Chrislip et al. v. Teter et al.
| Decision Date | 21 April 1897 |
| Citation | 43 W.Va. 356 |
| Parties | Chrislip et al. v. Teter et al. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
FQU itv Plea dino Fraud.
When fraud is sufficiently alleged, with proper parties to a bill, a demurrer will not lie. (p. 864.)
Equity Jurisdiction.
"When a court of equity takes jurisdiction of a cause for one purpose, it will go on and dispose of the epiestions involved to avoid a multiplicity of suits.1' llanlyY. Waiter son, 39 W. Va. 214 (19 S. K. 530,). (p. 365.)
3. Reversal Appellate CourtReview on Appeal.
"Where a decree sought to be reversed is based upon depositions which are so conflicting, and of such a doubtful and unsatisfactory character, that different minds and different judges might reasonably disagree as to the facts proved by them, or tlx1 proper conclusion to be deduced therefrom, the Appellate Court will decline to reverse the finding or decree of the chancellor, although the testimony maybe such that the Appellate Court niighl have pronounced a different decree if it had acted upon the cause in the first instance.11 Smith v. Yoke, 27 W. Va. 689. (p. 866.)
4. Fkau or lent ('ox vn v a xcu Decree Error.
When, in a suit to set aside a deed of conveyance as fraudulent and void as to plaintiff's debt, and to sell the real estate therefor, the court ascertains and decrees that it is so fraudulent and void, it is error not to decree further, and set aside said deed and provide for the sale of tic property conveyed to pay the debt. (p. 866.)
5 FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE Decree Error.
In any such suit it is error to decree the sale of another tract of land of the defendant for the satisfaction of said debt, the conveyance of which has not been attacked, or said tract mentioned in tic pleadings, and upon which plaintiff lias no lien. (p. 867.)
6. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE Appellccte CourtJurisdiction. In such suit, where the defendant fled his answer in tic nature of a cross bill, and praying affrmative relief, and the court failed to take any action thereon, or to adjudicate in the matter of said affirmative relief, in the absence of such action there is nothing of which the Appellate Court can take jurisdict ion. (p. 8(57.)
Appeal from Circuit Court, Barborr county. Bill by Chrislip Bros, against John Teter and others. Decree for plaintiff's, and defendants appeal.
Reversed.
Dayton tv. Dayton, W. T. Ice, and F. O. Blue, for appellants.
Samuel V. Woods, for appellees. McWnoRTER, JUDGE:
On the 1.8th day of May, 1893, Chrislip Bros, sold John Teter their stock of merchandise at Peck's Hun, Upshur county, by the following written agreement: The goods were invoiced on May 22, 1893, and Teter made his two notes of that date for one1 thousand three hundred and four dollars and sixty cents each, payable on or before the 1st day of ()ctober, 1894, one with interest from date, the other not mentioning interest. At tin April rules, 1894, Chrislip Bros, filed in the clerk's office of Barbour county circuit court their bill in chancery against John Teter, Lloyd A. Teter, Burton I. Teter, Catherine Teter (guardian for said Lloyd A. ami Burton I. Teter), John Teter and Granville Teter (executors of Aha Teter, deceased), Ira Ward, and Edward E. Tutt, alleging that on the 20th of May, 1893, defendants Lloyd and Burton Teter were infants, seventeen and nineteen years old, respectively; that on that day their mother was appointed by the1 county court of Upshur county their guardian, and tlierea fter had charge of their property, personal and real; that the estate of the infants was all derived by the will of their father, Alva Teter, and amounted to about tern thousand dollars; that Granville Teter and John Teter qualified the 27th of February, 1898, as executors of Alva Teter; that on the 18th of.May, 1893, they sold the stork of merchandise as set forth in the above-written contract, and exhibited two note's of one thousand three hundred and four dollars and sixty cents each, alleging that one of them was assigned for value to Ira Ward, and that both notes remained unpaid. Further, that they had a claim against Teter, assigned to them by E. E. Tutt, for one hundred and fifty dollars, which was unpaid. Alleging the insolvency of John Teter; that a judgment at law against him would be unavailing; that he was about to leave