Brown v. Sloan
| Decision Date | 23 January 1901 |
| Citation | 61 Neb. 237,85 N.W. 37 |
| Parties | BROWN v. SLOAN ET AL. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Where a vendor sells and transfers his property with the intent and purpose of hindering, delaying, or defrauding his creditors, and the vendee purchases such property with knowledge of the fraudulent intent of the vendor, or knowledge of such facts and circumstances as would put a prudent man on inquiry, which, if pursued, would lead to a knowledge or notice of the fraudulent purpose of the vendor, such sale and transfer are fraudulent and void as to the creditors of such vendor.
2. Instructions copied in the opinion held to correctly state the law, and to have been properly given.
3. Instructions requested and refused held properly refused.
4. Evidence examined, and held to support the verdict of the jury and the judgment rendered thereon.
Error to district court, Pawnee county; Stull, Judge.
Action by Selina F. Brown against Joseph G. Sloan and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Affirmed.Thomas H. Matters, Henry Matters, and A. S. Tibbets, for plaintiff in error.
Story & Story and Lindsay & Raper, for defendants in error.
The controversy in this action arises between the creditors of one Rosina Marquardt and the plaintiff in error, Selina F. Brown, over a stock of merchandise formerly owned by, or in the name of, said Marquardt, and of which the plaintiff in error claims the ownership by purchase. Marquardt & Place were the owners of a stock of merchandise located at Burchard. Selina F. Brown was also engaged in the same business at the same place. It is disclosed by the evidence that in April, 1891, Marquardt, being indebted for merchandise in the sum of three or four thousand dollars, sold her interest in the entire stock of goods,--being two-thirds thereof,--and the goods were immediately divided; the plaintiff in error taking Marquardt's two-thirds interest, as the vendee. These transactions were made by D. M. Marquardt, the son of Rosina Marquardt, and who was conducting the business in her name. There is some evidence tending to show that Marquardt first sold to one Coates, a clerk in the store of plaintiff in error; he, in turn, selling to Brown. However this may be, the transactions were engaged in and consummated on behalf of the purchaser by one J. D. Brown, the husband and business manager of plaintiff in error, and who had knowledge of all the facts and circumstances surrounding the one or the two transactions, as the case may be. It is quite apparent that Brown stood in no more favorable light than did Coates, conceding him to have been the purchaser in the first instance. The consideration for Marquardt's interest in the stock of goods was two quarter sections of land in Brown county, of uncertain value. A deed to one of the quarters was executed in favor of D. M. Marquardt's wife, and a bond for a deed to the other quarter was made out, also, in favor of the wife of D. M. Marquardt.
The question whether the sale of the goods by Marquardt was with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of Rosina Marquardt was fairly submitted to the jury; and that such fraudulent intent did exist, as found by the jury, we are satisfied is amply sustained by the evidence. The gist of the controversy is as to whether the transfer can and should be avoided as to the purchaser, the plaintiff in error, and the title by which she claims devested...
To continue reading
Request your trial