Hyde v. Powell

• Citation: 10 N.W. 181,47 Mich. 156
• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Decision Date: 26 October 1881
• Parties: HYDE and another v. POWELL and another.

10 N.W. 181

47 Mich. 156

HYDE and another v. POWELL and another.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 26, 1881

Where by mutual understanding between husband and wife their mutual acquisitions were to be equally divided and owned, and a certain amount of property was vested in the wife accordingly, If she afterwards allowed her husband to dispose of this property for his own benefit, she became to that extent his creditor.

A wife does not lose her rights as a creditor of her husband by failing to make her claim known, even as against those who trust him in ignorance of it.

The fact that a wife, after receiving a conveyance from her husband in payment of her claim, pays to a third person, from personal and family reasons, a demand against the husband does not establish the fact that she received the conveyance in trust for him.

Appeal from Kent.

Butterfield & Withey, for defendants.

COOLEY J.

The bill in this case is a bill in aid of an execution. The complainants are judgment creditors of Volney Powell, and it is charged that he has conveyed the undivided one-half of a flouring mill owned by him to the defendant Eliza Powell, who is his wife, in secret trust for himself and with intent to cheat and defraud his creditors. An answer on oath was called for and put in, and it denies the case made by the bill fully and circumstantially. The question now is whether this answer is overcome by the other proofs. The defendants were married in 1843 when both were absolutely without means. He was a Baptist minister and she a tailoress and for several years she seems to have contributed to their means of support more than he did. They bought a lot and built a house upon it, partly by the labor of their own hands, and afterwards bought and improved wild lands. According to their testimony it was understood between them that half of their accumulations should belong to each, but the title generally stood in him. Many changes and trades made by them are narrated in their evidence, and it is shown that at one time, before he bought into the mill, she had property in her own name to the value of several thousand dollars. It is probable that the understanding between them for an equal ownership of property was one that could not have been legally enforced, but her equities were equal to his, and when the title to property was placed in her by mutual consent, it was no doubt legally hers. When he bought into the...