Hamilton & Co. v. Steele et ah

• Decision Date: 03 November 1883
• Citation: 22 W.Va. 348
• Court: West Virginia Supreme Court
• Parties: Hamilton & Co. v. Steele et ah

22 W.Va. 348

Hamilton & Co.

v.Steele et ah

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Submitted July 7, 1883

Decided November 3, 1883.

1. It is well settled, that where upon a purchase of land the conveyance of the legal title is taken in the name of one person, while the consideration is paid by another, the parties being strangers to each other, a resulting trust immediately arises from the transaction; and the person named as grantee in the conveyance will be a trustee for the party from whom the consideration proceeded. But if the person, in whose name the conveyance is taken, is a near relative of the person who advances the purchase-money, the presumption is, that: the consideration advanced was intended as a gift or advancement, and no resulting trust will arise in such case. The presumption, however, in either case is one of fact and not of law, and may be rebutted by evidence or circumstances, (p. 354.)

2. When a title-bond for land is executed by the vendor of land to the husband and the consideration is paid by the husband as the agent of his wife directly from the proceeds of the sale of his wife's separate estate and from timber taken from the land, the husband having no estate or means of his own, and the circumstances showing that the purchase was made for the wife, and the deed is subsequently made by the vendor directly to the wife, such deed is not fraudulent as against the creditors of the husband and the land cannot be subjected to the payment of the debts of such creditors, (p. 355.)

The facts of the ease are stated in the opinion of the Court.

W. T. Thompson and II. C. Mc Whorter for appellants.

Simms Sc Enslow for appellees.

Snyder, Judge:

The plaintiffs, having recovered in the county court ot Cabell county, on November 2, 1876, a judgment against S. E. Steele for six hundred dollars and costs, the amount of a note executed July 2, 1873, to B. I). McGinnis by said Steele and one Maggie E. Kerans, since deceased, for five hundred dollars payable fifteen months after date and endorsed to them by said McGinnis, they in February, 1877, brought this suit in the circuit court of said county to subject to the payment of said debt the personal estate of said Maggie E. Kerans, deceased, and also to subject to the satisfaction of said judgment a certain lot in the town of Guyandotte and a tract of one hundred and eighty-three acres of land in said county. The legal title to said lot being in one W. L. Steele, who never appeared and was not served with process, the suit was not prosecuted as to him or said lot; nor was any account taken of the estate of said Maggie E. Kerans or decree entered in regard thereto. The only matter litigated in the court below was the liability of said one hundred and eighty-three acres ot land for the satisfaction of the plaintiffs' said judgment, and it is, therefore, unnecessary to refer to any other matters.

It appears that, on December 16, 1869, II. J. Samuels executed and delivered to said S. E. Steele his title-bond of that date for said one hundred and eighty-three acres of land stating therein that he had sold said land "for the sum of two thousand six hundred and fifty dollars, payable as follows: One thousand dollars due April 1, 1870, eight bun- dred and seventy-five dollars due April 1, 1871, eight hundred and seventy-five dollars due April 1, 1872, all hearing interest from date, and notes executed for same, Now on full payment of said notes and interest, said Samuels hinds himself to convey said land by general warranty deed to said Steele."

The purchase-money having been paid, the said Samuels and wife by deed dated April 4, 1876, conveyed said land to Mary L. Steele, the wife of said S. E. Steele, which deed was duly acknowledged and recorded in Cabell county on the day of its date.

The plaintiffs, in their bill, charge that the defendant S. E. Steele purchased and paid for said land and had it conveyed to his wife with intent to delay, hinder and defraud his creditors.

On the other hand the defendants, S. E. Steele and Mary L. Steele his wife in their answers explicitly and positively deny that any part of the purchase-money for said land was paid by said S. E. Steele, or that the said deed was made with intent to hinder, delay and defraud the creditors of said S. E. Steele; but that the said land was purchased by the said S. E. Steele for the said Mary L. Steele, and that the whole of the purchase-money therefor was paid by said Mary from her separate estate none of which was derived from her husband.

On September 4, 1878, the court entered a decree in the cause setting aside said deed as to the plaintiffs' judgment and costs and directing a sale of the land by a commissioner to pay said judgment and costs. From this decree the defendant Mary L. Steele appealed to this Court,

It is apparent that the only controversy in this case is one of fact as to whether the purchase-money for said land was paid by said S. E. Steele or by his wife, the appellant, Mary L. Steele, from her separate estate. The plaintiffs' judgment having been recovered more than six months after their deed from Samuels and wife to the appellant.had been made and recorded, they acquired no lien on the land unless said deed was fraudulent and void. The title-bond to S. E. Steele, being a mere executory agreement did not prevent the said Samuels and wife from legally executing the deed for the land described therein to the appellant if she was the real purchaser and paid for the land. And the said titlebond, having never been acknowledged or proved, though copied on the records of Cabell county, was not in law a recorded paper. But even if it had beer duly recorded the land would not for that reason he made liable to the debts of said S. E. Steele against the rights of the true owner. Freem. on Judg., §§ 356, 357; Snyder v. Martin, 17 W. Va. 276, 299.

In regard to the testimony as to who paid the purchasemoney for said land, II. J. Samuels, a witness on behalf of the plaintiffs, after stating that he had sold the land on the terms stated in the title-bond, that Steele had executed his notes to him for it and made payments of the purchasemoney at different times, says: "At the time of the bargain with Mr. Steele, I had been acquainted with him some time. I knew he was an itinerant preacher. I had lost money by that sort of men. He informed me that his wife had an estate in Greene county, Pennsylvania, or near it, that she had inherited from some ancestor, and that if he could negotiate his wife's interest ir that estate, probably lie could pay off the purchase-money for the land, or notes for the purchase-money, and when he paid me some money I was under the impression, which I think I got from him, that he got the money from his wife's estate. When I made the deed to Mrs. Steele I was under the impression that her estate had paid for the land, or a considerable portion of it." And in reply to another question, the witness states: "I was under the general impression all through, that his wife was the capitalist of the corcern. This impression I got from Mr. Steele from the start." And further, he states: "I know of no fraud from beginning to end."

D. B. McGinnis, the only other witness examined on behalf of the plaintiffs, states, that he is the payee and endorser of the note on which the judgment sought to be enforced in this suit is founded; that he took said note upon the responsibility of S. E. Steele, who at that time claimed the land as his and that he accepted said note upon the face of...