the State and reside out of the same, and had declared his purpose to do so, and had rendered himself unable to meet his obligations, and had moved to Harbour county, to his mother-in-law's; but on the 22d of May, 1898, said John Teter was believed to be practically out of debt ami was then owner of real and personal property worth about ten thousand dollars, and upon the faith and credit thereof plaintiffs permitted him to become indebted to them; that his property consisted of two hundred acres of land, worth at least seven thousand dollars, on which he resided, and had horses, cattle, farming utensils, etc., worth two thousand dollars, and other personal property; that he was also then the owner of the said merchandise, worth five thousand dollars. Further charging that soon after becoming indebted to them he began a systematic and fraudulent disposition of his property, and on the 1st day of October, 1893, sold said stock of merchandise, which he had been retailing for some time, and from time to time replenishing, to Ira Ward, at the price of two thousand three hundred dollars, the same them being worth five thousand dollars, and received in payment therefor from Ward a tract of one hundred and eleven and one-half acres of land, called the "White Land," and paid saiel Ward the sum of live hundred dollars in money in said exchange, and borrowed from him one thousand dollars, and immediately incumbered the same1 land with a vendor's lien in his favor for one thousand five1 hundred dollars; that on tlu 1.7th of February, 1891, with fraudulent purpose he immmbered the same tract of land with six hundred dollars, which he borrowed from I). W. Dix and T. F. Kidd, practically incumbering said land for its selling value, and rendering it unavailing to other creditors, and with like fraudulent intent sold all his persona] property; that before the sale of all the personal property, on the 23d of November, with like fraudulent intent, by deed he conveyed to his infant brothers, Lloyd and Burton, the farm of two hundred acres, for the pretended consideration of six thousand six hundred and fifty dollars and seventeen cents, reciting in the deed that the one thousand and twenty-four dollars and thirty cents was in hand, and for the residue, live thousand six hundred and twenty-live dollars and eighty-seven cents, his two infant brothers executed to him their note payable the 4th of December, 189.4, and retained a vendor's lien on said land to secure the same, which note Teter had even" since been trying let trade off to whatever person might be foolish enough to buy or discount the same, but refused to discount or sell the same to plaintiffs, who offered to cash the same, less the amount of the said dedds. And charging that Lloyd and Burton, as well as their guardian, had notice of sued) fraud: that at the time of the sale of all his property he was in debt to the amount of six thousand sen-em hundred and twenty-four dollars, which indebtedness was also known to Lloyd and Burton and their guardian, all of whom were near neighbors, and on terms of the closest intimacy; that the said infant brothers and guardian had notice that he was about to heave1 the1 State; that plaintiffs tried to buy his land, ami offered to cash the1 infants' note, and he1 refused to do it, and they offered him a bonus of two hundred dollars if he1 would secure their debts, and he refused to do that; that they then requested him to name the sum that would induce him to secure them, which he declined to do, and declared that before he would do so he would "do worse"; that, when they offered to buy the land, John Teter declared to three reputable men that the said two infant brothers wanted him to sell the land, and led plaintiffs go unpaid, but, to deceive plaintiffs, declared at the same time that he would sell the sance to any other person for five dollars per acre h'ss than to his said brothers, because they suggested such perfidy to him. Plaintiffs charged thai all the said defendants Teters were combining together to hinder, delay, and defraud them; that plaintiffs' had filed in Upshur county a lis pendens, setting forth the object and title of this suit. And prayed that the deed executed by John Teter on November 23d to Lloyd ami Burton be' declared fraudulent and void as to the debts of the plaintiffs, and their said assignee1, Ward, and the same be1...
To continue reading
Request your trial