David Adler & Sons Clothing Company v. Hellman

• Citation: 75 N.W. 877,55 Neb. 266
• Decision Date: 09 June 1898
• Docket Number: 7762
• Parties: DAVID ADLER & SONS CLOTHING COMPANY, APPELLEE, v. MARIA HELLMAN, APPELLANT, ET AL AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA ET AL., APPELLANTS,
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

75 N.W. 877

55 Neb. 266

DAVID ADLER & SONS CLOTHING COMPANY, APPELLEE, AND FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF OMAHA ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
MARIA HELLMAN, APPELLANT, ET AL

No. 7762

Supreme Court of Nebraska

June 9, 1898

APPEAL from the district court of Douglas county. Heard below before DUFFIE, J. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

Warren Switzler, for the First National Bank of Omaha, appellant, and others:

There was no legal evidence offered to support the alleged contract between Mr. and Mrs. Hellman. Mrs. Hellman and Mr. Connell were both incompetent witnesses. As against the representatives of a deceased person Mrs. Hellman cannot disclose the communications made to her by her husband. An attorney should not be permitted to disclose confidential communications properly intrusted to him in his professional capacity. (Wertz v. Merritt, 39 N.W. 103 [Ia.]; Johnston v. Johnston, 27 N.E. 930 [Ill.]; Muir v. Miller, 47 N.W. 1011 [Ia.]; Bradford v. Cinton, 26 N.W. 401 [Mich.]; Brock v. Brock, 9 A. [Pa.] 486; Skinner v. Skinner, 38 Neb. 756; Wylie v. Charlton, 43 Neb. 840; Westover v. AEtna Life Ins. Co., 99 N.Y. 56; Hull v. Lyon, 27 Mo. 570; Whiting v. Barney, 30 N.Y. 330; Root v. Wright, 84 N.Y. 72; Yates v. Olmsted, 56 N.Y. 632; Robson v. Kemp, 4 Esp. [Eng.] 233; Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N.Y. 57; Edington v. AEtna Life Ins. Co., 77 N.Y. 564; Pierson v. People, 79 N.Y. 424; Glenn v. Liggett, 47 F. 472; Liggett v. Glenn, 2 C. C. A. [U. S.] 286; State v. Dawson, 90 Mo. 149.)

The alleged contract between Mr. and Mrs. Hellman, if proved, cannot be enforced. It was obtained under a misapprehension of the law and facts which amounted to false pretenses. The dower interest was not a sufficient consideration. If the contract was proved by competent evidence and sustained consideration, still Mrs. Hellman is estopped to urge it. (Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340; Smith v. Sieberling, 35 F. 677; Roy v. McPherson, 11 Neb. 197; Steele v. Coon, 27 Neb. 586; Sexton v. Wheaton, 8 Wheat. [U. S.] 229; Worseley v. De Mattos, 1 Burr. [Eng.] 467; Leukener v. Freeman, Freem. Ch. [Eng.] 236; Goldsmith v. Fuller, 30 Neb. 569; Early v. Wilson, 31 Neb. 459; Swartz v. McClelland, 31 Neb. 646; Hews v. Kenney, 43 Neb. 815.)

The assignment of the insurance was a fraud on creditors. (Ionia County Savings Bank v. McLean, 48 N.W. 159 [Mich.]; Elliott Appeals, 50 Pa. St. 75; Freeman v. Pope, 9 L. R. Eq. 206; Anderson v. Hay, 85 Pa. St. 202; Stokes v. Coffey, 8 Bush [Ky.] 533; Payne v. Pusey, 8 Bush [Ky.] 567; Hathaway v. Sherman, 61 Me. 475; Anthracite Ins. Co. v. Sears, 109 Mass. 383; Barry v. Equitable Life Assurance Co., 59 N.Y. 593; Pence v. Makepeace, 65 Ind. 360; Stigler v. Stigler, 77 Va. 163; Talcott v. Field, 34 Neb. 611; Fearn v. Ward, 80 Ala. 555.)

A creditor of the husband may recover premiums paid by an insolvent on insurance. (Central Bank of Washington v. Hume, 128 U.S. 195; Merchants & Miners Transportation Co. v. Borland, 31 A. [N. J.] 278; Central Nat. Bank v. Hume, 9 S.Ct. 41.)

