Deere, Wells & Co. v. Boone & West

• Decision Date: 10 May 1899
• Citation: 79 N.W. 59,108 Iowa 281
• Parties: DEERE, WELLS & CO., Appellants, v. BONNE & WEST, D. K. BONNE, E. S. WEST, and J. C. BONNE
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

79 N.W. 59

108 Iowa 281

DEERE, WELLS & CO., Appellants, v. BONNE & WEST, D. K. BONNE, E. S. WEST, and J. C. BONNE

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

May 10, 1899

Appeal from Shelby District Court.--HON. WALTER I. SMITH, Judge.

ACTION in equity to subject property in the name of the wife to the payment of a judgment against her husband. Relief prayed was denied, and the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Thos H. Smith for appellant.

G. W Cullison for appellees.

OPINION

LADD, J.

The stock in trade and building of J. C. Bonne were destroyed by fire August 20, 1892, and on the following day he assigned his other property not exempt from execution, together with claims under policies of insurance, to George H. Rink, for the benefit of all his creditors. Thereupon the good people of Shelby and vicinity raised, by voluntary contribution about eight hundred dollars, and presented it to his wife, D. K. Bonne. With this she constructed another building, purchased goods, and engaged in business similar to that previously conducted by her husband. If the agent of the plaintiff arranged with him to ship goods in the name of an employe or herself, to avoid creditors, she was not aware of it, and in fact paid the bills. In February, 1893, she formed a partnership with E. S. West, which has continued since, and the firm of Bonne & West has assets valued at over three thousand dollars. During all this time J. C. Bonne managed her interest in the business, and gave it his entire time and attention, without any agreement whatever with reference to his compensation. True, his answers on this point, in the proceedings auxiliary to execution, were somewhat equivocal. But these, when considered in connection with the answers of his wife, leave no doubt of the conclusion stated. Nor do we think the evidence justifies the conclusion that conducting the business in her name was a mere scheme to hinder and delay or defraud his creditors. The fact that he was doing business for and in his wife's name does not, alone, warrant such an inference. After the final distribution of the moneys by the assignee, derived from his estate, he was still indebted several thousand dollars, and it is evident that, without means, he was not in a situation to engage in business again. The money donated belonged to the wife, and we know of no reason why she might not re-establish the business of her husband, destroyed by fire, and prosecute it with her own means and credit. Code, section 3164. Spafford v. Warren, 47 Iowa 47. That she did so, with the aid of her husband, and both so intended, this record leaves not the slightest doubt. The labor and sagacity of the husband undoubtedly contributed largely to the accumulation of the property, but these he voluntarily gave, with no agreement for recompense. In Robb v. Brewer, 60 Iowa 539, 15 N.W. 420, the court said: "The use by the husband of his personal earnings in payment for property purchased by his wife amounts, in legal contemplation, to a gift of such property to his wife. As the earnings were exempt from execution at the time they were employed in the acquisition of the property in controversy, a voluntary gift of such earnings was no fraud upon the husband's creditors. The earnings being exempt from execution, her husband had a right to employ them as he pleased." Carse v. Reticker, 95 Iowa 25, 63 N.W. 461; Nash v. Stevens, 96 Iowa 616, 65 N.W. 825. That neither the husband nor his creditors can lay any claim to the improvements of the wife's land or its products, though made or produced, in whole or in part, by his labor, is well settled. Carn v. Royer, 55 Iowa 650, 8 N.W. 629; Webster v. Hildreth, 33 Vt. 457; Burleigh v. Coffin, 22 N.H. 118; Feller v. Alden, 23 Wis. 301; Rush v. Vought, 55 Pa. 437. In Feller v. Alden, supra, an apportionment is...