Crump v. Walkup

• Decision Date: 30 November 1912
• Citation: 246 Mo. 266,151 S.W. 709
• Parties: CRUMP v. WALKUP et al.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

151 S.W. 709

246 Mo. 266

CRUMP v. WALKUP et al.

Supreme Court of Missouri, Division No. 1.

November 30, 1912.

1. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (§ 278) — TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE — PRESUMPTIONS.

The common law governing husband and wife, giving rise to the presumption that property purchased during coverature, title to which was taken in the name of the wife, was paid for by the husband, has been abolished by Rev. St. 1909, §§ 8304, 8309, empowering a married woman to contract and carry on business in her own name, and providing that all realty and personalty belonging to any woman at the time of her marriage, or which may come to her during coverture by gift or inheritance, or by purchase with her separate money, shall be her separate property, and the presumption is entitled to but little weight in determining whether conveyances made to a wife by third persons are fraudulent as against the husband's creditors.

2. HUSBAND AND WIFE (§ 121) — SEPARATE PROPERTY OF WIFE — STATUTORY PROVISIONS.

Under Rev. St. 1909, §§ 8304, 8309, empowering a married woman to contract and carry on business in her own name, and providing that all property belonging to her at the time of her marriage, or which may subsequently come to her, shall be her separate property, real and personal estate purchased by a wife, by a donation given her by a third person, and by the fruits of her labor, and by the proceeds of the sales of her personalty, are her separate property, and cannot be taken to satisfy her husband's debts.

3. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (§ 300) — TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

In a suit by a creditor of a husband to set aside conveyances by a third person to the wife, evidence held to show that the wife purchased the property by means of her separate estate, so that the conveyances were not in fraud of the husband's creditors.

4. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (§ 300) — TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

That a husband without his wife's knowledge mortgaged her separate chattels is not evidence that he owned the chattels, and that the wife's claim thereto is in fraud of his creditors.

5. FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (§ 300) — TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN HUSBAND AND WIFE — EVIDENCE — SUFFICIENCY.

That a husband gave to the assessors, for assessment, a list of personalty, claimed by the wife, as his own, is not conclusive evidence that the wife's claim of ownership is in fraud of his creditors; but the question of ownership is for the court on all the evidence, in a suit by a creditor of the husband to subject the chattels to his claims.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Monroe County; D. H. Eby, Judge.

Action by Robert H. Crump against Emma W. Walkup and another. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

This is a suit in equity, instituted in the circuit court of Monroe county, by the plaintiff against the defendants, seeking to set aside and for naught hold six certain deeds, executed by various persons, conveying as many tracts of land situate in said county to defendant Emma W. Walkup, wife of defendant John H. Walkup, and to subject said lands to the payment of a certain judgment for $958.20, dated October 29, 1898, based upon two promissory notes, one dated May 22, 1891, for $32, due one day after date, bearing 8 per cent. interest, and the other dated August 9, 1892, for the sum of $700, bearing the same rate of interest in favor of the plaintiff against the defendant John H. Walkup, upon the alleged ground that the purchase price of said lands was owned and paid for by John H. Walkup, the husband, and the title thereto was taken in the name of Emma W. Walkup, his wife, for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding his creditors. The record in the case is quite voluminous, covering about 250 printed pages. To state even the substance of the testimony of the various witnesses would unnecessarily prolong the statement of the case, and the opinion which is to follow. We will, therefore, do the next best thing which the nature of the case will permit, and that is to briefly state what the evidence tends to prove, and then emphasize the weak and strong points in the case, and point out the evidence which tends to corroborate or disprove the same. In passing, however, we might add, that the evidence in this case, like that in most of its kind, is largely drawn from the lips of the defendants, and consequently there is not much conflict in the testimony; but the deductions to be drawn therefrom, and the rules of equity governing the same, greatly vary, and constitute the real grounds upon which the respective parties to the action stand, and upon which they wage the legal battle.

