Brigham v. Fawcett

• Decision Date: 23 January 1880
• Citation: 42 Mich. 542,4 N.W. 272
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: JOHN W. BRIGHAM and others v. ROBERT FAWCETT.

4 N.W. 272

42 Mich. 542

JOHN W. BRIGHAM and others v. ROBERT FAWCETT.

Supreme Court of Michigan

January 23, 1880

A husband actually indebted to his wife may, if acting in good faith, convey to her property not exempt in payment thereof and other creditors cannot complain that such indebtedness or a portion thereof, was at the time barred by the statute of limitations, had the debtor seen fit to assert such defence.

Appeal from superior court of Detroit.

George W. Bates, for complainants.

James A. Randall and Edwin F. Conely, for defendants,

GRAVES J.

In 1877 the complainants credited the defendant Robert Fawcett with a bill of goods amounting to about $300. At that time and up to March 6, 1878, he owned and occupied as a homestead a portion of a city lot in Detroit. At the date last named he quitclaimed the premises to his wife, the defendant Mary, but the occupation as a homestead has continued without interuption. The debt to complainants remaining unpaid, they sued the defendant Robert, in December, 1878, to collect it and in the succeeding January obtained judgment. The damages were $323.20, and costs $22.35. Execution was taken out immediately, and levied on the premises in question.

Subsequently the complainants filed this bill in aid of the execution and required the defendants to answer on oath. The defendant Mary accordingly put in her sworn answer, but no answer being received or insisted on from the defendant Robert the bill was taken as confessed by him.

The case being brought to hearing on the pleadings and the evidence taken, the court dismissed the bill and the complainants appealed.

The essence of complainants' case is that the conveyance from defendant Robert to his wife was made with intent to defraud them.

The answer denies this, and alleges--First, that the deed was given for a debt which her husband owed her; and, second that the premises were at the time a homestead, and not leviable for complainants' debt.

The defence offered no testimony, and all given by complainants, except some few items, was drawn from the defendants, who were made witnesses to support the bill. The case depends upon their evidence, and the complainants must accept their statements. Darling v. Hurst, 39 Mich. 765; Powden v. Johnson et al. Cir.Ct.U.S.Dist.N.J.1878.

They state positively that there was no intent to defraud complainants or hinder them in the collection of their demand; and moreover that the conveyance was made in consideration of an actual money indebtedness of the husbond to the wife of more than $1,700.

The sources from whence Mrs. Fawcett derived the money, and the items of the debt, are fairly explained, and we are satisfied of their justice. Five hundred dollars of the amount, if not more, was applied directly in putting up the dwelling, and as much more was passed to her husband at or about the...