Cain v. McGeenty

• Decision Date: 08 July 1889
• Citation: 41 Minn. 194,42 N.W. 933
• Parties: CAIN v MCGEENTY ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

41 Minn. 194

42 N.W. 933

CAINvMCGEENTY ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

July 8, 1889.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Evidence held to justify findings of fact.

2. The law will not infer fraud in an administrator's sale of real estate, from the fact that the purchaser is a son of the administrator.

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

Action by Margaret Cain against Henry McGeenty and John McGeenty, Jr., to set aside, as fraudulent and void, as sale of land made by Patrick McGeenty, as administrator of the estate of Bernard Cain, deceased. Trial by the court. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

C. D. & Thos. D. O'Brien, Chas. A. Willard, and John A. Giltinan, for appellant.

Woods & Kingman, for respondents.

GILFILLAN, C. J.

We might have been better satisfied with the result below had the decision been in favor of the plaintiff; for although, upon the essential issues of fact, the evidence in favor of the defendant was direct and positive, the circumstances in the case were such as to cast serious suspicion upon that evidence,-suspicion that would have justified the court in finding that the administrator's sale was fraudulent, and the purchase at it, ostensibly made by Patrick McGeenty for himself, was in fact made for and in the interest of the administrator. The court below, however, gave credit to the testimony of the witnesses as it was rendered; and the circumstances indicating its falsity were not so conclusive as to justify us, within our rules of decision in such cases, in disturbing the finding. The relationship existing between the administrator and the purchaser-that of father and son, (the latter an adult)-was a circumstance to be considered, with the others in the case, in determining the question of actual fraud in the sale; but the law would not infer fraud from it. Order affirmed.