Cook v. Holbrook

• Decision Date: 09 January 1888
• Parties: COOK et al. v. HOLBROOK et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

146 Mass. 66

14 N.E. 943

COOK et al. v. HOLBROOK et al.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Suffolk.

January 9, 1888

COUNSEL

H. Baylies, for plaintiffs.

The intent is a conclusion of law. Bump, Fraud.Conv. (2d Ed.) 266; Marden v. Babcock, 2 Metc. 99; 1 Story, Eq.Jur §§ 359, 361, 363; Norton v. Norton, 5 Cush. 524 528, 529; Parkman v. Welch, 19 Pick. 231, 236. The province of the jury, to whom the issue is submitted whether a voluntary conveyance is fraudulent as against existing creditors, is to ascertain the facts and circumstances attending such conveyance; and then the law, in view of the facts and circumstances, determines the intent and the character of the conveyance. It is not sufficient in such a case to instruct the jury, as was done in this case, "as to the legal meaning of the word 'fraud,' and the distinctions which exist [in meaning] between what the law terms 'fraud' and the common understanding of the word in morals." Norton v. Norton, ubi supra; Bump Fraud.Conv. 26; Gunn v. Butler, 18 Pick. 248, 251 252; Winchester v. Charter, 12 Allen, 609. 13 Eliz. c. 5, is common law in this commonwealth. It would seem that the duty of the jury to find the facts, and the duty of the court to declare the intent, are distinct duties. 2 Kent, Comm. (12th Ed.) 442, note. The decisions are "vacillating and contradictory" upon this whole matter, and therefore could not, if cited, control or materially aid the opinion of this court. The return to "sound, wholesome, and stern rules of law" would establish, upon the firm basis of principle, rather than upon the uncertain and shifting sand of precedent, the distinctive rights of debtor and creditor, and the respective functions of judge and jury.

I.J. Thomas, for defendants.

The finding is decisive of the facts, and it is well warranted by the evidence. "Whether a voluntary conveyance is fraudulent in any given case is a question of fact for the jury, to be determined in view of all the circumstances." Winchester v. Charter, 102 Mass. 272. "Whatever may be the law in regard to voluntary conveyances to others, a conveyance made on the meritorious consideration of blood or affection to a child, or as a settlement to a wife, is not per se fraudulent and void as to existing creditors. Whether it is so depends upon the circumstances of the case, and the actual or presumed intent of the grantor." FIELD, J., in Draper v. Buggee, 133 Mass. 258, 262.

OPINION

MORTON, C.J.

The object of this suit is to reach and apply, in payment of the plaintiff's debt, certain real estate conveyed by his debtor, one Holbrook, to the defendant Russ. The conveyance was a voluntary one made by said Holbrook for the benefit of his children to the defendant, as trustee, and the plaintiff was a pre-existing creditor. The court...