Buhl v. Peck

• Decision Date: 27 April 1888
• Citation: 70 Mich. 44,37 N.W. 876
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: BUHL ET AL. v. PECK ET UX.

37 N.W. 876

70 Mich. 44

BUHL ET AL. v. PECK ET UX.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 27, 1888

Appeal from circuit court, Clinton county; WILLIAM NEWTON, Judge.

Bill filed by Christian H. Buhl and Theodore D. Buhl to subject land of Ursula W. Peck to satisfy the debts of her husband Orin F. Peck. Mrs. Peck lent her money to her husband, which he used in his business. She kept the books, but did not notify complainants that her husband was trading with her capital, and it was alleged she thereby represented that he was trading with his own capital, and induced them to give him credit. While indebted to complainants, but being solvent, Orin F. Peck purchased the lands in question which were conveyed to the wife, and paid for with her money. Judgment for defendants. Complainants appeal.

SHERWOOD C.J.

On the 4th of October, 1886, the complainants recovered a judgment in the Clinton county circuit court against the defendant Orin F. Peck for $1,002.10 damages, and $19 costs. The execution issued upon the judgment having been returned unsatisfied, the bill in this case was filed by the complainants in February, 1887, to subject certain lands, the title to which Mrs. Peck claimed, and which stood in her name, to the payment of the plaintiff's judgment; they claiming that the consideration for the conveyances of the lands to Mrs. Peck moved from her husband and that the conveyances to her were in fraud of their rights, and that she has other property of her husband that ought to go to the payment of the judgment. The bill is full in its averments, and in the usual form in such cases stating, all, however, after averring the return of execution, and the debt still owing, upon information and belief. The defendants filed their joint and several answer, in which they admit the judgment, the issuing and return of execution, and that the judgment is still unpaid. They admit the conveyance of the land in question to Mrs. Peck, and further deny all fraud and evil intent with which they or either of them are charged, and deny every other material averment made in the bill. The defendant Orin Peck says and avers that, at the time the lands in question were conveyed to his wife, he was doing a large mercantile business in Maple Rapids, and continued the same until 1884; that he as perfectly solvent when such conveyance was made; and that his property has always been in his own name. And Mrs. Peck, further answering, says that she has no lands, money, property, or effects in her name or possession, the consideration for which moved from her husband, or belonging to him, and that she has not been a party to any conveyances or transactions to him, and that she has not been a creditors of her husband, or any other person. Proofs were taken, and the cause heard upon them and the pleadings, before Judge NEWTON, who rendered a decree dismissing the complainants' bill, with costs.

A review of the record and briefs of the learned counsel satisfies us that the decree of the circuit judge is right, and should be affirmed. On March 12, 1878, Mrs Peck purchased, according to the record of the conveyance, of Elijah Fleshman the E. 1/2 of the S.E. 1/4 of section 5, in township 8 N., of range 3 W.; and, on the 10th day of April in the same year, she purchased of Henry L. Porter the E. 1/2 of the W. 1/4 of section 4, in the same town and range, all situate in Clinton county. The consideration for the first parcel was $4,000, and for the second $3,500. It is these parcels of land claimed by Mrs. Peck, and to which she holds the legal title, the complainants seek by their suit to subject to the payment of her husband's debt represented in the judgment referred to. At the time these purchases were made, Mrs. Peck claims that her husband had of her money and its accumulations, which she had let him have to use in his business, much more than sufficient to pay for the property purchased, and that he acted as her agent in making the purchases for her, and in using her property in payment for the same; and in this she is corroborated by the testimony of Mr. Peck, who, with his wife, testify that her funds in his hands were not exhausted when she had made the payments she did for the property. We are asked by the complainants, in view of the fact that Mrs. Peck had never had any written memorandum with her husband showing the condition of their financial relations, or the state of the account between them, or any settlement by which others might know the amount of his indebtedness to her, to say that this testimony may with great propriety be disregarded; and that especially should this be done when the equitable rights of the husband's creditors requires the last cent of his property. We do not, however, take this view of the case before us. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the dealings between this husband and wife were not unlike those in most other cases where the proper feelings and mutual confidence exist between them, as we have every reason to believe they did; and in such cases we recognize no equitable rights in any creditor, superior to those of the wife, to have her property lent to her husband, while living in such confidential relations, when she calls for it, or security therefor when she demands it, and we know of no reason why the acts performed for her by her best and most confidential friend should be looked upon with suspicion while he is doing her business relating to her sole property. In this case, however, no embarrassment is encountered in that regard, as her testimony is fortified by the facts stated, and which, save by unnatural and unfounded inference, are wholly uncontradicted. When Mrs. Peck received these deeds, the record shows that the husband had been engaged in hardware business at Maple Rapids 12 years, and had accumulated property of his own,-some considerable more than sufficient to satisfy his debts. If this were so, it would have been quite impertinent for his other creditors to have attempted an investigation of his wife's affairs. And it is equally so now if she has done...