Goshorn v. Snodgrass

• Decision Date: 30 April 1881
• Citation: 17 W.Va. 717
• Parties: GOSHORN'S EX'R v. SNODGRASS et al.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

17 W.Va. 717

GOSHORN'S EX'R v. SNODGRASS et al.

Supreme Court of West Virginia.

April 30, 1881

1. One who purchases from a fraudulent grantee with notice of the fraud and of the invalidity of his title, can acquire no better right than the fraudulent grantee has. He cannot be protected as a bona fide purchaser, but must stand in the shoes of his grantor.

2. The proposition, that " fraud must be proved and not presumed," is to be understood only as affirming, that a contract honest and lawful on its face must be treated as such, until it is shown to be otherwise by evidence either positive or circumstantial. Fraud may be inferred from facts calculated to establish it.

3. If the facts established afford a sufficient and reasonable ground for drawing the inference of fraud, the conclusion, to which the proof tends, must in the absence of explanation or contradiction be adopted.

4. A deduction of fraud may be made not only from deceptive assertions and false representations, but from facts incidents and circumstances, which may be trival in themselves but may in a given case be often decisive of a fraudulent design.

5. Although a deed be made for a valuable and adequate consideration, yet if the intent of the grantor, with which it is made, be dishonest or unlawful, the deed will be deemed fraudulent, if the grantee had notice of such intent.

6. Though the proof of fraud rests on the party who alleges it circumstances may exist to shift the burden of proof from the party impeaching the transaction on to the party upholding it.

7. The statute for the prevention of frauds has been universally considered as an exposition of the common law and was intended to avoid deeds contrived and devised fraudulently for the delaying and defrauding of creditors in those cases only, where both parties participate in the fraud. The grantor may intend a fraud, but if the grantee is a fair bona fide and innocent purchaser, his title is not to be affected by the fraud of his grantor.

8. Under our statute of frauds, as well as the English statute of 13th Elizabeth, a bona fide purchaser for value having no notice of covin fraud, collusion, &amp c., will be protected. To vitiate a conveyance, there must be a fraudulent design in the grantor and notice of that design in the grantee.

Appeal from four several decrees of the circuit court of the county of Ohio, rendered the first on the 24th day of November 1871, the second on the 4th day of September, 1874, the third on the 15th day of May, 1875, and the fourth on the 18th day of April, 1876, in a cause in said court then pending, wherein William S. Goshorn, executor, & c., was plaintiff, and David Snodgrass and others were defendants, allowed on the petition of James L. Delaplain and others.

Hon. Thayer Melvin, judge of the first judicial circuit, rendered the decrees appealed from.

HAYMOND, JUDGE, furnishes the following statement of the case:

John Goshorn brought his suit in equity in the circuit court of the county of Ohio against the defendants on the 13th day of June, 1868, and at the same time an affidavit was made and filed in the cause as follows:

" State of West Virginia: In the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of Ohio County.

John Goshorn v. David Snodgrass et al. --In chancery.

WHEELING, WEST VA., June 13, 1868.

