Hill v. Bowman

• Decision Date: 25 October 1876
• Citation: 35 Mich. 191
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: Margaret Hill v. Michael Bowman and another

35 Mich. 191

Margaret Hill v. Michael Bowman and another

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 25, 1876

Heard October 19, 1876

Appeal in Chancery from St. Joseph Circuit.

Decree of the circuit court in chancery reversed, and decree entered with costs of both court according to the prayer of the bill with costs of both courts.

May Buck & Powers, for complainant.

Severens Boudeman & Turner, for defendants.

OPINION

Cooley, Ch. J.

The complainant filed her bill to enjoin the sale of lands to which she had the legal title, on an execution against her husband in favor of the defendant Bowman. The lands had been levied upon under a claim that they had been conveyed by the husband to complainant without consideration, and with intent to defraud Bowman.

The deed of the lands to complainant by her husband bears date October 26, 1871, and was executed and acknowledged on that day. There was then no indebtedness by the husband to Bowman, but the latter made claim against him for negligently setting a fire which spread to Bowman's lands and caused him serious injury. The validity of this claim was not recognized, and on the seventh day of November, 1871, Bowman brought suit for this negligent injury, which resulted in a judgment two years later for one thousand dollars damages and the costs of suit. It is by virtue of an execution on this judgment that it is proposed to sell the land in controversy.

This statement of the facts will show that the conveyance of the lands to complainant could not have been intended to delay or defraud a creditor, for Bowman was not a creditor at the time. He made claim for damages sustained by him from the wrongful act of the husband, but the demand was unliquidated; it sounded in tort, and it could not become a debt until it should have been prosecuted to judgment. He had only a disputed claim, not based upon or growing out of a contract, and was no more a creditor than if his injury had come from a battery or a false imprisonment. He had a claim for redress, but he held no debt.

We are not disposed, however, to decide this case on any narrow ground, because we think if Bowman had recovered his judgment before the conveyance had been made to complainant he would still have failed in making out his defense. The complainant asserts that the deed to her was made in satisfaction of loans which she had previously made to her husband, of moneys which she inherited, and which with interest nearly equaled the value of the land; and we think this claim is sustained by the evidence.

No attempt is made to disprove the fact that complainant inherited the moneys as she claimed, or that they went into the possession of the husband and were used by him. On this point the...