Elwell v. Walker

• Decision Date: 27 October 1879
• Citation: 3 N.W. 64,52 Iowa 256
• Parties: CARRIE C. ELWELL, APPELLANT, v. THOMAS A. WALKER AND WIFE, APPELLEES.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

52 Iowa 256

3 N.W. 64

CARRIE C. ELWELL, APPELLANT,

v.THOMAS A. WALKER AND WIFE, APPELLEES.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Filed October 27, 1879.

Appeal from Pottawattamie district court.

On the tenth day of February, 1877, the guardians of the person and estate of the plaintiff recovered a judgment against the defendant, Thomas A. Walker, for $914. An execution was issued upon said judgment and returned unsatisfied for want of property whereon to levy. The debt on which said judgment was rendered was contracted November 3, 1870, by the sale of certain real estate by plaintiffs to the said Walker for the sum of $20,000. A payment of $5,000 was made by said Walker at the time of the purchase, and he gave his promissory note for $15,000, payable on the sixth day of September, 1878, bearing interest at six per cent. per annum, payable annually, and secured by a mortgage upon the real estate purchased. The judgment for $914 was for interest due on the deferred payment. The defendants are husband and wife, and this action was brought to set aside certain conveyances of real estate made by Thomas A. Walker to his said wife, on the twenty-second day of March, 1872, and to subject the same to the payment of the said judgment. It is averred in the petition that said conveyances were made without consideration, and that they were fraudulent as against the plaintiff, who was at the time a creditor of said Thomas A. Walker. The defendants, by their answer, alleged that the mortgage given by said Thomas A. Walker to the guardian of the plaintiff was ample security for the debt and interest thereon, and that at the time of said conveyances by Walker to his wife he was, and still is, the owner of a large amount of real estate not included in said conveyances, “and was the owner of personal property, notes and credits to an amount in excess of his indebtedness, and was perfectly responsible, solvent, and unembarrassed financially, and said conveyances were made in good faith, and without intent to defraud.”

Afterwards the defendants amended their answer by averring that they “were married in June, 1871, and that prior to their marriage, and as an inducement thereto, said Thomas A. Walker agreed and promised to convey to defendant Mary C. Walker, then Mary C. Williams, all of his property and interests in Iowa, as a marriage settlement; that said agreement was evidenced by certain letters written and signed by defendants respectively in February, 1871; that said letters are lost or destroyed; that said letters were relied on by defendant Mary C. Walker up to the marriage, and subsequently defendant Thomas A. Walker conveyed to her all his Iowa property and interests by the deeds set out in plaintiff's petition; that said conveyances were made strictly in pursuance of said ante-nuptial agreement, and in consideration of said agreement and marriage; that at the date of said agreement and marriage Thomas A. Walker owned real estate to the value of more than a half million of dollars, most of which was improved real estate in St. Louis, Mo.; that under the circumstances said marriage settlement was a just, fair, and proper provision for Mary C. Walker, and ought to be sustained.”

The plaintiff, in reply, denied that her debt was sufficiently secured by said mortgage, because the mortgaged property had greatly depreciated in value, and defendant had purposely let it go to ruin and decay; denied that Thomas A. Walker was solvent when he made the conveyances to his wife, and alleged that he was then indebted in the sum of $235,000; denied that any agreement was made for a marriage settlement, or that said deeds were made in pursuance of any such contract or agreement. Upon these issues the cause was tried to the court upon written evidence, and a decree was entered dismissing the plaintiff's petition, and a judgment was rendered against her for the costs of the action. Plaintiff appeals.Daily & Burke and Robert Percival, for appellant.

Clinton, Hart & Brewer, for appellee.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The issue as to whether there was a binding ante-nuptial contract between the defendants is material to a proper determination of the case, and to that question we will first direct our attention. That there may be no mistake, and that the facts and our conclusion thereon may be fairly understood, we will here set out all the evidence upon that branch of the case.

The defendant Thomas A. Walker testified as follows: “The name of my wife before marriage was Mary C. Williams. She resided with her parents in Council Bluffs, Iowa. I proposed marriage to her in the fall of 1870. On several occasions the subject of conveying the property to her was spoken of, and in February, 1871, I wrote from St. Louis suggesting making the conveyance at that time. It was not completed on that occasion from some objections she made. I don't recollect exactly what they were. It was held as a future transaction, to be completed at some future time. The property I proposed to settle on her was all I had in Iowa; my Iowa interests. I have not now the letter I wrote to her in 1871. It was signed by me and addressed to Miss Mary C. Williams. In that letter I made the proposition, with her consent, of making her a deed of conveyance of my Iowa property to her. The proposition was made in that letter. It was made verbally before that. The idea was to make an independent settlement on my wife. My interest in the Iowa property which I owned was alone the subject of the proposed conveyance. I received a reply to that letter signed by Miss Mary C. Williams. I received it in St. Louis. That reply is lost. I have made a search for it but I cannot find it. I recollect the contents of it. The proposed conveyance was objected to--that is, to be made at that time--for the reason that in case of my death any time soon it would be taking the property out of my family's possession. My relatives in New York were meant. The acceptance of the conveyance was held for some future time. There might have been a day fixed, but I don't recollect exactly, but the conveyance was accepted conditionally, and the conveyance to be delayed for a period. The conveyance was made in pursuance of that arrangement, and finally completed in March, 1872. I was married in June, 1871. The conveyance was deferred because my present wife objected to it previous to our marriage, and it was finally accepted soon after the birth of an heir.”

The defendant Mary C. Walker testified as follows: “I had known Mr. Walker about two years before our marriage. He first proposed marriage to me in 1870. He told me when he made offer of marriage that he would give me a considerable marriage settlement. He did not designate any special property for some months afterwards.”

Interrogatory. “State how often, if at all, the subject was subsequently talked of between you prior to February, 1871, and whether any particular property, and, if any, what property was agreed upon as the subject of the marriage settlement.”

Answer. “His Iowa interests; and once, in walking along the bluffs, he pointed out to me that my lots around the B. & M. depot would be very valuable sometime. It was talked of very frequently prior to February, 1871.”

Interrogatory. “State the facts as to whether the arrangement for a marriage settlement was or was not ever evidenced by writing, and, if it was, what was the nature of the writing--whether letters or other memoranda, or formal agreement.”

Answer. “It was; he wrote to me February, 1871; I think the letter has been burned; I have looked and searched among all the papers I have, and I burned some letters in 1874, never anticipating I would ever have any use for them again; I remember some parts of it distinctly; he wrote requesting me to accept a conveyance of his Iowa real estate, and that he was ill and traveled a great deal, was subject to accident, and might die a little earlier than he expected, and I suppose was a little complimentary; that he thought more of me than...