William S. Goshorn, a credible person, this day made oath before me, clerk of said court, that David Snodgrass is indebted to John Goshorn in the sum of $2,218.95, and that said claim is founded on two promissory notes now owned by said John Goshorn, one for $1,500.00, dated at Wheeling, W.Va., August 15, 1867, payable in three months after date to order of Peter Delaplain, for value received, negotiable and payable at the Merchants National Bank of West Virginia, at Wheeling, signed by David Snodgrass, endorsed by Peter Delaplain and Andrew Mitchell, and duly protested at maturity for non-payment, protest $2.01; and the other note for $1,600.00, dated Wheeling, W.Va., July 17, 1866, payable in nine months after date to the order of David Snodgrass, for value received, negotiable and payable at the Merchants National Bank, at Wheeling, W.Va., signed Peter Delaplain, endorsed David Snodgrass and Samuel Snodgrass, and duly protested for non-payment at its maturity, protest cost, $2.01; credit endorsed, $1,012.00; received on the within note $1,012.00, December 26, 1867; that the said claim is just, and that there is present cause of action therefor, and that the affiant believes, that the plaintiff ought to recover the amount above claimed, $2,218.95; that the following grounds of attachment exist against the property of said David Snodgrass, viz, that said Snodgrass, defendant is a non-resident of this State of West Virginia. All the facts upon which the plaintiff and the affiant rely to show the existence of the grounds upon which the plaintiff's application for the attachment on the property hereinafter set forth of defendant, are that the affiant has been informed by the relatives, resident in Ohio county, West Virginia, and by many other persons, that said David Snodgrass is a resident of the State of Delaware; that affiant's own personal observations are, that the said David Snodgrass is a non-resident of this State of West Virginia; that the said David Snodgrass has property and estate in Ohio county, West Virginia, to wit, a tract of land containing two hundred and forty-eight acres three roods twenty-seven perches, conveyed by the said David Snodgrass to James L. Delaplain, and more fully described in a deed of trust made by James L. Delaplain to A. J. Wilson, and of record in recorder's office of Ohio county, West Virginia, in deed-book number fifty-two, page two hundred and thirty-four, and which this affiant believes was conveyed by said David Snodgrass and wife to said Delaplain, by deed from David Snodgrass and wife to said Delaplain, recorded in recorder's office of Ohio county, in deed book fifty-three, page one hundred and thirteen, for the consideration only mentioned in the said deed of trust, to wit, $8,790.43 the whole consideration alleged being $15,184.04. This affiant believes, that the said conveyance from Snodgrass and wife to Delaplain, recorded in book fifty-three, page one hundred and thirteen, was made in fraud of David Snodgrass's creditors, and if not so made, that said Delaplain is indebted to David Snodgrass in the sum of $6,393.61; that David Snodgrass has other property in Ohio county aforesaid, to wit, personal property on the said tract of land and money and effects in the hands of James L. Delaplain.

WM. S. GOSHORN.

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 13th day of June, 1868, and I certify, that William Goshorn is a credible person.

Witness, Michael J. Breinig, clerk of said court, this 13th day of June, 1868.

MICHAEL J. BREINIG, Clerk.

ENDORSED. -- Affidavit filed this 13th day of June, 1868.

Teste: M. J. BREINIG, Clerk. "

Upon this affidavit the plaintiff caused the clerk of said court to endorse upon the summons issued in the cause an order of attachment in the following words: " Affidavit having been made by Wm. S. Goshorn according to law, that David Snodgrass is justly indebted to John Goshorn in the sum of $2,218.95, with interest, the sheriff of Ohio county is hereby ordered to attach the following described real property lying and being in the said county of Ohio, State of West Virginia, and Richland township, containing two Hundred and forty-eight acres, three roods and twenty-seven perches, this being the same property conveyed on the 8th day of June, 1867, from David Snodgrass and wife to James L. Delaplain, and recorded in ____ book 53, page 113, and the debts due by him, the said James L. Delaplain, to the said David Snodgrass.

Teste: MICHAEL J. BREINIG, Clerk.

June 13, 1868."

The summons in the cause was made returnable to the last Tuesday in June, 1868, Upon the said order of attachment the sheriff made return as follows:

" Executed by attaching the following described (property) real estate as the property of David Snodgrass, lying and being in the county of Ohio, State of West Virginia, and Richland township, containing two hundred and forty-eight acres three roods and twenty-seven perches, this being the same property conveyed on the 8th day of June, 1867, from David Snodgrass and wife to James L. Delaplain and recorded in book 53, page 113, June 13, 1868, two o'clock and fifty minutes, P. M.

WM. L. McPHAIL, D. S.

For Thos. J. Campbell, S. O. C. "

On the last Tuesday in July, 1868, the plaintiff filed his bill in the cause in the clerk's office of said court, which is as follows:

" State of West Virginia, Ohio County Circuit Court:

Humbly complaining, your orator, John Goshorn, showeth unto your Honor that David Snodgrass, a nonresident of this State, is indebted unto your orator in the sum of $3,104.02, with interest on $1,600.00, parcel thereof, from April 20, 1867 and with interest on $1,500.00, other parcel thereof, from November 18, 1867, $4.02, residue thereof, not bearing interest, subject to a credit of $1,012.00 as of December 26, 1867, on aforesaid note for $1,600.00, as will more fully appear by reference to exhibits " A" and " B" herewith filed, which your orator asks may be taken as part of this bill, said exhibits being copies of negotiable notes, the originals of which your orator avers he is ready at any time to produce. Peter Delaplain, who is the maker of the note set forth in exhibit " A," and David Snodgrass and Samuel Snodgrass, who are endorsers thereof, are liable severally for the payment of the same. David Snodgrass, who is the maker of the note set forth in exhibit " B," and Peter Delaplain and Andrew Mitchell, who are...