Howard v. Rynearson
| Decision Date | 11 April 1883 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
| Parties | HOWARD and another v. RYNEARSON. |
A conveyance from a father to his daughter cannot be set aside as fraudulent in respect to creditors where the consideration therefor is not apparently excessive, and consists of the amount due on a note from him to her, with interest, and embraces her services in their support, and her agreement to support them in future.
Where a conveyance is made in consideration of a note due from the grantor to the grantee, it is of little consequence that the note is not surrendered.
Parents have right, as against creditors, to compensate children for their services in supporting them.
Appeal from Berrien.
O.W. Coolidge, for defendant.
The object of this suit is to set aside a conveyance made to defendant by her father, which it is alleged was fraudulent as to his creditors. The land conveyed was subsequently sold on execution, and complainants are the heirs at law of the execution purchaser. The value of the property conveyed was under a thousand dollars. The father, with his wife, both of whom were very old people, were at the time living with and dependent upon the defendant. She was an unmarried woman, and supported herself by her labor. The father had for a long time owed her $200 for money borrowed, and the accruing interest on this debt had increased it to perhaps half the value of the land. This debt and the services she had performed for her parents, together with her agreement to support them afterwards, were the consideration for the conveyance. On the face of the transaction no fraud is apparent. It is said the note was not given up; but this is of little moment, as it was manifestly of no importance to any one after the conveyance had been made. It is also argued that the services performed by the daughter for her parents while they were all living together would not constitute a ground of action or support an implied promise. This is true as a general rule; but, in this case, the daughter appears to have been the reliance and support of the family, for a part of the time at least, and there can be no doubt of the right of the parents to compensate her for services in their behalf, so far as they were able to do so.
We agree with the circuit judge in dismissing the bill. As the merits have been fully determined, there is no reason why the dismissal should be without prejudice. Defe...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Quealy Land & Live Stock Co. v. George
... ... Relationship itself is ... not a badge of fraud in connection with transfers of ... property; 20 Cyc. 451, 472, 482; Howard v. Rynearson, ... (Mich.) 15 N.W. 486; 30 N.W. 334; 32 N.W. 774; 33 N.W ... 606; Pependick v. Frobenius, 33 N.W. 887; Buhl ... v. Peck, (Mich.) ... ...
-
Michigan Trust Co. v. Comstock
... ... consideration for a conveyance as against creditors, for that ... would be a provision for the direct benefit of the grantor ... Rynearson v. Turner, 52 Mich. 7, 17 N.W. [130 Mich ... 576] 219. To view preceding link please click here So far, ... however, as expenses had been incurred ... see no reason why defendants should not receive compensation ... therefor. Howard v. Rynearson, 50 Mich. 307, 15 N.W ... 486; Rynearson v. Turner, supra. There was no dispute but ... that prior to the making of the deed the ... ...
-
Shay v. Wheeler
... ... is no view we can take of the testimony in this case which ... will support the decree under the decisions of this court ... See Howard v. Rynearson, 50 Mich ... 307, 15 N.W. 486; Hill v. Bowman, ... 35 Mich. 191; Jordan v. White, 38 ... Mich. 254; People v. Bristol, 35 ... Mich ... ...
-
Leqve v. Stoppel
...Dunlap v. Hawkins, 59 N. Y. 347;Neuberger v. Keim, 134 N. Y. 35, 31 N. E. 268;Davis v. Howard (Sup.) 26 N. Y. Supp. 194;Howard v. Rynearson, 50 Mich. 307, 15 N. W. 486;Ware v. Purdy (Iowa) 60 N. W. 528. 4. It is urged by counsel for plaintiff that, if the deeds and transfers cannot be decla......