Edwards v. Reid
| Decision Date | 06 March 1894 |
| Docket Number | 5553 |
| Citation | 58 N.W. 202,39 Neb. 645 |
| Parties | WILLIAM H. EDWARDS ET AL., APPELLEES, v. SARAH A. REID ET AL., APPELLANTS, AND OLOF BERGGREN, APPELLEE, v. SARAH A. REID ET AL., APPELLANTS |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
APPEAL from the district court of Saunders county. Heard below before BATES, J.
Decree reversed and decree entered dismissing the cases of the appellees at their costs.
N. H Bell and M. B. Reese, for appellants, contending that the homestead was originally acquired and never abandoned, cited Dorrington v. Myers, 11 Neb. 388; Dennis v Omaha Nat. Bank, 19 Neb. 677; McFarland v Washington, 14 S.W. [Ky.], 354; Reilly v. Reilly, 26 N.E. [Ill.], 604; Moore v. Flynn, 25 N.E. [Ill.], 844; Duffey v. Willis, 12 S.W. [Mo.], 520; Rollins v. O'Farrell, 13 S.W. [Tex.], 102; Freeman, Executions, sec. 248, and cases cited; Eckman v. Scott, 34 Neb. 817; Thompson, Homesteads & Exemptions, sec .285; Rix v. Capitol Bank of Topeka, 2 Dill. [U. S.], 370; Bloedorn v. Jewell, 34 Neb. 649.
Simpson & Sornborger, contra, on the question of homestead, cited: Thompson, Homesteads & Exemptions, secs. 265, 266; Fyffe v. Beers, 18 Iowa 7; Kimball v. Wilson, 59 Iowa 638; Cotton v. Hamil, 58 Iowa 594.
The evidence before us shows that in the year 1881 one Alfred Reid purchased the west half of the southeast quarter of section 25, in township 15 north and range 7 west, in Saunders county, Nebraska, and about the year 1884 moved upon, improved, and began farming and occupying said land as the homestead of himself and family. Some time after this he conveyed the land to his wife, Sarah A. Reid. That he was a shoemaker by occupation, and being unable, on account of poor health, to do the work on the farm, about the year 1886 he rented a building in Wahoo, to which he and his wife removed a part of their household goods, and used this building as their temporary home and Mr. Reid's shoe shop. At the time Mr. and Mrs. Reid came to Wahoo they left their farm in charge of a son, and left also on the farm all their stock and farming utensils, and the greater part of their household goods. Mrs. Reid divided her time between the farm and her abode in Wahoo, a few miles distant. She did the laundry work and some of the cooking for herself and husband on the farm. Thus matters stood until August, 1887, when Mr. Reid died. On November 1, 1887, Mrs. Reid sold and conveyed the farm to her daughter, Mrs. Starks, the consideration being $ 600, evidenced by two notes of Mrs. Starks of $ 300 each; the assumption by her of mortgages on the land amounting to $ 1,200, and the promise to provide her mother with a home, she being then about fifty-two years of age. In February, 1889, Mrs. Reid sold her property on the farm, and the daughter rented the land for that year for cash rent. On January 30, 1890, Mrs. Starks and her husband sold and conveyed the land to one Krailick. On July 27, 1889, one Olof Berggren recovered a judgment against Mrs. Reid and one C. M. Frey, her son by a former husband, for $ 90.95. A transcript of this judgment was filed and docketed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Saunders county on January 13, 1890. November 1, 1887, Edwards & Castle recovered a judgment in the county court of Saunders county against Mrs. Reid for $ 80.80, and on February 14, 1888, a transcript of this judgment was filed and docketed in the office of the clerk of the district court of Saunders county. Executions having been issued and returned unsatisfied, Edwards & Castle and Berggren, in March, 1890, each brought suit in equity against Sarah A. Reid, Abbie A. Starks, and Joseph Krailick, alleging that the conveyance from Mrs. Reid to Mrs. Starks was made and received without consideration and for the fraudulent purpose of hindering and delaying Mrs Reid's creditors in the collection of their debts; and alleging that Krailick's interest in the land was acquired with knowledge of Mrs. Reid's interest in the land and the existence of plaintiff's judgment.
The answer of the parties made defendants and the replies thereto made the following issues: (1.) Whether the conveyance from Mrs. Reid to Mrs. Starks was made and accepted in good faith and for a valuable consideration. (2.) Whether Krailick was an innocent purchaser. (3.) Whether the land at the time it was conveyed to Mrs. Starks by Mrs. Reid was the latter's homestead. The court found and decreed the issues for the complainants, the cases having been consolidated and tried together, and the defendants below bring the case here on appeal.
1. Was the conveyance from Mrs. Reid to Mrs. Starks made and accepted without consideration and with a fraudulent purpose? As to the consideration, the evidence is that Mrs. Starks assumed $ 1,200 of incumbrances on the land, gave her notes for $ 600, and promised to provide the grantor a home. The land was worth at the time about $ 2,600. This was, as between the parties, a good consideration; or, to express it differently, it was not a conveyance wholly without consideration. As to the intent with which this conveyance was made and accepted, for the purposes of this opinion we may disregard Mrs. Reid and her intentions in making the conveyance. If her purpose was fraudulent, and we do not wish to be understood as saying that this record discloses that it was, still, to invalidate the conveyance, Mrs. Reid's fraudulent purpose and intent must have been known to and participated in by Mrs. Starks. (Hedman v. Anderson, 6 Neb. 392; Smith v. Schmitz, 10 Neb. 600, 7 N.W. 329; Keith v. Heffelfinger, 12 Neb. 497, 11 N.W. 749; Burley v. Millard, 11 Neb. 286, 9 N.W. 46; Crabb v. Morrissey, 31 Neb. 161, 47 N.W. 697; Spring Lake Iron Co. v. Waters, 50 Mich. 13, 14 N.W. 679.) Or, Mrs. Starks must have had notice of such facts, tending to show fraudulent purposes on the part of Mrs. Reid, as would put a person of ordinary prudence on inquiry. (Temple v. Smith, 13 Neb. 513, 14 N.W. 527; Bollman v. Lucas, 22 Neb. 796, 36 N.W. 465.) There is no evidence in this record which shows, or tends to show, that Mrs. Starks, at the time she took the deed, knew, or had any reason to suspect, that Mrs. Reid was indebted to any one; nor can such an inference be reasonably drawn from any or all the testimony. The evidence, and all the evidence, on the subject is that Mrs. Starks knew nothing of her mother's indebtedness until after the sale and conveyance of the land to Krailick, nor was any attempt made to show the contrary. Indeed, it would seem from the record, although not expressly so stated, that Berggren's debt was not contracted until 1889. His judgment before the justice of the peace was rendered one year and nine months after, and his transcript thereof filed two years and two months after, the date of the conveyance from Mrs. Reid to Mrs. Starks was recorded. We think, therefore, the decree, in so far at least as it finds that Mrs. Starks accepted this conveyance with intent to defraud her mother's creditors, or with knowledge or notice that her mother intended by the conveyance to defraud her creditors, is without any evidence to support it.
2. We come now to the consideration of that part of the decree of the district court in and by which the conveyance from Mrs Starks to Joseph Krailick was set aside. There is no general finding in favor of appellees or against appellants; nor is there any special finding as to whether Krailick was or was not a bona fide purchaser of this land, nor even that he knew of appellees' claims before paying the purchase money to Mrs. Starks, as a...
To continue reading
Request your trial