Hurley v. Taylor
| Decision Date | 30 April 1883 |
| Citation | 78 Mo. 238 |
| Parties | HURLEY, Appellant, v. TAYLOR. |
| Court | Missouri Supreme Court |
McReynolds & Halliburton for appellant.
Joseph Cravens and Spencer & Thomas for respondent.
This was a suit in equity commenced on the 23rd day of April, 1879, by a judgment creditor, who had become a purchaser at execution sale of two lots in Holman's addition to the city of Carthage, as belonging to his debtor. He sought to have certain conveyances set aside, as having been made without consideration and for the purpose of hindering, delaying and defrauding creditors.
It appears from the evidence that the plaintiff, on the 19th day of March, 1878, recovered a judgment against Meredith Taylor in the sum of $702.90 and costs; that in executing this judgment he levied upon the lots in controversy, and on the 26th day of March, 1879, he purchased the same at execution sale as the property of said Meredith Taylor. It is true that these lots belonged to Meredith Taylor prior to the 20th day of February, 1877, but at that date he conveyed the same to John H. Taylor, his brother, for an expressed consideration of $1,000, but in fact for no consideration whatever. On the 16th day of January, 1878, said John H. Taylor conveyed said lots to Adelia Taylor, wife of said Meredith, for an expressed consideration of $2,000, but in fact for no consideration at all. This placed the record title in Adelia Taylor. On the 23rd day of May, 1878, she, joining with her husband, conveyed the lots by mortgage deed, to defendant, Jno. C. Cox, to secure a note of $1,200 described in it, which note was given to secure a loan of $1,000 borrowed from said Cox. It appears from the evidence that said Cox loaned his money upon the faith of Mrs. Taylor's record title, as disclosed by the abstract of title furnished by the examiner. There is no evidence that he knew anything about the previous conveyances, except as they appeared of record, all reciting valuable considerations paid for them. About $502 of the loan went to pay off an incumbrance on the mortgaged lots, and the balance was expended in building a house in Joplin. There was some evidence showing that Meredith Taylor was in debt at the time of his conveyance to John H. Taylor.
On this evidence the court entered up a decree setting aside the conveyance of Meredith Taylor to John H. Taylor, and the conveyance of John H. Taylor to Adelia Taylor; but found that defendant Cox had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lionberger v. Baker
...grantee was ignorant of the insolvency and innocent of the fraud. Gamble v. Johnson, 9 Mo. 605; White v. McPheeters, 75 Mo. 286; Hurley v. Taylor, 78 Mo. 238; Bohannon v. Combs, 79 Mo. 305. (7) The purchaser at an execution sale occupies as advantageous a position as though he were a credit......
-
Guinan v. Donnell
...was made." Sloan v. Torry, 78 Mo. 623; Shaw v. Tracy, 83 Mo. 224; Lionberger v. Baker, 88 Mo. 447; Society v. Branch, 120 Mo. 226; Hurley v. Taylor, 78 Mo. 238; Walsh Ketcham, 84 Mo. 427; Frank v. Caruthers, 108 Mo. 569. (2) Unquestionably Mrs. Wagner could have enforced her judgment for $ ......
-
Dickey v. Thompson
... ... 432; Reynolds v. Faust, 179 Mo. 21. (a) A ... conveyance made without consideration is void as to existing ... creditors without more. Hurley v. Taylor, 78 Mo ... 238. (b) Before a conveyance discharges a debt of a grantee ... there must be an understanding on the part of the grantee ... ...
-
Reyburn v. Mitchell
...Farwell v. Metcalf, 63 N.H. 276; Haber v. Harshaw, 49 Wis. 379; Bank v. Overall, 16 Mo.App. 510; Payne v. Stanton, 59 Mo. 158; Hurley v. Taylor, 78 Mo. 238. Indeed, the sued on occurred after the mortgages were recorded, and after the holders of them had notice of them, which debars complai......