Halliday v. Miller.

• Decision Date: 12 February 1887
• Parties: Halliday v. Miller.
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court

29 W.Va. 424

Halliday

v.Miller.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted January 21, 1887.

Decided February 12, 1887.

1. Parent and Child Earnings op Child Consideration for a

Deed.

The earnings of a minor child, who has not been emancipated by 5I

2. Parent and Child War-Bounty Pay of Soldier.

But a bounty paid by the United States Government or by a State, city or county to a minor citizen of the United States upon his enlisting in the military service of the United States during a war as well as his pay as a soldier belong to the minor, not to his father; and if such bounty and pay are received by the father from the son, they constitute a debt due from the father, unless they are intended as a gift to the father by the son; and the father may satisfy such debt by a conveyance of land to the son; and such conveyance should be regarded as made for a valuable consideration and not as voluntary, (p. 437.)

Statement of the case by Green, Judge:

This was a bill filed at May rules, 1880, by John T. Halliday against George S. Miller and Bartley F. Miller to set aside as voluntary and fraudulent two deeds executed by George S. Miller to his son Bartley F. Miller conveying to him two parcels of land. The first deed was dated October 25, 1870, acknowledged December 16, 1872, and recorded November 24, 1878, and on its face it professed in consideration of $400.00 cash, to convey a specified part of a certain tract of land of five hundred acres in Jackson county owned by George Miller. The other deed was dated, acknowledged and recorded November 26, 1876. The consideration named in this deed was $800.00 cash, and it conveyed the residue of said tract of five hundred acres. The bill stated, that upon a settlement of accounts with the firm of Halliday & Miles, consisting of the plaintiff and W. T. Miles, on closing their business in Gallipolis, Ohio, George S. Miller & Co., a firm doing business in Jackson county, West Virginia, was found to be indebted to them in the sum of $1,800.00; and in settlement of this indebtedness George S. Miller executed his note to Halliday & Miles for that amount dated April 10, 1872, and payable thirty days after its date; that on January 1, 1879, the plaintiff became the sole owner of this note by buying the interest of said Miles; that a deed of trust was given by George S. Miller on a tract of land to secure the note; that in April, 1879, this deed of trust was foreclosed, and the land sold for $1,000.00; that this sum less the cost of sale and the cost of making the deed to the purchaser is a proper credit on the said note as of the date of said sale; that nothing else has ever been paid on said note; that George S. Miller was solvent, when he gave the note in 1872, owning then a valuable tract of five hundred acres of land in Jackson county, the tract above referred to, which was conveyed to him by one Fisher.and wife on October 20, 1850, a copy of their deed being filed with the bill; that the consideration named in the deed was $1,100.00; that with the fraudulent purpose of defeating the plaintiff in the collection of his said debt George S. Miller without any legal or valuable consideration did convey to his said son the whole of said five hundred acres of land by the two deeds above described; and that excluding this land George S. Miller has no property real or personal. The prayer of the bill is, that the plaintiff's said debt with interest be decreed him; that said conveyance to Bart ley F. Miller be set aside, annulled and held for naught and be sold for the payment of the plaintiff's claim.

W. T. Miles was afterwards made a defendant and answered the bill admitting, that John T. Halliday owned the said note, he, Miles, having no interest in it. The other defendants demurred to the bill; and their demurrer was overruled; and they filed their answer, in which they admit the giving by George F. Miller of the note for $1,800.00 and the securing of it by a deed of trust, and they allege, that the plaintiff was the only bidder at the sale under the deed of trust, and that the tract of land named in it sold for only $1,000.00, when it was then worth $3,000.00. But there is no relief asked because of the inadequacy of the price; and 54 the answer asking no affirmative relief is not in the nature of a cross-bill. The defendants further admit the making of* the two deeds aforesaid by Miller to his son but say, that these deeds were not made with any fraudulent purpose, bat that the transaction was fair and bona Hole and the deeds were made for a valuable and legal consideration, and for the purpose of paying just debts due to the defendant, B. F. Miller, from his co-defendant, G. S. Miller, which debts they say were contracted in the following manner:

