Decker v. Decker

• Decision Date: 17 January 1888
• Parties: DECKER v. DECKER.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

108 N.Y. 128

15 N.E. 307

DECKER

v.DECKER.¹

Court of Appeals of New York.

January 17, 1888.

Appeal from general term, supreme court, Fourth department.

Action by Sarah Decker, in the nature of a creditors' bill, against Hattie E. Decker, impleaded with Simon Decker. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals.

J. McGuire, for appellant.

Walter Lloyd Smith, for respondent.

FINCH, J.

The validity of the contract by which, during the pendency of an action for a limited divorce, Simon Decker bound himself to his wife to pay a stipulated annuity to her for her support and maintenance, and gave his bond and mortgage to Van Dusen as security for the performance of that agreement, cannot in this action be questioned. The securities having been transferred to the plaintiff, she brought one or more actions upon them against Decker, and recovered. Their validity, and that of the contract out of which they grew, was directly involved in the recognition of plaintiff's alleged cause of action, and should then have been litigated if the question was intended to be raised. The judgments, therefore, are conclusive against Decker, and cannot be assailed in this action. Carpenter v. Osborn, 102 N. Y. 552, 7 N. E. Rep. 823. The executions issued to enforce them were returned unsatisfied, and the present action is a creditors' bill to reach property of the defendant Decker alleged to have been fraudulently transferred to Hattie Decker, who succeeded the plaintiff as his wife. The process by which the fraud is said to have been accomplished was by utilizing for that purpose an honest judgment against Decker, and the regular process of the court. One Alfred Lee had recovered a judgment against Simon Decker for nearly $1,000 in 1861, and some years before the plaintiff's mortgage was recorded. After that record, Lee recovered a further judgment for costs on appeal. Executions were issued on these judgments, and the land now in question sold at sheriff's sale, and bid in by one George Jackson, who afterwards received the sheriff's deed. Jackson appears to have made the purchase on his own credit, but under a collusive and fraudulent arrangement with Simon Decker to take the title for his benefit, he furnishing the needed funds, and hold it as a cover and shield to ward off and defeat the claim of the plaintiff, and the lien of the mortgage held by her. The finding of the referee was to that effect. The scheme was completed by a further, transfer to the defendant, Hattie Decker, of substantially the whole of Simon's property.

It does not alter the character of this fraudulent arrangement, or enable it to defy justice, that it was accomplished through the agency of a valid judgment, regularly enforced. That often may be made an effective agency in accomplishing, beyond its own legitimate purpose, a further result of fraud and dishonesty, and may even be selected as the suitable means, by reason of its inherent character. The complaint here is not of the judgment, but of the use which was made of it. In truth, it was paid by Decker. If he had been the purchaser in form, as he was in fact, the transaction would have resulted in a payment and satisfaction of the Lee judgment, and a preservation of the lien of the plaintiff's mortgage. But the legal title was kept in Jackson, as a shield against creditors. He sold a part of the premises to Dunham, who gave back a purchase-money mortgage for $8,000, which Jackson assigned to the defendant, Hattie Decker. That she was a participant in, and the beneficiary...