Draper v. Buggee

• Decision Date: 07 September 1882
• Citation: 133 Mass. 258
• Parties: Lewis L. Draper v. Mary J. Buggee
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

133 Mass. 258

Lewis L. Draper v. Mary J. Buggee

Supreme Court of Massachusetts

September 7, 1882

Argued October 5, 1881 [Syllabus Material] [Syllabus Material]

Hampshire. Writ of entry to recover a parcel of land in Easthampton. Plea, nul disseisin. Trial in the Superior Court, before Brigham, C. J., who allowed a bill of exceptions, in substance as follows:

The demandant claimed title under an execution deed, dated October 4, 1880, based upon a judgment against one Robert Buggee, husband of the tenant. There was evidence tending to show that the premises were conveyed to Buggee in 1864; that Buggee the same year mortgaged said premises to one Sawyer for $ 300; that in 1865 Buggee mortgaged said premises to the Easthampton Rubber Thread Company, for $ 650, for the purpose of using part of the proceeds for the payment of the Sawyer mortgage, which mortgage was discharged; that in 1868 Buggee mortgaged said premises to the Northampton Institution for Savings, for $ 400, and used the proceeds to take up the mortgage to the Easthampton Rubber Thread Company, which had been reduced by the tenant, by the payment of money earned by her, to about $ 400; and that Buggee mortgaged said premises to one Dawson, in 1871, for $ 400, and made another mortgage to Dawson in 1873, for $ 300.

The tenant claimed title from her husband through a daughter, who, it was agreed, was a mere conduit through which to convey title to the tenant, by deeds dated January 31, 1879; and it was agreed that no consideration in money was paid when either of said deeds was made. There was evidence tending to show that the tenant had worked in the mills at Easthampton eighteen years; that from her earnings she had supported her husband and family, and from said earnings she had paid the interest due on said mortgages, and part of the principal secured by them, prior to January 31, 1879; that her husband had contributed nothing towards the support of his family, or towards the liquidation of said mortgages; that her husband gave up the idea of paying for the place in 1864, soon after the lot was bought and before anything had been paid on account of it, and abandoned her for several months; that she then agreed with the mortgagee of the property to pay from her earnings monthly instalments and assume the mortgage, and did so pay a part of the mortgage and prevent its foreclosure, and paid all that was ever paid on account of principal or interest towards the cost of the place, amounting to a considerable sum; that she also assumed and agreed to pay, as hereinafter stated, and did pay, one note of her husband of $ 50, and all the principal sums and interest secured by the Dawson and Northampton Bank mortgages; and that this arrangement was made in connection with her husband's conveyance to her. There was no evidence that the sums paid by the tenant for the support of her husband and family, and upon the mortgages aforesaid, were expected to be paid back to her by her husband, nor that said sums were to be treated as a loan to the husband.

It also appeared in evidence, that in the year 1877 Buggee borrowed of the Easthampton Savings Bank the sum of $ 50, giving his note with an indorser; that a short time before the deed to the tenant, dated January 31, 1879, at the request of the indorser, Samuel T. Seelye in behalf of said bank pressed Buggee for payment of the note, whereupon the tenant went to see Seelye, and proposed to pay the note herself; that Seelye advised her not to pay the note unless her husband would give her a deed of the property in question; that she sent him to Seelye, who persuaded him to give a deed of said property to the tenant. Seelye also testified that he told the husband that, if he gave a deed to his wife, he would give the money to take up the mortgages of Dawson and the Northampton Institution for Savings. The tenant mortgaged said premises to the Easthampton Savings Bank on May 27, 1880, for $ 1000, the proceeds of which, together with the tenant's earnings, were used for the payment of said mortgages, which were discharged. There was evidence tending to show that the premises were fairly worth from $ 1200 to $ 1500 on January 31, 1879, when said premises were conveyed to the tenant.

The demandant contended that the conveyance made to his wife by Robert Buggee was for the purpose of avoiding the attachment of the same by his creditors; that there was no consideration for said conveyance, and that no price was paid for it; and that the wife participated in the fraudulent purpose of the husband.

The judge, upon the subject of conveyances in fraud of creditors gave full instructions, which were not objected to, excepting as to matter of consideration; but the judge refused to give the following instructions, asked for by the demandant's counsel, in the form in which they were presented. The modifications and qualifications made by the judge in the instructions are hereinafter stated. The tenant contended that her labor and earnings had virtually purchased this estate; that practically she had been the person who had bought the estate and had built it up, and made a home for her husband and family, and that, although no money was paid when she took the conveyance, there was a...