondent.

MITCHELL, J.

This was an action to enforce an alleged trust in favor of plaintiff, as creditor of defendant J. Boisjoli, (Gen. St. 1878, c. 43, §§ 7, 8,) in land, the consideration for which had been paid by the debtor, and the conveyance made to his wife and codefendant; and the only question raised by this appeal is whether the evidence justified the finding of the court to the effect that the statutory presumption of fraud had been disproved. The undisputed evidence is that the defendant debtor was the owner of 200 acres of land, 80 of which was exempt as his homestead; that the whole of the land was subject to a mortgage for over $1,650; that the nonexempt 120 acres were also subject to the lien of a judgment for $175; that the nonexempt part of the land was worth not to exceed $1,200 to $1,400, or considerably less than the incumbrances; that the debtor exchanged the whole 200 acres subject to the incumbrances (which the purchaser assumed) for the land in suit, worth from $800 to $1,200, and had the conveyance made to his wife. This, which was substantially all the evidence in the case, fully justified the finding of the trial court. The statute provides that “every such conveyance shall be presumed fraudulent as against the creditors, at that time, of the person paying the consideration; and, when a fraudulent intent is not disproved, a trust shall result in favor of such creditors to the extent that may be necessary to satisfy their just demands.” The presumption of fraudulent intent in such cases is not conclusive, but simply casts the burden upon the grantee to disprove a fraudulent intent. This was but declaratory of the rule already sanctioned by the great weight of authority, although some authorities, notably Chancellor KENT, in ...