Crumpacker v. Bank of Washington County

• Decision Date: 31 January 1924
• Parties: JOHN ALFRED CRUMPACKER, Respondent, v. BANK OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, Appellant
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

223 P. 229

38 Idaho 534

JOHN ALFRED CRUMPACKER, Respondent, v. BANK OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, Appellant

Supreme Court of Idaho

January 31, 1924

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE-EVIDENCE TO SET ASIDE-CONFLICT-FINDINGS OF FACT - EQUITY CASE - ADVISORY VERDICT - ERROR IN GIVING OR REFUSING INSTRUCTION.

1. Fraud is never presumed, but must be proved by clear and satisfactory evidence by the party asserting it; and if the facts and circumstances from which the alleged fraud is supposed to arise may reasonably consist with honest intentions, it will not be imputed.

2. In case of conflict if there is evidence in the record which uncontradicted, would support the judgment, the judgment will be affirmed.

3. In an equity case, in which the jury acts in a purely advisory capacity, the action of the court in giving or refusing instructions will not be reviewed.

APPEAL from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, for Washington County. Hon. B. S. Varian, Judge.

Suit to quiet title. Judgment for plaintiff. Affirmed.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent.

Harris Stinson & Harris, for Appellant.

Every transfer of property made with intent to defraud, hinder or delay any creditor of his demands is void as against all creditors of the debtor. (C. S., sec. 5433; Capital Lumber Co. v. Saunders, 26 Idaho 408, 143 P. 1178; Johnson v. Sage, 4 Idaho 758, 44 P. 641.)

Where a conveyance is made to defraud any one creditor it is fraudulent as to all existing creditors. (27 C. J. 506, sec 173, note 86.)

A conveyance will be set aside where it is made with the intent to hinder, delay or defraud. (27 C. J. 504, sec. 171, note 72.)

Retention of possession by the vendor may constitute evidence of fraudulent intent, and the presumption of fraud becomes the stronger when it appears that the conveyance was made to a near relative of the grantor. (27 C. J. 596, sec. 339, note 41.)

Eldridge & Morgan and George Donart, for Respondent.

Fraud is never presumed but must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. (Kerns v. Washington Water Power Co., 24 Idaho 525, 135 P. 70; Nelson v. Hudgel, 23 Idaho 327, 130 P. 85; Morrson v. McCluer, 27 Colo. App. 264, 148 P. 380.)

A verdict of the jury or finding of the court will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial evidence to support it. (Hayton v. Clemans, 30 Idaho 25, 165 P. 994; Holland v. Avondale Irr. Dist., 30 Idaho 479, 166 P. 259; Davenport v. Burke, 30 Idaho 599, 167 P. 481; Hemphill v. Moy, 31 Idaho 66, 169 P. 289; Fruitland State Bank v. Lauer, 34 Idaho 272, 200 P. 127; Coffey v. Scott, 66 Ore. 465, 135 P. 88; Bandle v. Commercial Bank, 178 Cal. 546, 174 P. 44.)

In an equity case in which the jury acts in a purely advisory capacity the action of the court in giving or refusing instruction will not be reviewed. (Fritcher v. Kelley, 34 Idaho 471, 201 P. 1037.)

DUNN, J. McCarthy, C. J., and William A. Lee and Wm. E. Lee, JJ., concur.

OPINION

DUNN, J.

Respondent brought this action to quiet his title to certain land in Washington county that he had bought from one G. W. P. Hill and his wife, Martha A. Hill, the deed for which was executed on September 27, 1921, and filed for record on September 30, 1921. The land in controversy was burdened with a mortgage of $ 3,000 and some accrued interest, payment of which was assumed by respondent, and in addition respondent agreed to cancel a debt of $ 1,500 and about one year's interest owing to him by Hill and to pay Hill $ 1,500 in money, all of which respondent did, the cash payment being made in the latter part of November, 1921.

On November 4, 1921, appellant brought an action against respondent and caused an attachment to be levied on the interest that it claimed Hill to still own in this land. Thereafter judgment was entered against respondent for $ 9,379.95, and on appellant's proceeding to sell the land in satisfaction of the judgment lien respondent brought this action.

Appellant denies the title claimed by respondent and alleges that at the time of the conveyance to respondent Hill was insolvent, that his conveyance to respondent was made for the purpose of defrauding appellant, and that Hill's insolvency and fraudulent purpose were known to respondent at the time he received the conveyance from Hill.

The case was submitted to a jury and an advisory verdict returned as follows:

"We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find for the plaintiff and that the premises described in the complaint belonged to the plaintiff on the 4th day of November, 1921, at 15 minutes past 3 o'clock in the afternoon of said day, and that the transfer to plaintiff of said lands, by G. W. P. Hill was without intent to hinder, delay or defraud the defendant or any creditor of the said G. W. P. Hill."

The court adopted the verdict of the jury, made findings of fact and conclusions of law in harmony therewith and entered a decree quieting the title of respondent to the land in controversy.

Appellant makes six specifications of error, five of which attack the sufficiency of the evidence. The sixth alleges error in the giving of an instruction to the jury.

Hill and respondent are brothers-in-law. At the time of conveying the land to respondent Hill was heavily in debt--probably insolvent--and very much in need of money. There is evidence tending to show that at the time of the conveyance of this land to respondent Hill stated that he desired the $ 1,500 which he obtained by the sale for the purpose of paying some of his creditors so that he could obtain a loan of $ 8,000 from the Federal Land Bank, and...