Crampton v. Schaap

• Decision Date: 21 May 1892
• Citation: 19 S.W. 669,56 Ark. 253
• Parties: CRAMPTON v. SCHAAP
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

19 S.W. 669

56 Ark. 253

CRAMPTON v. SCHAAP

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 21, 1892

APPEAL from Sebastian Circuit Court in chancery, Fort Smith District, JOHN S. LITTLE, Judge.

John Schaap sued Alice W. Crampton, alleging that, on the 19th of September, 1887, B. S. Seybert was indebted to him and gave his two promissory notes to appellee, upon which, after allowing credits, there was, at the time of the institution of this suit, due $ 192.63. That Seybert died in 1888 leaving defendant as his widow, and she was appointed administratrix of his estate, and that, before the expiration of two years after such appointment, on her application, the administration was closed and the assets of the estate, which was wholly insolvent, vested in her absolutely, by order of the probate court, leaving nothing whatever to pay the debts of the estate. That, in February, 1890, the defendant had intermarried with D.C. Crampton. That there was no existing administration of the estate of B. S. Seybert. That, in his lifetime, B. S. Seybert had purchased certain real estate fully described, consisting of 167 48-100 acres; that he caused the deeds of the same to be made in the name of defendant, his wife; that he paid for the same; that the deed to her was a fraud upon his creditors, and the title in her was colorable only, and she had no interest therein. That Seybert was largely indebted at the time. That after the administration closed defendant sold said lands and has in her possession the proceeds thereof, which plaintiff asked should be applied to the payment of his debt.

An attachment was sued out upon the ground of the non-residence of defendant, and W. R. Martin was summoned as garnishee. The garnishee answered that he had in his possession, belonging to defendant, $ 222.63.

Defendant filed a general demurrer. Before it was acted upon, the cause was transferred to equity, and the demurrer was overruled.

Defendant's answer admitted that she was the widow of B. S. Seybert and had married D. C. Crampton; that she had been administratrix of Seybert's estate; that all of its assets had, on her petition, been vested in her absolutely, and that nothing was left for the creditors of the estate; that there was no existing administration of the Seybert estate; admitted the purchase of the lands mentioned in the complaint by Seybert in his lifetime, and that the deeds were in her name, and that she had since sold the same. It alleged that, at the time of the purchase of the land, Seybert was solvent, and that the lands were purchased with money of her own inherited from her father's estate; alleged that no debts now exist which Seybert owed at the time of the purchase; and denied that the deeds to her were fraudulent; and alleged that plaintiff's claim had never been probated against Seybert's estate.

The court found that, prior to the contraction of the debt to plaintiff, Seybert purchased the lands mentioned in the complaint and had the same conveyed to his wife. That such conveyances to his wife were voluntary and fraudulent, as to antecedent and subsequent creditors, and made with the purpose of defrauding his subsequent creditors. That defendant remained in possession of said lands jointly with her husband till his death, and exclusively afterwards until a few days before the bringing of this suit, when she sold the same, and part of the proceeds were arrested in the hands of W. R. Martin, garnishee herein, who holds $ 222.63 subject to the order of the court, and said sum was in his hands when the garnishment was served, coming to defendant from such sale. And that defendant was a non-resident of the State. That Seybert was indebted to plaintiff in the sum of $ 197. Judgment was that the attachment be sustained and the garnishee ordered to pay over the sum in his hands, or so much thereof as is necessary to satisfy plaintiff's judgment, and that defendant pay the costs. Defendant has appealed.

Judgment reversed.

Clendening, Read & Youmans for appellant.

In order for a subsequent creditor to impeach a conveyance actual fraud must be shown, or that there were pre-existing debts still unpaid. 38 Ark. 427; 50 Ark. 42; 42 id. 173. The evidence fails to show this.See also the cases in 16 Ark. 474, and 39 id. 111.

Joseph M.. Hill for appellee.

The appellee in this case proved fraud in fact, and pre-existing debts at the time the voluntary conveyance was made, within the rule. 38 Ark. 422; 50 id. 42; 34 N.Y. 508; 42 Ark. 170; 33 Ark. 762. As to when a deed made to repay a debt to a wife is fraudulent, see 11 S.W. 840; 9 S.E. 175; 13 S.W. 82; 9 So. 228; 14 S.W. 837; 25 N.E. 1016; 92 U.S. 183; 44 Pa.St. 413; Wait, Fr. Conv. § 100.

OPINION

MANSFIELD, J.

The conclusion reached in considering, this cause, on the evidence adduced, makes it unnecessary to decide the questions presented by the demurrer to the complaint.

To avoid a voluntary conveyance, a subsequent creditor must show that it was made with the actual intent to defraud. Drigg & Co.'s Bank v. Norwood, 50 Ark. 42, 6 S.W 323. He cannot, like a prior creditor, raise a presumption of such intent by merely showing that the grantor was in debt at the date of the conveyance. A presumption of fraud as to subsequent creditors does arise on proof that the grantor was insolvent. But this presumption is not as to such creditors conclusive. Rudy v. Austin, ante p. 69. If it be conceded that Seybert, the grantor in the present case, was insolvent at the time of the conveyance to the defendant, the presumption arising as to the intent with which the grant was made is not supported by circumstances such as were held to make it conclusive in the cases cited. It does not appear, as it did in those cases, that, soon after the execution of the deed, the grantor contracted debts which he could not...