Halbert v. Pranke
| Decision Date | 08 January 1904 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 13,551 - (12).,s. 13,551 - (12). |
| Parties | HUGH T. HALBERT v. STEPHEN PRANKE and Others.<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Halbert & Halbert, for appellant.
O. E. Holman, for respondents.
Action by a trustee in bankruptcy to set aside a conveyance of real property alleged to have been made to defraud creditors. Judgment was ordered for defendant in the court below, and plaintiff appealed.
The facts are as follows: On February 27, 1901, defendant Stephen Pranke, being the owner of certain real property, caused the same to be conveyed, through defendant Hennig, to his wife, Menna Pranke, for the consideration expressed in the deed of $1. Thereafter, on March 9 following, defendant Pranke filed a petition in bankruptcy in the United States District Court for Minnesota, and was on March 11 duly adjudged a bankrupt by the court. On March 22 plaintiff was duly appointed his trustee, and subsequently brought this action to set aside the conveyance of the real property to defendant Pranke's wife on the ground that it was made for the purpose of hindering, delaying, and defrauding creditors.
The cause came on for trial in the court below without a jury. In support of the allegations of the complaint plaintiff offered in evidence the petition in bankruptcy filed by the defendant Pranke in the United States District Court, together with the deeds by which the property sought to be reached was transferred to the bankrupt's wife. No evidence was offered to show that at the time of the conveyance defendant Pranke, the husband, was insolvent, or to any extent in debt; nor was there any evidence offered to show the value of the property conveyed to the wife, other than the expressed consideration in one of the deeds constituting the bankrupt's chain of title. The trial court found that, as plaintiff had failed to establish the insolvency or indebtedness of defendant Pranke at the time the conveyance was made, or that the transfer was with intent to defraud creditors, or was without adequate consideration, he could not recover, and judgment was ordered for defendants.
We are of opinion that the findings of the trial court cannot be disturbed, and the order denying a new trial must be affirmed. The schedule attached to the petition in bankruptcy, which contained a statement of the property owned by the bankrupt and debts...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Coleman v. Hagey
...Am. Bankr. Rep. 365, 203 Fed. 782; Westall v. Avery, 22 Am. Bankr. Rep. 673, 171 Fed. 626, 96 C. C. A. 428; Halbert v. Pranke, 11 Am. Bankr. Rep. 620, 91 Minn. 204, 97 N. W. 976; Mueller v. Bruss, 8 Bankr. Rep. 442, 112 Wis. 406, 88 N. W. 229; In re Gray, 3 Am. Bankr. Rep. 647, 47 App. Div.......
-
Trice v. American Trust & Savings Bank
...§ 445; Stellwagen v. Clum, 245 U. S. 605, 38 Sup. Ct. 215, 62 L. Ed. 511; Coleman v. Hagey 252 Mo. 102, 158 S. W. 829; Halbert v. Pranke, 91 Minn. 204, 97 N. W. 976. It was therefore necessary for the appellant by plea and proof to show that he had succeeded to the right of some creditor or......
-
Stark v. White
...to the alleged preferred creditor. 4 Remington on Bankruptcy, § 1755; Batchelder v. Bank, 218 Mass. 420, 105 N. E. 1052;Halbert v. Pranke, 91 Minn. 204, 97 N. W. 976. Neither was the order of adjudication admissible. The court, no doubt, disregarded all of this incompetent evidence. While t......
-
Sodergren v. Nelson
...conceded that the schedules are usually inadmissible for such purpose. See Walsh v. Paine, 123 Minn. 185, 143 N. W. 718;Halbert v. Pranke, 91 Minn. 204, 97 N. W. 976;Hibbs v. Marpe, 84 Minn. 10, 86 N. W. 612, and cases cited. Here, however, the plaintiff, who was the only one who was affect......