Chadbourne v. Williams

• Decision Date: 23 January 1891
• Citation: 45 Minn. 294,47 N.W. 812
• Parties: CHADBOURNE v WILLIAMS ET AL.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

45 Minn. 294

47 N.W. 812

CHADBOURNEvWILLIAMS ET AL.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Jan. 23, 1891.

(Syllabus by the Court.)

1. Action by a judgment creditor of the husband to set aside a conveyance of real estate from the husband, through an intermediary, to the wife, on the ground that it was executed with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of the husband. Held, that the evidence justified a finding that, although the title was in the husband, it was in fact the wife's property, purchased and paid for with her money, which she had intrusted to her husband, to be used and invested by him as her agent for her benefit, and that the conveyance was made, without any fraudulent intent, in order to vest the legal title in the wife, to whom the property equitably belonged.

2. Under the married woman's act there can be no presumption that a husband, when he receives the money of his wife, takes it, by virtue of his marital power, as his own; nor is there any presumption, in the absence of evidence of the fact, that the wife, when she places her money in the hands of her husband, thereby intends to make a gift of it to him.

3. The wife was not estopped to claim that the property was in fact hers, if the creditor, when he gave the credit to the husband, had such notice or information as to the actual ownership of the property as would have put a man of ordinary business prudence upon inquiry as to the fact before giving credit to the husband.

Appeal from district court, Olmsted county; START, Judge.

Burt W. Eaton and Davis, Kellogg & Severance, for appellant.

Chas. E. Willson, for respondents.

MITCHELL, J.

The plaintiff, a judgment creditor of the defendant James M., brought this action to set aside a conveyance of real estate made by the judgment debtor to his wife and co-defendant, Maria H. The allegations of the plaintiff are that, in 1875, he and James M. became co-guarantors of the payment of certain promissory notes of a corporation of which both were stockholders; that, the principal having failed to pay the notes, he was compelled to pay the whole of them, in 1884; and that he afterwards brought suit against James M. for contribution, and obtained judgment against him, in 1888, on which execution has been issued and returned unsatisfied. He further alleges that, at the time he united with James M. in this contract of guaranty, the latter was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, the owner and in possession of the real estate in question, and had held himself cut to the world as such, and had thereby obtained good credit in the community where he lived; that on account of the possession and ownership of said property and such credit, and not otherwise, the plaintiff joined with said James M. in the contract of guaranty referred to; that in August, 1883, the defendants, with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of James M., and without consideration, conveyed the property to one Dorr, who, in pursuance of and with the like fraudulent intent, and without consideration, conveyed it to the defendant Maria H. Defendants, in their answer, deny that the property ever in fact belonged to James M., but allege that it always belonged to Maria H., and was purchased and paid for with her own money; that James M. held the title in his name merely as agent and trustee for her, to manage and sell for her benefit; and that the conveyances referred to were made at her request, and in good faith, for the purpose of vesting the legal title in her, to whom the property in fact and equitably belonged.

The court found, in substance, that all these allegations of the answer were true; and, after a careful...