" In the year 1861 defendant, Bartley F. Miller, enlisted in the United States army and continued as a soldier in the same until the termination of the rebellion; that during that time he gathered and saved a large amount of money, and that in the year 1863 he verbally contracted with his co-defendant, G. S. Miller, for the tract of land mentioned and described in plaintiff's Exhibit 'B' for and at the price of $425.00, at which last mentioned time he paid his said codefendant the whole of the purchase money, to wit, $300.00, in cash and one horse at the price of $125.00, which amount these defendants allege was a-full and adequate price for the same. Defendants further say that in the year 1866 defendant, Bartley F. Miller, took possession of said last mentioned tract of land under said purchase and has remained in possession of the same and paid the taxes assessed thereon ever since that time, but that no conveyance thereof by deed was made until the 16th day of December, 1872, as shown by plaintiff 's Exhibit 'B, ' to which your Honor is referred by these defendants for evidence of defendant Bartley F. Miller's title to said land. Defendants further allege, that in the year 1865 defendant, Bartley F. Miller, loaned to his co-defendant the sum of $600.00, for which it was verbally agreed between them at the time of said loan was made, that if the said $600.00 should not be paid to defendant, Bartley F. Miller, when required by him, that then defendant, George S. Miller, should convey to him the tract of land mentioned and described in plaintiff's Exhibit 'C and that defendant, Bartley F. Miller, did require the payment thereof, and that defendant, Geo. S. Miller, not being able to pay the same, which, when required, amounted together with its interest to the sum of $800.00, executed on the 27th day of November, 1876, a deed conveying said land to said defendant, Bartley F. Miller, in accordance with said agreement, and that he has had possession of said land and paid taxes thereon ever sincesaid conveyance, a copy of which deed is fied with plaintiff's bill, marked Exhibit 'C, ' to which your Honor is referred for evidence of Bartley F. Miller's title to the land therein conveyed."

The defendants further allege, that this sum of $800.00 is more than the full value of this last named parcel of land. They do not deny the insolvency of the defendant, G. S. Miller, as alleged in the bill..

Numerous depositions were taken to sustain the allegations of the bill and of the answer, so far as they denied the allegations of the bill. Many depositions were taken to show the value of the tract of land sold under the deed of trust and purchased by the plaintiff for $1,000.00 as aforesaid; but regarding these last as irrelevant I shall take no further notice of them. The evidence taken altogether, though the witnesses do not agree, seems to me to prove, that the consideration named in the two deeds was the fair value of the two parcels of land, being $1,200.00 for a tract for which G. S. Miller in 1850 paid $1,100.00. The real question, of the fact in controversy was, whether the money, which, the defendants, Miller and his son, state in their answer, was the consideration of the two deeds aforesaid, was not received by Miller from his son, while he was under twenty one years of age, to which he was entitled as his father. These two defendants both admit in their depositions, that it was money received by B. F. Miller as his pay as a common soldier in the army of the United States during the late war with the Confederates States and bounties for volunteering in said army. He first enlisted for three tyears on November 24, 1861, according to the father's deposition but according to his own testinony in the spring of 1861, for which he received a bounty of $100.00. His pay at $13.00 a month for three years amounted to $468.00. At the expiration of three years he re-enlisted, receiving a bounty of $300.00; and for the eight months he served under this enlistment he received $16.00 a month or $128.00. The whole amount of bounties and pay received by him was $996.00. This with the inter- est thereon, it is claimed by both these defendants, was the sole fund, with which the son purchased this land of his father. It is admitted, that he had no other money, wherewith to make the purchase. But it is stated in the deposition of the father, that all this money was earned by his son, after he was twenty one years of age, and therefore belonged to him. The plaintiff endeavored to prove, that all this money was earned by B. F. Miller, while he was an infant under twenty one years of age, and that his father received it all, as he had a right to as his father; and that years afterwards, when the father became insolvent, he made these conveyances and now sets up the pretence, that it wras for a debt he owed his son. The plaintiff to sustain this position proved by one witness, who wasa soldier in the same company and enlisted about the same time, that B.F.Miller had the appearance of being not over eighteen years of age. Another soldier in the same company testified, that he would have taken Miller to be about nineteen years old in November, 1861....