Grimes v. Russell

• Decision Date: 28 February 1870
• Parties: JOHN GRIMES, Appellant, v. WILLIAM RUSSELL et al., Respondents.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

45 Mo. 431

JOHN GRIMES, Appellant,

v.WILLIAM RUSSELL et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

February Term, 1870.

Error to Fifth District Court.

Vories, Dunn & Orrick, for appellant.

Donaldson, Bannister & Hughes, for respondents.

CURRIER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding in equity to set aside a deed, and for judgment vesting in the plaintiff the title to lands thereby conveyed. The petition avers that the defendant, William Russell, in April, 1852, purchased forty acres of land situated in Ray county, Missouri; that the purchase money was paid from his own means and resources, but that he caused the title to be vested in his minor son, Elijah B. Russell, the other defendant in this suit, for the purpose of defrauding his creditors. The answer denies the fraud, and sets out the facts which induced the conveyance to the son, as the defendants now claim.

The case presents but a single question for consideration, and that is a question of fact--namely, whether the evidence preserved in the record shows the existence of the fraud alleged in the petition. As this is a chancery proceeding, the duty is devolved upon this court of examining the evidence and determining from it the issue of fact raised by the pleadings.

In 1850 William Russell went to California. Prior to leaving, as the evidence tends to show, he promised his son some suitable reward in case the son, during the father's absence, should remain at home and do well. It appears that Russell, the father, was absent some two years, returning to his home in Missouri in 1852, and bringing with him funds more than sufficient to pay off all debts that had accumulated against him in his absence, and that such liabilities were all promptly met. Soon after his return the forty acres of land were purchased and conveyed to the son, as in fulfillment of the father's previous pledge, as the defendants insist, but with a view to defraud his creditors, as the plaintiff alleges in his petition. The land was subsequently assessed to the son for the purposes of taxation for some seven consecutive years. The testimony abundantly shows that Russell, the father, was at the time in good credit every way, punctual in the payment of his debts, and possessed of more or less personal property, such as horses, cattle, sheep, hogs, etc. He was also understood to be the owner of real estate. He testifies that soon after the forty acres were purchased in the name of his son, he also...