Holman v. Hudson
| Decision Date | 12 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | 33772 |
| Citation | 188 Miss. 87,193 So. 628 |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOLMAN v. HUDSON |
APPEAL from the chancery court of Winston county HON. J. D. GUYTON Special Chancellor.
Suit by J. E. Hudson against P. B. Worthy for reimbursement from defendant as coguarantor and to set aside allegedly fraudulent conveyances by defendant to Mrs. Josie Holman and another. From a decree granting recovery against Worthy but adjudging that all deeds executed by him were executed in good faith and requiring that property conveyed to Mrs. Josie Holman be sold and the proceeds distributed as therein directed, Mrs. Josie Holman appeals and plaintiff cross-appeals. Reversed in so far as decree directs a sale of the land conveyed to Mrs. Holman, and cause remanded for another trial on that issue only.
Decree reversed, and remanded.
W. A Strong, Jr., of Louisville, for appellant and cross-appellee.
Where a debtor, in good faith, conveys property to a creditor in payment of a valid, pre-existing debt, the conveyance will not be condemned as fraudulent unless the consideration is so grossly inadequate as to beget the belief that the sale was a contrivance to evade creditors.
12 H C. L. 479; Kaufman v. Whitney, 50 Miss. 106.
The Supreme Court will take judicial notice of the general conditions throughout its territorial jurisdiction and that the value of land shrunk enormously from 1919 until 1932, and increased in value by 1938.
Wilson Banking Co. v. Colvard, 172 Miss. 804, 161 So. 123; A. Life Ins. Co. v. Klotz, 182 Miss. 243, 181 So. 519.
There is a strong moral, as well as legal, reason for a debtor to prefer his child to other creditors and he has a right to do so.
Where a conveyance or transfer is merely constructively fraudulent the grantee is entitled to a first lien on the property conveyed for the consideration paid and to interest thereon.
27 C J. 671; Thomas v. Beal, 154 Mass. 51, 27 N.E. 1004; Scoggins v. Schloath, 15 Ore. 380, 51 N.W. 354.
Where money is loaned and there is no agreement as to whether or not interest will be charged, interest at the rate of 6 per cent should be allowed.
Sec. 1946, Code of 1930; Berry et al. v. Folkes et al., 60 Miss. 576; Thompson v. Matthews, 56 Miss. 369; Collins v. Carter, 156 Miss. 600, 125 So. 689; Stowell v. Clark, 152 Miss. 32, 118 So. 370.
The grantee should also be allowed the amount expended for taxes.
An insolvent debtor may convey his homestead, or any part thereof, with or without consideration, and his creditors cannot complain.
Secs. 1766, 1767, 1770, Code of 1930; O'Connor v. Ward, 60 Miss. 1025; Hodges v. Hickey, 67 Miss. 715; DeBardeleben Coal Co. v. Parker 164 Miss. 728.
If husband receives or appropriates to his own use the property or money of his wife, he becomes debtor to his wife for the amount so used or appropriated.
If a husband uses his wife's money in purchasing land, taking title in his own name, he becomes her debtor, and may convey the land to her in payment of said debt free from claims of other creditors provided the value of the land does not exceed the amount of the indebtedness.
Wylie v. Gray, 36 Miss. 510; Kaufman v. Whitney, 50 Miss. 103; Surget v. Boyd, 57 Miss. 485.
A husband, though insolvent, has a right to prefer his wife and protect her interest by conveying all of his property to her, even though the conveyance is made on account of pending suits against him by other creditors, provided the value of the property conveyed to his wife does not greatly exceed the amount of the debt due her.
Graham v. Morgan, 83 Miss. 601, 35 So. 874.
One who lends money to another is entitled to interest upon the amount so lent, although nothing is said about interest.
Where there is nothing said about interest, or the time the debtor is to be paid, interest should be allowed from the time the debt is demanded.
Where a contract for the payment of money fixes no time when it shall be paid, the contract is payable immediately and interest runs from the date of the contract.
17 C. J. 920, Sec. 211; White v. Van Horn, 159 U.S. 3, 15 S.Ct. 1027, 40 L.Ed. 55; Lambert v. Schmalz, 118 Cal. 33, 50 P. 13; Francis v. Castleman, 40 Bibb. 282; Horn v. Hanson, 56 Minn. 43, 57 N.W. 315; Chester v. Jumel, 125 N.Y. 237, 26 N.E. 297; Purdy v. Phillips, 8 N.Y.S. 369; Collier v. Gay, 1 Overt. 110; Hershbrook v. Milder, 1 Penn. 643.
Where there is no agreement as to interest the legal rate will be allowed from the time the debt is due and payable.
Stowell v. Clark, 152 Miss. 32, 118 So. 370.
Before the court is justified in condemning a sale for inadequacy of consideration the inadequacy must be so gross as to beget the belief that the sale is a contrivance to evade creditors.