The creditors are the proper parties to bring suit, and in so doing they become the representatives of the deceased person. (Harvey v. McDonell, 21 N.E. [N. Y.] 695; Grier v. Cagle, 87 N. Car. 377; Martin v. Smith, 25 W.Va. 579; New York Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U.S. 597; Reddick v. Keesling, 129 Ind. 128; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 37; Hollister v. Young, 41 Vt. 160; Wamsley v. Crook, 3 Neb. 344; Ransom v. Schmela, 13 Neb. 78; Clark v. Clough, 23 A. [N. H.] 526; New York Life Ins. Co. v. Flack, 3 Md. 352; Housel v. Cremer, 13 Neb. 300.)

Decisions on insolvency applicable to the case: Hinde v. Longworth, 11 Wheat. [U. S.] 199; Miller v. Thompson, 3 Port. [Ala.] 196; Schaible v. Ardner, 56 N.W. 1105 [Mich.]; Winchester v. Charter, 97 Mass. 140; Potter v. McDowell, 31 Mo. 62; Farrow v. Hayes, 51 Md. 498; Allen v. McTavish, 8 Ont. App. [Can.] 440; Phelps v. Curts, 80 Ill. 112; Gardiner Bank v. Wheaton, 8 Me. 381; Roberts v. Radcliff, 35 Kan. 502; Babcock v. Eckler, 24 N.Y. 632; Morrill v. Kilner, 113 Ill. 318; Bohannon v. Combs, 79 Mo. 305; Reeves v. Sherwood, 45 Ark. 520; Bullett v. Worthington, 3 Md. Ch. 99; Williams v. Banks, 11 Md. 198; Kipp v. Hanna, 2 Bland Ch. [Md.] 33.

Where a judgment debtor has fraudulently conveyed his property to hinder and delay creditors, the party who first invokes the aid of the court to set aside such conveyance acquires a prior lien for his judgment. (Pullis v. Robinson, 73 Mo. 202; George v. Williamson, 26 Mo. 190; Bank of U. S. v. Burke, 4 Blackf. [Ind.] 141; Hills v. Sherwood, 48 Cal. 393; Henriques v. Hone, 2 Edw. Ch. [N. Y.] 123; Richardson v. Ralphsnyder, 20 S.E. [W. Va.] 854; Citizens Bank v. Farwell, 11 C. C. A. [U. S.] 108; Miner v. Lane, 87 Wis. 348; Brown v. Carroll, 41 S. Car. 50.)

Connell & Ives, for Maria Hellman, appellant:

Assuming the evidence of the agreement to convey is inadmissible, the transfer of the home as well as that of the insurance policy, and the payment of the premiums should be sustained as voluntary conveyances on the ground of Mr. Hellman's solvency when they were made. (Wolf v. McGugin, 16 S.E. [W. Va.] 798; Reade v. Livingston, 3 Johns. Ch. [N. Y.] 481; Lockhard v. Beckley, 10 W.Va. 87; Atkins v. Atkins, 18 Neb. 477; Steele v. Coon, 27 Neb. 597; Seward v. Jackson, 8 Cow. [N. Y.] 406; Pratt v. Curtis, 2 Low. [U. S.] 90; Kent v. Riley, 14 L. R. Eq. Cas. [Eng.] 190; Aultman v. Obermeyer, 6 Neb. 260; Stevens v. Carson, 30 Neb. 545; Johnson v. Johnson, 36 Neb. 700; Ware v. Purdy, 60 N.W. 526 [Ia.]; Brackett v. Waite, 4 Vt. 389; Rose v. Colter, 76 Ind. 590; Van Wyck v. Seward, 6 Paige Ch. [N. Y.] 67; Updegraff v. Theaker, 57 Mo.App. 50; Emerson v. Opp, 38 N.E. 330 [Ind.]; Holden v. Burnham, 63 N.Y. 74; Salmon v. Bennett, 1 Conn. 525; Spence v. Dunlap, 6 Lea [Tenn.] 457; Stevens v. Robinson, 72 Me. 381; Hinde v. Longworth, 11 Wheat. [U. S.] 199; Pike v. Miles, 23 Wis. 164; Windhaus v. Bootz, 25 P. 404 [Cal.]; Morgan v. Hecker, 16 P. 317 [Cal.]; Herring v. Richards, 3 F. 443; Providence Savings Bank v. Huntington, 10 F. 871; Bank of U. S. v. Housman, 6 Paige Ch. [N. Y.] 526; Jackson v. Post, 15 Wend. [N. Y.] 588; Dunlap v. Hawkins, 59 N.Y. 347; Carr v. Breese, 81 N.Y. 584.)

