Frank v. Reuter,
| Decision Date | 13 June 1893 |
| Citation | 22 S.W. 812,116 Mo. 517 |
| Parties | Frank, et al., v. Reuter, et al., Appellants |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
Appeal from Hannibal Court of Common Pleas. -- Hon. T. H. Bacon Judge.
Affirmed.
A. M Hough and J. C. Fisher for appellants.
(1) The court erred in the admission of the certified copy of the deed of trust mentioned on page twenty of abstract. No sufficient foundation was laid for its admission. Plaintiffs simply testified that the original was not in his possession or under his control. It does not appear that plaintiffs made any effort to get the original. West v. West, 75 Mo 204. (2) Fraud must be proved and must not be presumed. Relationship between the parties to a conveyance is not sufficient to establish a fraudulent intent as to creditors; nor is insolvency of the grantor alone sufficient. Renny v. Williams, 89 Mo. 139; Hoskinson v. Adkins, 77 Mo. 537. (3) It devolves upon the attacking creditors to introduce proof tending to show that the beneficiaries had knowledge of the fraudulent intent, and also that they participated therein, and of this fact there must be tangible evidence, not mere suspicion. Hansmann v. Hope, 20 Mo. 193. (4) There is no evidence that John A. Sauer or H. H. Reuter furnished the money to purchase the property. The finding of the court is against the law and the evidence. The finding is against the weight of evidence.
Charles Martin for respondent.
(1) In determining the question of good faith of the transfers of the property in controversy in this case, the court will consider all the facts and circumstances surrounding the transactions, as well as other transactions of the same parties. Bump on Faudulent Conveyances [3 Ed.], 579; Blen v. Penniston, 27 Mo. 272. Hence the evidence taken in the case of Baum, et al., v. Ruth S. Sauer, et al. is competent in this and tends to impress the transfers complained of in this case with a fraudulent character. (2) The purchase of the property at sheriff's sale by Singleton, in name of Mary Gerber, was nothing more than a purchase by Sauer for her, and while relationship may not in ordinary cases raise a presumption of bad faith, that, with the other suspicious circumstances attending this sale, would raise a strong inference that the purchase was for the benefit of Sauer and Reuter and with their means. Bump on Fraudulent Conveyances, 56; King v. Moorey, 42 Mo. 551; Van Raalte v. Harrington, 101 Mo. 602; Lohman v. Stocke, 94 Mo. 673; Benne v. Schnecko, 100 Mo. 250.
This is a creditors' bill to divest the title of a certain lot in the town of Elsberry, Missouri, out of defendant, Mrs. R. H. Reuter, and vest the same in Herman H. Reuter, her husband, and John A. Sauer, and to subject the same to certain judgments of the plaintiffs against the firm of Sauer & Reuter.
The evidence shows, that the plaintiffs are judgment creditors of the firm of Sauer & Reuter, composed of the defendants, John A. Sauer and Herman H. Reuter.
The defendants are related to each other as follows: H. H. Reuter and R. H. Reuter are husband and wife; Mary Gerber is a sister of H. H. Reuter; H. H. Reuter is a son-in-law of the wife of John A. Sauer.
The defendants, Sauer & Reuter, were for some years in mercantile business in New Hope, Lincoln county. In 1880, they removed their business to Elsberry, on the line of the St. Louis, Keokuk & North Western Railway, purchased a lot, built a store-house thereon and sold goods until they were closed up by attachment in January, 1882. In August, 1881, they had on hand goods amounting to $ 5,000 at cost price.
From that time until their suspension of business in January, 1882, they purchased goods on credit of various wholesale merchants in St. Louis, Chicago, Quincy and Cincinnati, amounting to between $ 18,000 and $ 19,000; and for the time between August and their failure in January 1882, sold a great quantity of goods almost exclusively for cash. During this time, they had paid only $ 3,000 on their indebtedness. When an inventory was taken of the assets attached, it was found that the goods on hand and accounts amounted to only about $ 10,500. The accounts being about $ 500, and all contracted before they moved to Elsberry. About the first of January, 1882, they executed a chattel mortgage on their entire stock to Keeling & Kemper and Norton to secure debts to Keeling & Kemper of about $ 1,000 and Norton's attorney's fees of $ 250. Upon the filing of this mortgage, most of the creditors attached on the ground that they had fraudulently conveyed their property. Sauer & Reuter defended none of these attachment suits,...
To continue reading
Request your trial