Eaton's Adm'r v. Perry

• Decision Date: 31 October 1859
• Citation: Eaton's Adm'r v. Perry, 29 Mo. 96 (Mo. 1859)
• Parties: EATON'S ADMINISTRATOR, Defendant in Error, v. PERRY, GARNISHEE, Plaintiff in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

29 Mo. 96

EATON'S ADMINISTRATOR, Defendant in Error,

v.PERRY, GARNISHEE, Plaintiff in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1859.

1. Drunkenness does not render a deed made under its influence absolutely void, but only voidable; so long as the grantor in the deed acquiesces in it, it can not be impeached by third persons on the ground that it was executed by him when drunk.

2. The first section of the act concerning fraudulent conveyances does not embrace deeds founded upon a valuable consideration.

3. The fact that a mother, intending to preserve the property of a dissolute and spendthrift son for his future support, procures a deed of conveyance thereof to herself, can not of itself, no debts of the son at the date of the execution of the deed appearing, make the deed void.

Error to Washington Circuit Court.

This was a garnishment proceeding upon an execution issued against William M. Perry upon a transcript of a judgment rendered by a justice of the peace. Sarah A. Perry, his mother, was summoned as garnishee. The plaintiff filed allegations and interrogatories. In the allegations it is charged that Mrs. Perry purchased the interest of her son in the estate of his uncle John Perry, deceased, for $1,500, which was less than one-fourth its value; that William M. Perry was drunk and incapable of managing his business; that he was largely indebted at the time of the sale; that said purchase was made by Mrs. Perry with collusion of others to cheat said William and prevent his paying his just debts; that the consideration of $1,500 was not even paid; that notes were given, which were afterwards cancelled with a view to defraud creditors. The garnishee in her answer denied being indebted to her son William at the time of the garnishment. She admits that she bought her son's interest in his uncle's estate at less than its value, and that she did it for the sake of preserving it for his support. She denied that he was drunk at the time he made the conveyance, and that he was largely indebted at that time; and says that what debts he did owe are paid, and that he owes no debts except such as have been contracted for drink.

At the trial the plaintiff introduced the deed in evidence, and offered evidence to show that William M. Perry was drunk when the deed was executed; that his brother Samuel had tried ineffectually to get a deed from said William M. Perry; that the value of the interest conveyed was worth four or five thousand dollars. The date of the judgment before the justice of the peace was August 20, 1853; of the execution, March 11, 1856; of the service of garnishment, April 24, 1856. The date of the deed to Mrs. Perry is July 7, 1852.

The court, of its own motion, gave the following instructions: “2. If the jury find that the defendant or her agent took advantage of the drunken condition of William M. Perry, and fraudulently procured him to sell and convey his interest to her at a greatly inadequate price, they will find for the plaintiff the amount of his debt. 3. If the jury find that the conveyance of William M. Perry's interest in his uncle's estate was made to his mother in trust and for the use and benefit of William M. Perry, they will find a verdict for the plaintiff for the amount of his debt and interest thereon from the date of the judgment.”

Frissell, for...