Assuming that the evidence of the agreement is admissible, then Mrs. Hellman is a bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration, and is not estopped to assert her title. (Haas v. Sternbach, 41 N.E. 51 [Ill.]; Singree v. Welch, 32 O. St. 320; Weaver v. Gregg, 6 O. St. 550; Quarles v. Lacy, 4 Munf. [Va.] 251; Buzzard v. Briggs, 7 Pick. [Mass.] 533; Nims v. Bigelow, 45 N.H. 343; Harvey v. Alexander, 1 Rand. [Va.] 219; Taylor v. Moore, 2 Rand. [Va.] 573; Garlick v. Strong, 3 Paige Ch. [N. Y.] 440; Marston v. Dresen, 55 N.W. 896 [Wis.]; Hopkins v. Joyce, 78 Wis. 443.)

The evidence showing the agreement between Mrs. Hellman and her husband is admissible. (Wamsley v. Crook, 3 Neb. 344; Magemau v. Bell, 13 Neb. 249; Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 6 S.Ct. 877; Skinner v. Skinner, 38 Neb. 760; McNulty's Appeal, 19 A. 936 [Pa.]; Hurlburt v. Hurlburt, 28 N.E. [N. Y.] 651; Lynn v. Lyerle, 113 Ill. 129; Griffin v. Griffin, 17 N.E. 784 [Ill.]; Cady v. Walker, 28 N.W. 805 [Mich.]; Livingston v. Wagner, 42 P. 290 [Nev.]; Wyland v. Griffith, 64 N.W. 673 [Ia.]; Colt v. McConnell, 19 N.E. 106 [Ind.]; Carey v. Carey, 12 S.E. [N. Car.] 1038; In re Bauer, 21 P. 759 [Cal.]; Appeal of Goodwin Gas-Stove & Meter Co., 12 A. 736 [Pa.].)

Creditors cannot recover premiums paid by an insolvent upon insurance for a reasonable amount where the policies are written payable to the wife. (Central Nat. Bank v. Hume, 9 S.Ct. 41.

Simeon Bloom, also for appellants.

Montgomery & Hall, for David Adler & Sons Clothing Company, appellee:

There is no competent evidence establishing or tending to establish the alleged contract. (Buckingham v. Roar, 45 Neb. 248; Scroggin v. Johnston, 45 Neb. 722; Bradford v. Vinton, 26 N.W. 407 [Mich.]; Brock v. Brock, 9 A. [Pa.] 486; Wamsley v. Crook, 3 Neb. 351; Ransom v. Schmela, 13 Neb. 74; Housel v. Cremer, 13 Neb. 298; Wylie v. Charlton, 43 Neb. 840; Grier v. Cagle, 87 N. Car. 377; Johnston v. Johnston, 27 N.E. 930 [Ill.]; New York Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Armstrong, 117 U.S. 597; Davis v. Davis, 26 Cal. 23-38; Martin v. Smith, 25 W.Va. 587; Clark v. Clough, 23 A. [N. H.] 526; Basye v. State, 45 Neb. 281; Nelson v. Becker, 32 Neb. 99; Root v. Wright, 84 N.Y. 72; Westover v. AEtna Life Ins. Co., 99 N.Y. 56; United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Ass'n, 166 U.S. 327; Lynn v. Lyerle, 113 Ill. 134.)

The alleged contract of July, 1891, as against plaintiff, followed by the transfer in March, 1892, considering Mrs. Hellman's false idea of the extent of her interest in the mortgaged real estate, and, having in view the inadequacy of the consideration as now claimed, but neither alleged nor testified to, and all the facts and circumstances, constitutes a transaction fraudulent in fact. (Kircham v. Kratky, 51 Neb. 191; Bartlett v. Cheesbrough, 23 Neb. 767; Carson v. Stevens, 40 Neb. 112; Brownell v. Stoddard, 42 Neb. 177; Trumble v. Trumble, 37 Neb. 340.)

The alleged contract, if proved, and if otherwise valid, did not justify or make legal the conveyance of the real estate in controversy in March, 1892, to Mrs. Hellman, because, under the circumstances of this case, such contract, as against the plaintiff, is without force. (Roy v. McPherson, 11 Neb. 197; Thompson v. Loenig, 13 Neb. 386; Hoagland v. Wilson, 15 Neb. 320; Steele v. Coon, 27 Neb. 586; Stevens v. Carson, 30 Neb. 544; Early v. Wilson, 31 Neb. 458; Swartz v. McClelland, 31 Neb. 646; Brownell v. Stoddard, 42 Neb. 177; Porter v. Goble, 55 N.W. 530 [Ia.].)

As against plaintiff, ignoring the alleged contract of July, 1891, the transfer of the real estate in controversy should not be sustained as a voluntary conveyance on the ground of the alleged solvency of Mr. Hellman on March 14, 1892. (Murray v. Stanton, 99 Mass. 345; Meixell v....