Campbell v. Tomlinson
| Decision Date | 05 June 1912 |
| Docket Number | No. 21,974.,21,974. |
| Parties | CAMPBELL et ux. v. TOMLINSON et al. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Circuit Court, Clinton County; J. V. Kent, Judge.
Action by William L. Tomlinson and others against Cleland C. Campbell and wife. Judgment for plaintiffs and defendants' motion for a new trial overruled, and defendants appeal. Transferred from the Appellate Court under section 1405, Burns' Ann. St. 1908. Affirmed.
Eli F. Ritter and F. C. Eagan, for appellants. B. S. Higgins, E. O. Rogers, and Roy W. Adney, for appellees.
Action by Tomlinson and others, creditors of appellant Cleland C. Campbell and his wife, Margaret, to set aside as fraudulent a conveyance of real estate from the former to the latter, and subject it to the payment of indebtedness of the husband.
The complaint alleges the fact of Tomlinson holding a note for $25 against the husband, dated November 27, 1905, the execution by the husband, on February 22, 1905, with appellee Rader as surety, to one Hull for $100, due in 90 days, the execution by the husband, in July, 1906, of a note to a bank for $100, due in 6 months, with appellees Crigler and Crigler as sureties. Copies of the notes are alleged to be filed as exhibits. That on December 14, 1907, Hull and the bank filed complaints on their respective notes against Campbell and wife, and on January 25, 1908, recovered judgment against the husband alone for $120.50 and $118, respectively; and at the time the judgments were recovered Campbell was insolvent. Rader and the Criglers then paid off the judgments as sureties on the notes; and Campbell had not paid any part of the judgments. That there is now due and owing Tomlinson on his note a stated sum. That there is due and owing Rader by the principal on the amount so paid a stated sum, and due the Criglers on the amount paid a stated sum. Prayer for judgment and to set aside the conveyance. That on December 31, 1906, Campbell was the owner of certain real estate described, and on said day he and his wife conspired together for the purpose and with the intent to cheat, hinder, and delay the creditors of the husband, and avoid payment of said notes; and on said day for said purpose, and without consideration, the husband conveyed to the wife, at and after which, and up to the time of filing this suit, he did not have sufficient property to pay his indebtedness. There was no demurrer to the complaint. The answer of the defendant wife was a general denial; no answer by the husband. There was a trial, a general finding in favor of the plaintiffs, personal judgments against the husband, and setting aside the deed. The error here assigned is a joint assignment as to overruling appellants' motion for a new trial, the causes for which are that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence, is contrary to law, and error in admitting the transcripts of the judgments rendered in the Boone circuit court.
[...
To continue reading
Request your trial