The following tracts of real estate constitute the land in controversy, and were acquired by defendant and Emma W. Walkup from the following named persons, upon the following dates, and in consideration of the following sums, to wit: Eighty acres from Julia E. Mudd, by deed dated April 10, 1902, in consideration of $350 paid and a pair of old mules valued at $50; 4.7 acres from Edward H. O'Daniel, by deed dated February 8, 1906, in consideration of $47; 40 acres from William M. McCreery et al., by deed dated November 10, 1906, in consideration of $510; 113 acres from John W. Young, by deed dated March 7, 1907, in consideration of $3,390; 40 acres from Samuel M. Locke, by deed dated June 20, 1907, in consideration of $200; and 40 acres from Thomas F. Hurd et al., by deed dated July 1, 1907, in consideration of $275. Emma W. Walkup never inherited any property from her father, nor any one else, nor did she own any property at the time of her marriage to John H. Walkup, nor at the time they moved to the farm of John W. Young, to be presently noted. All of this land, except the 113 acres, was very rough and broken, covered with small timber and brush, and was unfit for cultivation, only valuable for grazing purposes. At the time of the trial the 113 acres were worth $30 per acre, and all the remainder was worth about $10 per acre. Mrs. Walkup borrowed the entire $350 from a Mrs. Glenn, with which she paid for the Mudd tract, and secured the loan by deed of trust on the land. She paid Mrs. Glenn said $350 on November 10, 1906. The entire purchase price of the 113 acres, $3,390, was borrowed by Mrs. Walkup from the Bank of Stoutsville, and she secured the same by a deed of trust on that and all the other land mentioned, which cost her about $1,600. None of the $3,390 so loaned had been paid at the date of the trial.

Prior to July, 1893, John H. Walkup had been engaged in the live stock and livery business in the little town of Florida, Monroe county, at which time he failed and practically all of his property was taken by his creditors and sold to pay his debts, leaving about $3,500 of indebtedness unpaid. In July, 1893, defendants moved to the farm of John W. Young, an uncle of John H. Walkup. At that time his entire possessions consisted of a cow, an old pony, a secondhand wagon, a set of buggy harness, the family household and kitchen furniture, and 18 head of mules, which were mortgaged to said John W. Young for more than they were worth, and afterwards sold for several hundred dollars less than the amount of the mortgage. The cow died shortly after they moved to Young's farm. The household and kitchen furniture was worth about $50, the harness $20, and the pony $15. John W. Young was an old bachelor, and lived alone when defendants moved to his farm. Emma W. Walkup, after moving there, kept house for him, and did his cooking and all other duties pertaining to the household. In other words, all of them lived together as one family; defendants paying no rent and Mr. Young paid no board. When defendants went to live with Mr. Young, he turned over to Mrs. Walkup all the poultry which was then on the farm, and gave her the use of nine good milk cows. The next year Mrs. Walkup added to the poultry some turkeys, geese, and ducks, but just how many is not shown. John H. Walkup had nothing to do with the poultry except at times, to assist his wife in marketing the same. She used a part of the proceeds of the sales of poultry in supporting the family, and a part of the proceeds were deposited in her name in the Bank of Stoutsville. At one time Mrs. Walkup exchanged some ducks to Lon Hughes for a pig, which, with its increase, was kept on the farm for several years. From those came the stock of hogs which was on the farm at the date of the trial, which at all times belonged to Mrs. Walkup. A few years prior to the date of the trial, John H. Walkup, as the agent of Mrs. Walkup, traded some of the hogs to a man by the name of Green for a small bunch of sheep, and from this start the sheep on the farm at the date of the trial sprang. None of the sheep ever belonged to her husband. About this same time Mrs. Walkup, out of the proceeds of the sales of poultry, eggs, and butter, purchased a small bunch of black heifer calves, the number not stated.

From the time defendants moved upon the farm of Mr. Young, up to April 10, 1902, the date of the purchase of the first piece of land by Mrs. Walkup, John H. Walkup, her husband, was doing general farm work upon the farm. The farm was largely in grass, except a small piece of timber. Neither of the defendants cultivated any, of his land, but John H. Walkup rented and cultivated a piece of ground adjoining, and raised small crops thereon for a year or two. Mr. Young permitted John H. Walkup to cut some wood from the piece of timber on his land, which from time to time he hauled to Stoutsville and sold for $1.50 per cord. The proceeds of those sales were expended for living necessities. Some time prior to April 10, 1902, a man by the name of Turnbaugh owed Mrs. Walkup a board bill, and in settlement thereof he gave her a mare "pretty badly crippled." Later she traded the mare to a Mr. Gaston for a mule, and gave him $10 "to boot." The...