Eddy v. Baldwin

• Decision Date: 31 March 1862
• Parties: JOSEPH A. EDDY, Plaintiff in Error, v. HENRY BALDWIN et al., Defendants in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

32 Mo. 369

JOSEPH A. EDDY, Plaintiff in Error,

v.HENRY BALDWIN et al., Defendants in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1862.

Error to St. Louis Court of Common Pleas.

The facts are stated sufficiently in the opinion. The following are the instructions given and refused upon the question of solvency:

The plaintiff asked the following instructions, which the court refused:

1. If the jury believe from the evidence that when the deed of Hall to Willi was made, Henry Baldwin was indebted, but that such indebtedness could not be collected by legal process, then they should find that he was then insolvent.

2. If the jury believe from the evidence that at the time the deed of Hall to Willi was made, Henry Baldwin was indebted beyond any means within his personal control to pay, or that, if he had means enough to pay his indebtedness, they were not in such condition that they could be directly taken and appropriated for the payment of such indebtedness under a writ of execution therefor against him, then they should find that he was then insolvent.

3. If the consideration of the deed made from Hall to Willi, dated May 30, 1844, was paid out of money in the possession of or under the control of the wife of Henry Baldwin, as testified to by the witnesses in this case; if said Henry Baldwin at the time knew of said conveyance, and how the consideration therefor was paid; if he, at the date of said deed, owed debts, including an indebtedness by him to Beach & Eddy; if said Baldwin then had not sufficient property or means to pay or satisfy his existing indebtedness, or if his means were so managed or disposed of by him, or with his knowledge and consent, that they could not be directly taken and appropriated for the payment of such indebtedness of said Baldwin, under a writ of execution therefor, against him; if said Julia, his wife, at the time said deed from Hall to Willi was made, knew that her said husband was so indebted; if she also knew how and out of what money the consideration of said deed was paid, then the jury should find that said deed was made with intent to defraud or delay the creditors of said Henry, and that said Julia was privy thereto.

4. If the jury believe from the evidence that, at the date of the deed of Hall to Willi, Henry Baldwin had so far given to his wife his means, that at that time an execution against him for such indebtedness as may have been proved then existed, could not be made by taking what means then remained to him, they then should find him insolvent at the date of said deed.

5. If the jury believe from the evidence that, without the money shown to have been in the hands or under the control of Mrs. Baldwin, Mr. Baldwin could not pay his debts at the date of the deed of Hall to Willi, and that the said moneys were intended to be held and controlled by her, with his consent, for her own use as against him and his creditors, except so far as she should consent, then they should find that he was insolvent at the date of said deed.

The defendant asked and the court gave the following:

“If the jury shall believe from the evidence in the case that the deed from Hall to Willi was made with the intent to provide out of a part of the means of H. Baldwin a support for his wife Julia, to guard against the future improvidence of her husband; that this was the only intent and purpose in making the deed; that at the time of making said deed H. Baldwin had means and effects over and above the purchase price of a house and lot conveyed by the deed amply sufficient to pay off and discharge all legal debts or liabilities then existing against him, they will find, under the fourth issue, that the said deed was not made with the intent to defraud or delay the creditors of said Henry Baldwin in obtaining their just demands against him.”

Of its own motion, the court gave the following:

“If, at the date of the deed from Hall to Willi, Henry Baldwin had sufficient means either in money or property, or both, in his possession, or subject to his immediate and absolute control, to pay all his debts, he was not at that time insolvent, notwithstanding his means or part of them consisted of moneys in his possession or in the possession of his wife, and could not without his consent have been seized or taken by process of law.”

A. Todd and J. M. Krum, for plaintiff in error.

I. The court admitted for the defence testimony not relevant to the issues, and calculated to mislead the jury.

II. The court erred in its instruction defining insolvency. If when the conveyance was made Baldwin was in debt, and the consideration paid was from his money, and payment of his debts could not be enforced by process of law, then he was insolvent, and the conveyance was fraudulent. (4 Hill, N. Y. 650, 13 Wend. 377.)

Hill and Burwell, for defendants in error.

DRYDEN, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a suit brought by Eddy against Henry Baldwin, Julia A. Baldwin, his wife, and Samuel Willi, her trustee, for title and...