Franklin v. Stagg

• Decision Date: 31 October 1855
• Citation: 22 Mo. 193
• Parties: FRANKLIN, Plaintiff in Error, v. STAGG, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

22 Mo. 193

FRANKLIN, Plaintiff in Error,

v.STAGG, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1855.

1. A. having purchased certain lots in the city of St. Louis at an execution sale under judgments against B., brought suit against B. and also against C., in whom the legal title to said lots stood, asking that the title of C. might be divested and transferred to A. on the ground that the said lots had been conveyed to C. with intent to defraud the creditors of B. (of whom A. was one), and were thus fraudulently held by C. To this suit both defendants appeared, and B., in his answer, denied the fraud alleged, denied ownership in himself, and asserted full ownership in C. The court gave judgment for A., plaintiff, and by its decree vested the title to said lot in him free, and discharged of all claims in favor of either B. or C. Held, that this suit was a complete and final adjudication upon the title of B. to the lots in question, and that B. could not afterwards set up title thereto, either in his own behalf, or in behalf of his creditors, on the ground that A. acquired the property by making a fraudulent use of a judgment confessed by B. in his favor: the matter is res adjudicata.

Error to St. Louis Land Court.

The facts are fully set forth in the opinion of the court.

Munford, for plaintiff in error, cited State v. Morton, 18 Mo. 53; Wood v. Jackson, 8 Wend. 9; 2 Myl. & Cr. 602; 3 Edw. Ch. 20; 8 Page, 210.

W. L. Williams and Glover & Richardson, for defendant in error.

RYLAND, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

In November, 1849, Henry Stagg commenced his suit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis county against Joseph Fitch and Joseph F. Franklin. The plaintiff's petition stated that in June, 1849, F. O. Day conveyed to Fitch lot 259 in Wright & Chambers' Addition to St. Louis; that said conveyance was without any consideration moving from Fitch; was in fact without his knowledge; was for the benefit of Franklin, and made for the purpose of defeating the collection of judgments, which had been rendered in the courts against him, one of which was in favor of the plaintiff; that in August, 1849, John G. Weld conveyed to Fitch another lot of ground in the city of St. Louis, being part of lot No. 282; that this conveyance was also without consideration from Fitch -- was intended for the use of Franklin and made to defraud his creditors; that in November, 1848, said Franklin confessed judgment in favor of Fitch for $3014; that no such sum was due from him to Fitch; that said judgment was confessed without the knowledge of Fitch and for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of Franklin; and if at the date of said judgment any sum whatever was due to Fitch, it had been paid in full prior to the conveyance by Day to Fitch. The dates and amounts of the several judgments, recovered by Franklin's creditors against him, were fully set forth. It was then stated that executions were regularly issued on judgments against Franklin, including the plaintiff's judgment, were levied on the lots in question, and that the lots were sold by the sheriff of the county of St. Louis to the plaintiff, who received his deed therefor, on the 3d day of November, 1849; that the legal title still remained in Fitch; and thereupon the plaintiff prayed that Fitch should be compelled to convey to him, or that the court would, by its decree, pass the title to these lots to the plaintiff.

The answer of Franklin was filed in December, 1849. It stated in substance that the conveyances by Day and Weld were not for his benefit; that he had no interest whatever in the property, and fully denied the alleged intent to hinder or defraud his creditors. On the contrary, he asserted that Weld and Day were the legal and equitable owners of the property, and had, for a valuable consideration, at his instance, conveyed them to Fitch on account of a debt which he owed Fitch; that said judgment was honestly confessed by him in favor of Fitch for a real debt; that he owed Fitch even a greater amount, and had no fraudulent motive in it; that the judgment in favor of the plaintiff was also confessed by him, and was merely to secure the plaintiff against liabilities he was under for him (Franklin); and that at the time of the sheriff's sale to the plaintiff, under said judgment and others, not over five hundred dollars were due on plaintiff's judgment. The answer then proceeded to state that long previous to the plaintiff's purchase, the lot conveyed by Weld to Fitch had been sold in good faith under judgment and execution against him to Weld, who held the sheriff's deed.

The answer of Fitch, filed in April, 1850, set up, substantially, the same defences, and concluded with a denial that plaintiff had any right in equity to coerce the payment of his judgment at the date of his purchase at the sheriff's sale.

On the issues made by these pleadings, the cause came to trial in February, 1853, and the finding was in favor of the plaintiff on all the material allegations in his petition, and therefore it was ordered, adjudged and decreed that the legal title to the said lots, pieces and parcels of land be and the same is hereby vested in the plaintiff (Henry Stagg), free and discharged of and from all claims of said defendants or either of them--Joseph F. Franklin being one.

The defendants took the necessary steps to obtain a review of the finding, but were overruled in the Circuit Court; they afterwards appealed and removed the record into this court, where errors were assigned and the cause argued and decided at the March term, 1853, and the finding of the Circuit Court, upon the evidence adduced at the trial, sustained and the judgment appealed from affirmed in all particulars. (Case reported 18 Mo. 299.) It is in this state of things that Joseph F. Franklin, who was defendant in the suit, the nature and result of which have just been stated, commenced the present action in the Land Court of St. Louis county, in which Stagg, who was plaintiff before, is made defendant.

The plaintiff in this present suit states in his petition as follows: “Plaintiff states that on the 8th day of May, 1848, the firm of Franklin & Perry drew a draft for $2000 on J. L. Franklin, of New York; that to negotiate said draft, plaintiff got the defendant to endorse the same as an accommodation endorser; that the same was sold to one Hayes. Plaintiff states that on the 15th day of April, 1848, the firm of Franklin & Perry and the defendant made their joint promissory note for the sum of $3000; that said note was negotiated and the money raised on it, one half of which was taken and used by the defendant, and the other by plaintiff; that said note had four months to run, and that the same was eventually sold to H. Crittenden Plaintiff states that on the 6th of July, 1848, plaintiff executed three notes for $500 each, one due in four, seven and nine months, and one other on the same day for $200; that said notes were given to said Stagg and discharged by plaintiff, except the one for $200, which was without a good and valuable consideration, and that the consideration for the said $200 note entirely failed.

Plaintiff states that not long after the indebtedness aforesaid was created, he became apprehensive of serious difficulties in his pecuniary affairs; that to indemnify the defendant against any loss on account of his liabilities, at the request of defendant, he executed to him, on the 25th November, 1848, his certain promissory note for the sum of $5200; that the sole consideration of said note was to indemnify the defendant against the aforesaid debts; that said note was due one day after date, that the plaintiff,...