Kaufman v. Whitney, 50 Miss. 106.
A judgment or decree is erroneous if the supporting foundation for same is not more substantial than conjecture or possibility.
N. O. & N. E. R. R. Co. v. Holsomback, 168 Miss. 493, 151 So. 720; Tyson v. Utterback, 154 Miss. 381, 122 So. 496; Hercules Powder Co. v. Calcote, 138 So. 583, 161 Miss. 860; Williams v. Lumpkin, 152 So. 842, 169 Miss. 146; Shell Petroleum Corp. v. Eagle Lbr. Co., 158 So. 331, 171 Miss. 539; Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Gordy, 164 So. 236, 174 Miss. 392; Mo.-Pac. Transport Co. v. Beard, 176 So. 156, 179 Miss. 764; Kramer Service v. Wilkins, 186 So. 625.
A conveyance by a debtor to a creditor in payment of pre-existing debt will be sustained unless the amount of the debt is greatly less than the value of the property conveyed.
27 C. J. 534, Sec. 227; 12 R. C. L. 583, Sec. 100; Kaufman v. Whitney, 50 Miss. 106.
Whenever a judgment is based upon a decision or finding they must be sufficiently comprehensive, certain and consistent to sustain the judgment and justify it as a matter of law.
33 C. J. 1171; Elliott v. Am. Surety Co., 281 F. 829; Zimmerman v. Trimmerman, 193 N.Y. 486, 86 N.E. 540; Abbey v. Merrick, 27 Miss. 320; Whitfield v. Whitfield, 40 Miss. 352.
Interest follows the debt as an incident thereto after it becomes due and it is not necessary to claim interest in the pleadings.
Washington v. Planters Bank, 2 Miss. 230, 28 Am. Dec. 333.
R. W. Boydstun, of Louisville, for appellee and cross-appellant.
We have here as defendants a whole family, mother, dad, daughter, and foster son. Dad became indebted on a surety claim and had in his own name five hundred thirteen acres of land.
After dad became indebted as above stated, and was about to be sued, and his family found out "about this Rawleigh business, " Dad suddenly became indebted to each member of his family, a man who had for fifty years been a very prosperous farmer suddenly became a pauper, the only daughter that he had nurtured, and the foster son whom he had nursed and supported as his own suddenly loved him so greatly that they took everything he had for the debts he owed them. This daughter that he had reared and educated, and who according to the evidence had never cooked a meal for dad, nor ever done him a kind deed, received property for which her father had only a short while before paid $ 2400 in payment of a debt of $ 800.
The court well understood the situation. Having for many years been in private practice, the chancellor knew that the complainant in his court had been mistreated.
The defendants had received everything. The complainant certainly received only "crumbs" for comfort.
There is no evidence in the record that we can find which attempts to show that P. B. Worthy was ever indebted to the other defendants. All the evidence shows that he was allowed to purchase lands with money furnished by the other defendants for that purpose and take title thereto, and place same of record, in his own name, and the public was invited to deal with P. B. Worthy as a well-to-do land owner.
The learned chancellor in his decree wholly ignored the defense of the trust claimed and found that P. B. Worthy had executed the deeds in payment of indebtedness that he was due to the grantees.
We here submit that there is not one word of proof in the record showing that these grantees ever claimed an indebtedness against P. B. Worthy. The entire proof showed that P. B. Worthy had purchased these lands with the money of the other defendants and that he had for many years held the title to same in his own name and had done business upon the faith that these were his lands; had obtained credit therewith, and had sold land from time to time.
A person cannot allow a third person to take and hold property in his name for years without making an attempt to have the title placed in the name of the owner, then complain when an innocent creditor attempts to subject such property to the debts of the apparent owner.
The above stated principle, as applied to the case at bar, is this,
Pomeroy Eq., Students' Ed., page 391, par. 805, page 395, par. 809; Smith v. Willard 174 Ill. 548, 66 A. S. R. 313; 57 A. S. R. 175.
We submit that the attempted dealing in this case regarding these lands between P. B. Worthy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Clarksdale Hospital v. Wallis
-
Dehmer v. Temple, Civ. A. No. J84-0062(B)
...that conveyances to avoid payment to creditors may be set aside. Patterson v. Adams, 245 So.2d 194 (Miss. 1971); Holman v. Hudson, 188 Miss. 87, 193 So. 628 (1940). The Temples admitted that the only consideration for the transfer of the three tracts of land was the promise by Mrs. Temple t......
-
Blount v. Blount
...actually shown to be due; and the appellants' attorney cites in support of their contention on this point the case of Holman v. Hudson, 188 Miss. 87, 193 So. 628, and Mississippi Cottonseed Products Co. v. Phelps, 196 Miss. 252, 16 So.2d In the Holman case the Court held that a voluntary co......
- Estate of Philyaw, Matter of