George v. Williamson

• Decision Date: 31 January 1858
• Citation: 26 Mo. 190
• Parties: GEORGE, Plaintiff in Error, v. WILLIAMSON, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

26 Mo. 190

GEORGE, Plaintiff in Error,

v.WILLIAMSON, Defendant in Error.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

January Term, 1858.

1. A conveyance made in fraud of creditors is valid as against the grantor and his heirs; it can not be impeached by his administrator.

2. A county or probate court has no jurisdiction, in such case, on the application of the administrator, though made at the instance of creditors, to order a sale of the land for the payment of debts.

3. Where a conveyance is made in fraud of creditors, they, or any one of them may in an equitable proceeding have the same set aside. The creditor who first files his petition obtains thereby, it seems, a priority and is entitled to be first paid from the proceeds of the sale, if a sale is decreed.

Error to Callaway Circuit Court.

Jones and Hayden, for plaintiff in error.

The county court had power to order the sale of real estate for the payment of debts, and whether the decedent may or may not have made a conveyance of his land in his lifetime, or whether such conveyance was valid or void, is not a question for the county court to determine, as they, simply to satisfy the demands of creditors, order a sale of all the interest which the intestate had in the land which could be subjected to the demands of creditors. It is insisted that the same power exists in the county court to order a sale of real estate, where there has been a prior voluntary conveyance, as in the familiar case of a voluntary conveyance by last will, in which latter case there can be no question of its jurisdiction. In the first case, as well as the other, the conveyance is void as to the demands of creditors, and as to them the title to the land still remains vested in the grantor. Such being the case, the right, title and interest, both of property and possession, was vested in the decedent Williamson at the time of his death, and he had such an interest as could be sold for the payment of his debts. It is conceived that the only question for decision is with reference to the power of the county court to order a sale of real estate for the payment of debts, and, whether the order was made by creditors petitioning or by the administrator petitioning in behalf of the creditors, the title would pass to the purchaser at such sale, and he could not be affected in a collateral proceeding.

II. The question as to the right of the administrator to set aside or annul the conveyance of his intestate has no application to this case, and the error consists in placing George in the attitude of administrator, and supposing that this suit is instituted by him as administrator to set aside the sale, when the whole suit is based upon the fact that he is purchaser, and suing as such to remove a cloud from his title. To show his right to purchase, see R. C. 1855, tit. Administration, sec. 32, art. 3, p. 147.

III. The subject matter of this suit is real estate and not personal property. Therefore, without reference to the question of the administrator's right to set aside the conveyance of his intestate, it has never been contended that he can do so in case of real estate, or that he could institute a suit for such purpose; and it is conceded that his acts would be wholly nugatory as he has no legal interest in the realty. The purchaser's title to real estate under an order of sale from the county court receives its force and validity from the order of the court and not from any act of the administrator.

IV. The county court is the only proper tribunal, under our system of laws, in which to settle and adjust the claims of creditors against the estates of decedents; and, under the provisions of our statutes regulating the pro rata distribution of estates in case of insolvency, it would be in direct contravention of the statute to allow a creditor to sue in a court of equity and thereby to obtain a lien and preference over other creditors. Hence a proceeding in the county court for the sale of the real estate for payment of debts was not only the proper but the express and peculiar remedy in such case, and is, as regards...