Fender v. McDonald

Decision Date12 July 1909
Citation54 Wash. 130,102 P. 1026
PartiesFENDER v. McDONALD et al. (two cases.
CourtWashington Supreme Court

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, Walla Walla County; Thos. H Brents, Judge.

Consolidated actions by H. S. Fender against S.D. McDonald, and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendants appeal. Affirmed.

Cary M Rader and Elihu F. Barker, for appellants.

T. P Gose and C. C. Gose, for respondent.

RUDKIN C.J.

On the 5th day of December, 1907, the plaintiff in these consolidated actions recovered judgment against S.D. McDonald in the sum of $1,451.89 and $13.45 costs of suit. An execution issued upon the judgment was returned nulla bona and the present actions were thereupon instituted to set aside certain conveyances theretofore made by the defendant S.D. McDonald to his codefendants and to subject the property thus conveyed to the satisfaction of the plaintiff's judgment, on the ground that such conveyances were made without consideration and for the purpose of placing the property conveyed beyond the reach of the plaintiff and other creditors of the grantor. On the 12th day of January, 1909, a decree was entered in the consolidated actions according to the prayer of the complaints; the decree reciting: 'That on the 5th day of November, 1906, the defendant S.D. McDonald, being the owner in fee of the hereinafter described lands, situate in this county, and being then indebted to the plaintiff, his assignor hereinafter mentioned, and divers other persons, for the purpose of placing said lands beyond the reach of said plaintiff and said other creditors, and of preventing him and them from collecting the said indebtedness, and circumventing, cheating, and defrauding him and them thereof, conveyed that certain portion thereof consisting of the southwest quarter of section 14, of township 10 north, of range 36 east of the Willamette meridian, for the purported and pretended consideration of $4,000, to the defendant Laura B. Washburn, then and until after the commencement of these actions known by her maiden name of Laura B. McDonald, and in her said maiden name; that on the same day, and with the like purpose, the said defendant S.D. McDonald conveyed that certain other portion of his said lands, consisting of the south half of the southeast quarter, the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter, and the south half of the northwest quarter of the southeast quarter of said section, township, and range, for the purported and pretended consideration of $5,000, to the defendant Mary E. McDonald; that each of said conveyances was accepted by said defendants Laura B. Washburn, then Laura B. McDonald, and Mary E. McDonald, respectively, with full knowledge of the aforesaid purpose, and in order to aid the said defendant S.D. McDonald to accomplish the same, and with the secret understanding between them that the title of said lands should be held by them, as such grantees, respectively, in trust to the use of the said defendant S.D. McDonald; that after said conveyance was so made to said defendant Laura B. McDonald, now Laura B. Washburn, she borrowed of Baker & Baker the sum of $1,625, securing said loan by a mortgage on said portion of said lands so conveyed to her, and paid said sum to creditors of said defendant S.D. McDonald at his request; that if any further consideration were given by either of said grantee defendants for said conveyances, the same, including said sum so borrowed, did not exceed one-half the amount of the purported and pretended consideration therefor, nor one-half the value of said tracts of land, respectively, and in each case was grossly inadequate; that after the making of said conveyances as aforesaid, and on the 5th day of December, 1907, said plaintiff, by the consideration of this court, in a certain action brought by him against said defendant S.D. McDonald, recovered judgment upon said indebtedness against the said defendant S.D. McDonald...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Seattle Auto. Co. v. Stimson
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 10 Enero 1912
    ...court. Boom Company v. Railway Company, 57 Wash. 693, 107 P. 848; Yakima Grocery Co. v. Benoit, 56 Wash. 208, 105 P. 476; Fender v. McDonald, 54 Wash. 130, 102 P. 1026; Horrell v. California, etc., Ass'n, 40 Wash. 82 P. 889; Smith v. Glenn, 40 Wash. 262, 82 P. 605; Bringgold v. Bringgold, 4......
  • Granite Falls State Bank v. Ryan
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 27 Junio 1914
    ... ... 96 P. 1044; F. T. Crowe & Co. v. Brandt, 50 Wash ... 499, 97 P. 503; Warehime v. Schweitzer, 51 Wash ... 299, 98 P. 747; Fender v. McDonald, 54 Wash. 130, ... 102 P. 1026; Snohomish River Boom Co. v. G. N. Ry ... Co., 57 Wash. 693, 107 P. 848; Seattle Automobile ... ...
  • Beauregard v. Automobile Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn.
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 5 Junio 1924
    ... ... 165] 1001; Poor v. Cudihee, 37 Wash ... 609, 79 P. 1105; Scott v. Union Machinery & Supply ... Co., 78 Wash. 201, 139 P. 218; Fender v ... McDonald, 54 Wash. 130, 102 P. 1026; Beeler v ... Barr, 90 Wash. 258, 155 P. 1040; Halferty v ... Schmidt, 100 Wash. 304, ... ...
  • James v. McMillan
    • United States
    • Washington Supreme Court
    • 29 Marzo 1921
    ...440; Washington Brick, Lime & Mfg. Co. v. Adler, 12 Wash. 24, 40 P. 383; Crowe & Co. v. Brandt, 50 Wash. 499, 97 P. 503; Fender v. McDonald, 54 Wash. 130, 102 P. 1026. Appellants made only a general exception at the conclusion of all the findings of fact made by the court, as follows: 'To w......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT