Hendershott v. Henry

• Decision Date: 03 June 1884
• Citation: 19 N.W. 665,63 Iowa 744
• Parties: HENDERSHOTT v. HENRY ET AL
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

19 N.W. 665

63 Iowa 744

HENDERSHOTT v. HENRY ET AL

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

June 3, 1884

Appeal from Wapello Circuit Court.

ACTION in chancery to subject, by a creditor's bill, certain lands conveyed by Patrick Henry to his wife and co-defendant Mary Henry, to a judgment recovered by plaintiff against the first named defendant. After a trial upon the merits plaintiff's petition was dismissed. He now appeals to this court.

REVERSED.

Stiles & Beaman, for appellant.

S. W Summers, for appellees.

OPINION

BECK, J.

I.

The petition alleges that plaintiff recovered a judgment against Patrick Henry, one of the defendants, for professional services rendered by plaintiff, who is an attorney at law, in defending certain criminal cases, under contract of employment with him. It is also shown that defendant, Patrick, conveyed certain lands, described in the petition, to his wife and co-defendant, for the fraudulent purpose of hindering and delaying his creditors, and especially plaintiff, and that he has no property in his own name from which plaintiff's judgment can be collected. The plaintiff prays that the lands may be declared subject to the judgment, and that other proper relief may be granted.

The answer admits the conveyance of the lands by the husband to the wife, but alleges that they were purchased by her with her own money, and were, through mistake or oversight, conveyed to him.

II. It may be admitted, for the purposes of the case, that the lands were originally purchased with money of the wife, and that, through oversight, the deeds were executed to the husband. It may be said, however, that the evidence hardly leads to a satisfactory conclusion upon this point.

III. The evidence shows without contradiction that when plaintiff was employed by Patrick, and until much of the services rendered by him were performed, the title of the lands were in the husband, and that plaintiff accepted the employment and gave credit to the husband, with the knowledge and belief that he was the owner of the lands, and plaintiff had no information that the wife made any claim thereto. It also satisfactorily appears that Patrick owned no other lands and, indeed, after he conveyed the property to the wife, he had no property subject to execution. The wife had full knowledge of his financial condition and of the contract with plaintiff and the services performed by him. The plaintiff testifies...