Cox v. Cox

• Decision Date: 28 February 1887
• Citation: 91 Mo. 71,3 S.W. 585
• Parties: COX v. COX and another.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

3 S.W. 585

91 Mo. 71

COX v. COX and another.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February 28, 1887.

1. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE — HUSBAND AND WIFE — TRUSTS.

Where a husband receives his wife's money, not by virtue of his marital rights, but as her trustee, evidencing the trust by entries made in a memorandum book produced at the trial, and uses it to buy lands, taking the deed to her, his creditors cannot set aside the deed as fraudulent, and subject the property to the payment of their debts.

2. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESS — JUDGMENT OF CHANCELLOR — DEFERRED TO UPON APPEAL.

Where the finding of the lower court rests largely upon the credibility to be given to the evidence of a particular witness, the judgment of the chancellor, who heard the witness face to face upon the matter, will be deferred to upon appeal.

Appeal from circuit court, Greene county.

Massey & McAfee, for appellant. Thrasher, Young & Travers, for respondent.

RAY, J.

The petition in this case is in two counts, the general nature and object of which is the same, which is to subject the property described in the first count, and spoken of, for brevity, as the "Boonville-street Property," and the property described in the second count, and for the same reason, spoken of as the "Jefferson-street Property," both in Springfield, Missouri, and held in the name of the defendant Sarah Cox, to the payment and satisfaction of a certain judgment, for debt and damages, obtained by plaintiff against the defendant Thomas H. Cox, who is the husband of his said co-defendant, Sarah. The petition charges, in each of said counts, that the defendant Thomas Cox, being indebted to divers persons, including plaintiff, in sundry amounts, at the date of the purchase of said two pieces of property, bought and paid for the same, with his own money, but that, for the purpose of hindering and delaying his creditors, including plaintiff, and of defrauding plaintiff out of his debt, procured the deeds therefor to be made out to and in the name of his said wife and co-defendant, and asks that the title, legal and equitable, be divested out of said defendants, and vested in plaintiff. The answer of defendant Thomas Cox is a general denial, except as to his indebtedness. The answer of defendant Sarah to both counts denies the material allegations in the petition, and sets up purchase of the property by her, with her own individual money, received and inherited from her father's estate, and money arising from rents and profits of real estate inherited from her father's estate.

During the trial the court called and submitted to a jury, as special issues, whether the consideration paid Robberson for the Boonville-street property, and that paid Switzer for the Jefferson-street property, was the money of Thomas H. Cox, or of the wife, Sarah Cox; but, upon the conclusion of the testimony adduced in plaintiff's behalf, directed the jury to find the issues for defendant, and rendered its judgment dismissing plaintiff's bill. No objection has been urged or pointed out to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment as far as the Boonville-street property is concerned; and this part of plaintiff's claim is, we think, practically abandoned in this court.

As to the Jefferson-street property, it appears by the testimony of defendant ...