Gray v. Collins
| Decision Date | 18 April 1913 |
| Citation | 78 S.E. 127,139 Ga. 776 |
| Parties | GRAY v. COLLINS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
The evidence examined, and held to have made issues that should have been submitted to a jury.
(a) Where a transaction between a husband and wife is attacked for fraud by the creditors of the husband, the onus is on the husband and wife to show that the transaction was fair.
Matters which are defensive to the plaintiff's action may be averred in amendment to the answer, even though such matters may be insufficient to afford the affirmative equitable relief therein prayed.
Where a wife executes to her husband a deed to her land under the belief that she is giving a security deed to another to procure money for her own benefit, and this deed is not recorded until after credit is extended to the husband, in the absence of evidence that the credit was extended on the husband's ostensible ownership of the land, it is competent for the wife to show that the deed to her husband was procured by imposition.
Error from Superior Court, Early County; W. C. Worrill, Judge.
Action by A. H. Gray, trustee, against E. S. Collins and others. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff brings error. Reversed.
Rambo & Wright and C. L. Glessner, all of Blakely, for plaintiff in error.
Pope & Bennet, of Albany, and B. R. Collins and W. G. Park, both of Blakely, for defendants in error.
The trustee in bankruptcy of the estate of E. S. Collins brought a petition against the bankrupt, his wife, Mrs. Emma T Collins, and his son B. R. Collins, praying for the cancellation of certain deeds, and a decree that the title to the land therein described is in the bankrupt as against his creditors, whose debts were in existence at the time the conveyance from the bankrupt to his son was executed, to wit October 14, 1908. On the trial it appeared that Mrs. Emma T Collins was the owner of a tract of land which she conveyed on November 30, 1901, to her husband by warranty deed upon an alleged consideration of $500. This deed was not recorded until October 14, 1904. Intermediate between the execution and record of the deed E. S. Collins purchased certain cotton-gin machinery from the Liddell Company, giving his notes therefor, reciting that they were given for the purchase of the machinery, with reservation of title in the vendor until the full payment of the purchase price. Suit was brought on these notes on June 23, 1908, and judgment was obtained on October 9, 1909. On December 20, 1906, E. S Collins conveyed the land by warranty deed to his wife, reciting a consideration of love and affection; and this deed was recorded on January 17, 1907. Mrs. Collins on December 26, 1906, conveyed the land, by warranty deed, reciting a consideration of love and affection, to her son B. R. Collins, who on the same day conveyed the land to his father, E. S. Collins, by deed reciting a consideration of love and affection. Both of these deeds were recorded on December 28, 1906. On October 14, 1908, E. S. Collins conveyed the land to B. R. Collins, who on the same day conveyed it to Emma T. Collins; both deeds reciting a consideration of love and affection, and both being recorded December 14, 1908. E. S. Collins was adjudged a bankrupt on his voluntary petition in December, 1909, and has not been discharged. The plaintiff is his duly appointed trustee.
Mrs Emma T. Collins testified by interrogatories and subsequently by deposition. In her first testimony she said she went into possession of the land soon after she purchased it, that her husband looked after it for her, and that she became indebted to the Bank of Blakely through D. W. James. She had no recollection of having executed any papers to James, but signed a paper to the Bank of Blakely. She did not recall making a deed to her husband in 1901; her husband never paid or promised to pay to her any money for the land, nor did she expect him to pay for the land. She knew her husband bought the gin outfit from the Liddell Company, and at that time he owned no land, but he did own some personal property of small value. She did not execute a deed to her son; that is, she did not know that she did. She signed some papers without looking over them. Having confidence in her husband, she signed some paper at his request, thinking it was a mortgage. Her husband represented that the purpose of signing the papers which she executed was to get money with which to pay D. W. James, and she signed the paper without reading it. It was not until after the institution of the present suit that she knew that she had made a deed to her son, and that he, in turn, had conveyed the land to her husband. It was not her purpose to make a deed of gift to her son, so that he could make a similar deed to her husband, and, if such deeds be construed to be gifts, she desired to revoke them. In the signing of these deeds she had absolute confidence in her husband, was under his influence in matters of this kind, and signed the deeds because he told her to sign them. In her deposition she testified that since her testimony was taken by interrogatories she had been informed by her husband that she did execute the deed of November 30, 1901; but she deposed that no consideration passed from him to her. Her husband always managed her property; she has from time to time executed mortgages at his request to meet expenses incurred for her when he operated her farm; she had absolute confidence in him, and implicitly relied on his judgment, honor, and integrity to make the necessary financial arrangements for her farming operations; at his instance and request she signed the deed of November 30, 1901, believing at the time, because he "requested" (represented?) to her that it was a mortgage to borrow money for the purpose of paying expenses and operating her farm for the year 1902 as well as to pay...
To continue reading
Request your trial