Eyrick and Deppen v. Hetrick
| Decision Date | 01 January 1852 |
| Citation | 13 Pa. 488 |
| Parties | Eyrick and Deppen versus Hetrick. |
| Court | Pennsylvania Supreme Court |
The case was argued by Banks, for plaintiff in error. He contended that the deed from the father to the son was fraudulent, and that the creditors could look behind it. If fraudulent as between the father and son and their creditors, it was good as between themselves, and was subject to the debts of John: 5 Binn. 111; 13 S. & R. 225.
That the trustee was a lunatic, and incapable of accepting the trust, 1 Pa. Rep. 43. As he took no beneficial interest under the deed, his assent is not to be presumed.
The deed, if never delivered, was inoperative; and as a plaintiff in ejectment must recover on the strength of his own title, it was competent for the defendants to show that it never was delivered. The evidence should have been submitted to the jury.
O'Brien, for defendant in error, Hetrick. That the land in dispute is the property of Henry. If John, as whose property it was sold, had any estate in the premises, it must have been a life-estate, and a life-estate is not the subject of a levy and sale on execution: Acts of 1840, Dunlop 823; 8 W. & S. 19.
To comprehend the merits of the defence set up below, it is necessary first to ascertain the relative position of the litigants. The action is brought by Henry Hetrick, junior, as holder of the legal title, by conveyance from his late father, Henry Hetrick, senior who is now deceased. The defendants below resist his right to recover, as purchasers at a sheriff's sale, made under an execution issued by one of them, sur a judgment recovered against John Hetrick, for a debt due from him and his late father, Henry. Against the latter, or his estate, no suit has ever been instituted. It is thus perceived, the defendants claim altogether through John, and by virtue of his supposed title; if he never had any, it is clear they took nothing by their purchase. The plaintiff below claims to recover as the trustee of John, who takes a life-estate under the deed made by his father, on the 30th of December 1824, and which was given in evidence as the foundation of John's right of possession. This deed the defendants propose to assail by evidence, that it was made to hinder and delay the creditors of the grantor, and of the cestui que trust, and also by showing it was never delivered to the trustee, the now plaintiff, nor the trust accepted by him; that he knew nothing of it, being at the date of the deed, and was since, a lunatic, and therefore incompetent to transact business.
It was well observed by the late Mr. Justice DUNCAN, in Sickman v. Lapsley, 13 S. & R. 224, that in considering exceptions to evidence, it is always to be taken into view for what purpose, and to prove what fact, it was offered. It may be entirely competent between certain persons and for certain purposes, while it is totally inadmissible as between other parties, and to advance a particular object. The present instance offers an apt illustration of this distinction, and a brief consideration of it will, I think, cover the whole case, or nearly so.
Were the present a proceeding against the estate of the elder Hetrick, in the land now in question, by virtue of a judicial sale, under process against him, the proof rejected on the trial might have been deemed good evidence, as tending to show a fraudulent alienation by him, in defeat of his creditors. It would have been so, if at all, because a fraud being established, the conveyance would be void as against them. But it is perfectly good as between the parties to it, as it is against all the world, except the creditors of the alienor: Reichart v. Castator, 5 Binn. 111; Sickman v. Lapsley, 13 S. & R. 226. The fact that the conveyance was made to assume the form of a trust, and for the special purpose of keeping John's creditors at bay, makes nothing against its validity, so far as the latter are concerned, for neither policy nor equity prohibits a parent to make such provision for the maintenance and comfort of an insolvent child. On the contrary, these trusts are favored and sustained by the law, as suggested by the best feelings of our nature, and doing harm to no one: Fisher v. Taylor, 2 R. 33; 7 W. 547; 5 W. & S. 323.
In itself, then, and as between the parties to it, the conveyance for the benefit of John was perfectly good. How did the defendants offer to impeach it? Not as creditors of the father; for, as such, they occupied no vantage ground from which they can hope successfully to attack it. No judgment was recovered against him or his estate; no judicial process was sued forth to sell his interest in the property, and no claim is set up by which it is thought to be divested under a supposed sale of it. But, as I have already intimated, the defendants claim as creditors of John. It is in this character, and this alone, they can aver any interest in this contest, or hope to stand for a moment as possessors of the land sought to be recovered. If John has no title, they can have none, for their right is wholly founded upon his; if the support of the conveyance in question be withdrawn from him, they must necessarily fall with him; And this is precisely what they propose to do. If their evidence be received, and the fatal effect they claim for it should be accorded to it, the effect would be not only a destruction of the debtor's estate in the land, but an utter defeat of their purchase for every beneficial purpose. But as they would not attempt such a course in reference to themselves alone, so they cannot pursue it under their connection with, and relation to their debtor, for the purpose of destroying the means whith helped them to the possession. In reference to John's title, they stand in John's shoes; if it is good as to him, it is good as to them, for their rights and remedies extend not beyond those which appertain to him. If, under his right (which, so far as w...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tillman v. City of Carthage
...149 Mo. 477; Valentine v. Decker, 43 Mo. 585; Major v. Hill, 13 Mo. 172; Duval v. Raisin, 7 Mo. 449, 54 L. R. A. 897, note; Eyrick v. Hetrick, 13 Pa. 488; Dawson v. Dawson, Rice Eq. 243; Cloud v. Calhoun, 10 Rich. Eq. 358; Adams v. Adams, 31 Wall. 185, 22 L.Ed. 504; McCalla v. Bane, 45 F. 8......
-
Ewing v. Walker
... ... v. Oettinger, ... 53 Md. 46; Adams v. Adams, 88 U.S. 185, 21 ... Wall. 185, 22 L.Ed. 504; Eyrick v. Hetrick, ... 13 Pa. 488 ... This ... old principle almost dominates the ... ...
-
Riffert v. Lehigh Valley Coal Co.
... ... heirs: Wilt v. Franklin, 1 Binn. 502; Sheerer v ... Lautzerheizer, 6 Watts, 543; Eyrick v. Hetrick, ... 13 Pa. 488; Marks' App., 85 Pa. 231; Golden's App., ... 110 Pa. 581; Heckman v ... ...
-
Buckby v. Sturtevant
...creditors, while it may be void as to creditors, is good between the parties or their privies: Sherk v. Endress, 3 W. & S. 255; Eyrick v. Hetrick, 13 Pa. 488; Murphy Hubert, 16 Pa. 50; Bonesteel v. Sullivan, 104 Pa. 9; Ahl's Appeal, 129 Pa. 49; Gill v. Henry, 95 Pa. 388. A suit in ejectment......