Churchill & Alden Co. v. Ramsey
| Citation | 208 N.W. 406,50 S.D. 73 |
| Decision Date | 16 April 1926 |
| Docket Number | 5658. |
| Parties | CHURCHILL & ALDEN CO. v. RAMSEY et ux. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Appeal from Circuit Court, Minnehaha County; L. L. Fleeger, Judge.
On rehearing. Former opinion adhered to. For former opinion, see 203 N.W. 502.
H. B Ramsey, of Minneapolis, Minn., and Davis, Lyon & Bradford, of Sioux Falls, for appellants.
A. J Keith, M. G. Luddy, and Kirby, Kirby & Kirby, all of Sioux Falls, for respondent.
On rehearing. For former opinions in this litigation, see 172 N.W. 780, 42 S.D. 23; 188 N.W. 742, 45 S.D. 454; 203 N.W 502.
The ninth finding of fact reads as follows:
"That the said deed in which the said W. H. Ramsey is grantor, and the said Ella B. Ramsey is grantee, was executed without consideration, and with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of the said W. H. Ramsey, including the plaintiff in this action, and that the said defendant, Ella B. Ramsey, with knowledge of said intent on the part of the said W. H. Ramsey, and to assist the said W. H. Ramsey in hindering, delaying, and defrauding his creditors, including the plaintiff in this action, now makes claim thereunder to the property in controversy."
There is no finding that at the time of the execution of the deed in question Mrs. Ramsey, the grantee therein, had any intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors of her husband, or accepted the deed with any such intent.
The trial court did find, however, in the seventh and ninth findings, that so far as concerns W. H. Ramsey, the grantor, the deed in question was executed for the purpose of keeping the title to the property out of his name, and to prevent the same from being seized by his creditors and with the intent to hinder, delay, and defraud his creditors, including the plaintiff, and the evidence is ample to support these findings.
The twelfth finding of fact was as follows:
"That no agreement or understanding existed between the said W. H. Ramsey and the said Ella B. Ramsey that the said W. H. Ramsey was to pay said $3,400 to the said Ella B. Ramsey, and that no note, or other evidence of indebtedness was furnished by him to her."
In 1896 W. H. Ramsey deeded the family home in Sioux Falls to his wife, Ella B. Ramsey. In 1907 the family removed to Minneapolis. Shortly thereafter the Sioux Falls home, standing in the name of the wife, was sold for $3,400, which money W. H. Ramsey put in his personal checking account and used in his business the same as he would have used any other personal funds. The only consideration claimed for the execution on July 12, 1912, of the deed, the validity of which is in question on this appeal, is that it was given by Ramsey to his wife in satisfaction of the indebtedness of $3,400 due from him to her by virtue of his having received and used, about 1907, the proceeds of the sale of the Sioux Falls residence. The equity in the property conveyed to Mrs. Ramsey was not worth much, if any, more than this sum-perhaps less. If his wife was his creditor to this amount, he had a right to prefer her if he desired, and the transaction would not be vitiated because he also intended thereby to hinder, delay, or defraud other creditors, so long as the grantee received the conveyance in good faith in payment of her debt, and without participation in or knowledge, actual or implied, of such intent on the part of the grantor. On the other hand, if at the time of the execution of the deed Mrs. Ramsey was not in actual fact a creditor of her husband, then under the circumstances of this case the conveyance cannot stand as against his other creditors. In other words, if the twelfth finding has support in the evidence, then this case cannot be controlled by the fact that there was a sufficient technical delivery of the deed from Ramsey to his wife, nor by the fact, if it be a fact, that she did not know of or participate in any design on his part to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors. See Dirks v. Union Savings Ass'n, 168 N.W. 578, 40 S.D. 529.
In view of the relation between husband and wife, the law does not imply, merely from the receipt by the husband of the proceeds of sale of property standing in the wife's name, a promise on his part to repay or replace the same, as it might between strangers. There must be either an express promise to repay, or such attendant circumstances as affirmatively establish the fact that the husband and wife in the particular transaction dealt with each other as debtor and creditor. See Carr v. Way, 119 N.W. 700, 141 Iowa, 245; Cole v. Cole, 132 S.W. 734, 231 Mo. 236; First Nat. Bank v. Herring, 252 S.W. 37, 159 Ark. 317.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial