Gutzwiller v. Lackman

• Decision Date: 31 March 1856
• Citation: 23 Mo. 168
• Parties: GUTZWILLER, Respondent, v. LACKMAN & OTHERS, Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Supreme Court

23 Mo. 168

GUTZWILLER, Respondent,

v.LACKMAN & OTHERS, Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

March Term, 1856.

1. The character of either party to a civil suit can not be inquired into, unless it is put in issue by the nature of the proceeding itself.

2. Where property is conveyed by a debtor to a trustee for the benefit of his creditors, and, at the trustee's sale thereof, is purchased for the use and benefit of the debtor, or with money furnished by him: Held, that the title of such purchaser is not valid as against creditors.

3. A creditor who knowingly acquiesces in a sale made by a trustee under an assignment for the benefit of creditors, and accepts his proportional share of the proceeds of the sale, is estopped to deny the validity of the sale.

Appeal from St. Louis Land Court.

This was an action in the nature of an action of ejectment, to recover possession of a lot in the city of St. Louis. Plaintiff claimed title by virtue of a deed of conveyance, dated May 17, 1853, executed by one Thomas J. Meier as trustee for one John T. Schultze. The defendants answered, denying all the allegations of the petition. A. J. P. Garesché, claiming to be landlord of the other defendants, was made a co-defendant, and filed his answer, alleging therein that the deed of trust from Schultze to Meier was fraudulent and void, as having been made with intent to hinder and delay the creditors of Schultze; that the deed from the trustee, Meier, to plaintiff, was void for the same reason. Defendant, Garesché, claimed title by virtue of a sale on execution under a judgment, dated April 22d, 1852, against the said John T. Schultze and one Henry Mauck, and a deed from the sheriff of St. Louis county, dated September 29, 1853, conveying to defendant all the interest of the said Schultze in the premises in controversy.

On the trial, evidence was introduced by plaintiff tending to show that Schultze, on 31st December, 1851, conveyed to Thos. J. Meier the premises in controversy, in trust for the payment, in fifteen months from the date of the deed of trust, of the claims of certain creditors (among whom were E. & H. Simons, who were specified in the deed of trust) of the said Schultze and his partner, Mauck, the payment of which was assured by Schultze; that Schultze having failed to pay, the said Meier, in pursuance of the deed of trust, at the request of Charles B. Lord, the attorney of the said E. & H. Simons, about the 10th day of April, 1853, gave the notice required by the deed of trust, and proceeded to sell on the 16th of May, 1853, the trust property to Peter Gutzwiller, the plaintiff, and executed a deed, dated May 17th, 1853, conveying the said premises to plaintiff; that Charles B. Lord attended the sale--bid several times for the property--received the share of the proceeds of the sale due to his clients, E. & H. Simons, and gave a receipt therefor in their name. Evidence was also introduced, to the admission of which defendants objected, tending to prove the good reputation of the plaintiff for honesty.

Evidence was introduced on the part of defendant tending to prove that on the 22d day of April, 1852, E. & H. Simons obtained, in the St. Louis Circuit Court, a judgment against Schultze and Mauck for $907 79 and costs; that on the 30th day of April, 1853, an execution issued under this judgment, and a levy of the same was made on the premises in controversy August 15th, 1853; that on the 5th day of September, Charles B. Lord, in behalf of E. & H. Simons, assigned to defendant, Garesché, the judgment in favor of the said E. & H. Simons against the said Schultze and Mauck; that the said Garesché became the purchaser at the sheriff's sale on the 8th of September, 1853, and received the sheriff's deed therefor, dated September 29th, 1853; that the deed of trust from Schultze to Meier, dated December 31st, 1851, was made with intent to delay and defraud the creditors of the said Schultze; that Gutzwiller, the plaintiff, purchased the premises in controversy at the trustee's sale, for the use of Schultze, and in part with money furnished by him. There was also evidence tending to show a sale, in the year 1851, of a stock of jewelry belonging to Schultze and Mauck, to Gutzwiller; that Gutzwiller paid no consideration for the same, and that the sale was made with intent to delay and hinder the creditors of Schultze and Mauck.

The following instructions, among others, which it is unnecessary to set forth, were asked by the defendants, and refused by the court:

“2. If the jury believe from the testimony that Peter Gutzwiller purchased the lot sued for at the sale by the trustee, Meier, on the ____ day of May, 1853, for the use and benefit of John T. Schultze, or that the purchase money of said lot or any part of it was paid with the means of said Schultze, they will find for the defendant.”

“4. The jury are instructed that the standing and character of Peter Gutzwiller has nothing whatever to do with the matters in issue in this suit.”

“5. The jury are instructed that the responsibility of Peter Gutzwiller, as a man of means and property, has nothing whatever to do with the issues in this cause.”

Defendant duly excepted to the refusal of these instructions.

The court gave the following instructions: “1. If the jury shall believe from the evidence that it was, subsequent to the execution of the bill of sale of jewelry, understood and agreed upon between the plaintiff and Schultze and Mauck, that the proceeds of the sale of the stock of jewelry was to be applied to the payment of the debts due by Schultze and Mauck, and no consideration was paid by Gutzwiller for said stock, as stated in said instrument, then the same is an assignment of the said stock by Schultze and Mauck for the benefit of their creditors, to the plaintiff; and the conditions [creditors] of...