Davis v. Arkansas Fire Ins. Co.
| Decision Date | 30 January 1897 |
| Parties | DAVIS et al. v. ARKANSAS FIRE INS. CO. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Action by the Arkansas Fire Insurance Company against Oscar Davis, Zeb Ward, and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants appeal. Reversed.
Suit in equity by the Arkansas Fire Insurance Company against Zeb Ward, Oscar Davis, and J. E. Joyce & Co. to set aside a transfer of cotton alleged to be fraudulent, and to subject said cotton to the satisfaction of plaintiff's judgment. On the 11th day of December, 1893, previous to the commencement of this suit in equity, the Arkansas Fire Insurance Company brought suit at law against Zeb Ward, one of the defendants to this suit, and afterwards recovered judgment against him for the sum of $5,000. The transfer of cotton which the insurance company seeks to set aside by this suit in equity was made by Zeb Ward to Oscar Davis, two days after the commencement of the action at law. The other circumstances under which this transfer of cotton was made were as follows: A son of the defendant Zeb Ward owed the German National Bank of Little Rock $3,227.50, for which sum the bank held his note. The defendant Oscar Davis, a son-in-law of defendant Zeb Ward, was indorser upon this note of the son. Zeb Ward, claiming to be indebted to his son in the sum of $2,500 for the rent of a farm, transferred, with consent of his son, certain bales of cotton to Oscar Davis, to secure him as indorser upon said note; the proceeds of the cotton, when sold, to be applied to the payment of the note. The cotton was in the possession of defendants Joyce & Co., who were commission merchants, and held a lien upon the cotton for supplies advanced. The cotton was transferred on their books from Ward to Davis, but they still held possession of it. Davis afterwards told Joyce & Co. to obey any directions of Ward in regard to the sale of the cotton, and, when sold, to make "the check with account of sales either to the order of himself or Ward. Davis testified that he did not intend by this to allow Ward to appropriate the proceeds of the cotton, but, as Ward was interested in the cotton, he intended only to permit him to direct the sale of it for the benefit of himself (Davis). The chancellor found the issues in favor of plaintiff, that the transfer was fraudulent, and rendered a decree in its favor, from which an appeal was taken to this court.
Ratcliffe & Fletcher, for appellant Oscar Davis. S. R. Cockrill and Ashley Cockrill, for appellee.
RIDDICK, J. (after stating the facts).
The question before us is whether the evidence is sufficient to support the finding of the chancellor that the transfer of the cotton was fraudulent and void as to the creditors of Ward. The appellee first contends that the decree should be affirmed, for the reason that Davis showed no interest in the property. But, if there was no evidence on this point, this contention could not avail, for the reason that the complaint of appellee alleged that the cotton had been transferred to Davis by Ward, and the object of this suit is to set that transfer aside. The answers of both...
To continue reading
Request your trial