Dunham v. Pitkin

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: SHERWOOD, J.
• Citation: Dunham v. Pitkin, 19 N. W. 166, 53 Mich. 504 (Mich. 1884)
• Decision Date: 30 April 1884
• Parties: DUNHAM v. PITKIN.

19 N.W. 166

53 Mich. 504

DUNHAM v. PITKIN.

Supreme Court of Michigan

April 30, 1884

The plaintiff, upon a judgment on two promissory notes, seeks to levy upon land previously conveyed by the judgment debtor to his daughter. The evidence shows that the first deed was made when the father was perfectly solvent, before the indebtedness was incurred, and was executed and delivered though afterwards the custody of it was retained by the father for the daughter; and also that there was a good consideration for the same. These facts are sufficient to defeat the plaintiff's recovery.

Appeal from Washtenaw.

Sawyer & Knowlton, for complainants.

Edward A. Gott, for defendant and appellant.

SHERWOOD J.

Complainants on the eighth day of June, 1881, recovered a judgment against John N. Gott, of Ann Arbor, upon two notes given by him for goods purchased in 1879. The execution issued upon said judgment was levied upon the lands involved in this suit. The bill of complaint is filed in this case, in aid of said execution, as against two deeds made by John N. Gott to his daughter, Mrs. Julia A. Pitkin, one of the defendants. One of said deeds was made September 23, 1879, and the other September 23, 1880. The plaintiffs claim that their conveyances were made without consideration, and after the indebtedness to them was incurred, and while Mr. Gott was in great financial embarassment, if not insolvent. The defendant Gott avers in his answer to complainants' bill,--First that he was not insolvent when the deeds were made, nor financially embarrassed; that his assets greatly exceeded his liabilities. Second, that the deeds made to his daughter, in 1879 and 1880, were upon good and valuable consideration. Third, that the property deeded to her consists of a valuable house and lot, a homestead, which was, in fact, conveyed to her in 1876, long before the indebtedness to the complainants is claimed to have arisen, and that the last two deeds were given simply to replace the first, which had been delivered to complainant but not recorded, and which had been destroyed by him, to whose keeping she had intrusted it. Mrs. Pitkin answered, setting up substantially the same facts. The testimony is quite voluminous upon both sides. The circuit judge, on the hearing, rendered a decree in favor of complainants, requiring Mrs. Pitkin to pay the judgment in 30 days after notice of the decree, and, in default, the property...