Guffin v. the First Nat'l Bank of Morrison.

• Decision Date: 30 September 1874
• Citation: 1874 WL 9120,74 Ill. 259
• Parties: THOMAS GUFFIN et al.v.THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MORRISON.
• Court: Illinois Supreme Court

74 Ill. 259

1874 WL 9120 (Ill.)

THOMAS GUFFIN et al.

v.THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF MORRISON.

Supreme Court of Illinois.

September Term, 1874.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Whiteside county; the Hon. WILLIAM W. HEATON, Judge, presiding.

This was a creditor's bill filed by the First National Bank of Morrison, against Thomas Guffin and Sarah Guffin. The opinion states the material facts of the case.

Messrs. MCCOY & SONS, and Mr. F. D. RAMSEY, for the appellants.

Messrs. WOODRUFF BROS., for the appellee. Mr. JUSTICE SCOTT delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is a creditor's bill, which seeks to discover assets alleged to be in the hands of Sarah Guffin, but charged to be in reality the property of Thomas Guffin, the other appellant, and to have so much as might be necessary for that purpose appropriated to the payment of a judgment recovered by appellee versus Thomas Guffin, impleaded with Charles C. Guffin and John N. Baird. The indebtedness on which the judgment was obtained was incurred originally for a loan to the firm of Guffin & Co. made to them on the 15th day of April, 1872, on whose note, to the bank, Thomas Guffin was security. The first and second notes given were taken up, and a third note given in renewal. The last note bears date the 1st day of December, 1872. It was upon this latter note the judgment was rendered.

It is alleged that prior to the commencement of the suit and the recovery of the judgment against him, Thomas Guffin was the owner and in possession of a number of promissory notes on divers persons, besides a large sum of money, amounting in the aggregate to $7,000 or $8,000; that his business had previously been that of loaning money; that just before the institution of legal proceedings against him on the note, for the purpose of cheating, hindering and delaying appellee in the collection of its claim, he made a pretended sale or gift of his notes to Sarah Guffin, his unmarried daughter, who was then and had been hitherto a member of his family, without any consideration whatever, and that she received them with a view to assist him in this unlawful purpose. By an amendment to the bill it is charged that at the time of the alleged transfer, he was largely indebted to persons other than appellee, for whom no provision was made in the transfer of notes and other property.

The answer admits the recovery of the judgment and the amount alleged to be due thereon. Appellants, however, deny that at the time of loaning the money to Guffin & Co., or at any other time since, Thomas Guffin was the owner and in possossion of any great number of promissory notes or any large sums of money, but on the contrary, state that he is a man eighty-one years of age, has been a widower thirteen years, that Sarah, his daughter, is unmarried, is of the age of forty-nine years, and for the last thirty years has had charge of her father's household affairs. It is also alleged, in view of his advanced age, and in consideration of past services rendered to him by his daughter and her agreement to render like services in the future, and to provide for and take care of him during the remainder of his life, it was agreed Thomas Guffin should transfer to Sarah all the notes he then had, and in pur suance of that agreement it is charged he did, on the 27th day of February, 1872, assign and transfer to her all his notes, which constituted his entire property, amounting to some $6,000 or $7,000.

The question raised has relation chiefly to the good faith of the transaction between the appellants. The theory of the bill is, the transfer of the notes, if in fact any transfer was ever made, was a colorable arrangement to avoid the payment of appellee's judgment, both the legal and equitable title still remaining in the...