Gaar v. Hart

• Decision Date: 21 May 1889
• Citation: 42 N.W. 451,77 Iowa 597
• Parties: GAAR ET AL. v. HART ET AL.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

77 Iowa 597

42 N.W. 451

GAAR ET AL.

v.HART ET AL.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

May 21, 1889.

Appeal from district court, Jasper county; DAVID RYAN, Judge.

This is an action in equity, by which the plaintiffs seek to subject certain real estate, the legal title to which is in the defendant Elizabeth Hart, to the payment of a judgment had by the plaintiffs against the defendant James H. Hart. There was a decree subjecting part of the property to the payment of $600 of the judgment. The defendants Elizabeth Hart and James H. Hart appeal, and claim that no part of the real estate should be subject to the payment of any part of the judgment. The plaintiffs appeal because the whole of the judgment was not established as a lien against all of the land.Harrah & Myers, for appellants.

Winslow & Varnum, for appellees.

ROTHROCK, J.

1. The defendant James H. Hart was the owner of 80 acres of land in Jasper county, and the defendant Elizabeth Hart owned an adjoining 80-acre tract. She is the widow of Isaac M. Hart, deceased, who was brother of James H. Hart. I. N. Hart, a son of Elizabeth Hart, bought a threshing-machine and traction engine of the plaintiffs in 1884, and gave his notes for the purchase money, and James H. Hart signed the notes as surety. After the notes were made James H. Hart sold and conveyed his land to Elizabeth Hart. The whole 80-acre tract was not sold and conveyed at one time. There were separate sales of the two government 40 acres, which composed the whole tract. The plaintiffs reduced their notes to judgment, and they claim that said sales and conveyances were fraudulent as to them. The court below held that the sale of one of the 40-acre tracts was a valid transaction, but that the sale of the other was a mere voluntary transfer, and without consideration as to $600 of the pretended purchase money.

As to the plaintiffs' appeal, we think the decree should be affirmed without question. It appears from the evidence that Elizabeth Hart paid the full consideration for the 40-acre tract which she first purchased. The contract price for the 40 acres which she afterwards purchased was $1,600. The evidence satisfactorily shows that she paid $1,000 of the purchase money in cash. There is no evidence that she was an active participant in any scheme to defraud the creditors of James H. Hart. On the other hand, it appears that all the money she paid to James H. Hart was used by him to pay his creditors, and not to defraud them. But $600...