Iseminger v. Criswell
Decision Date | 20 May 1896 |
Citation | 67 N.W. 289,98 Iowa 382 |
Parties | WILLIAM ISEMINGER, Appellant, v. A. S. CRISWELL, Defendant, and ELDORA T. CRISWELL, Appellee, and Two Other Cases |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Appeal from Crawford District Court.--HON. C. D. GOLDSMITH, Judge.
CREDITORS' bill, to subject certain real estate, the legal title to which is in Eldora T. Criswell, to the payment of a judgment held by plaintiff, against A. S. Criswell. Trial to the court. Decree for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.
Reversed.
Harding & Harding, J. P. Conner, and Shaw & Kuehnle for appellant.
P. E C. Lally for appellee Eldora T. Criswell.
The land, which is the subject of this suit, consists of one hundred and twenty acres, lying in Crawford county. It was purchased of one Montague, by the defendant, A. S. Criswell March 17, 1887. A. S. Criswell, at the time he purchased the land, was a farmer, but he shortly afterward concluded to embark in the mercantile business. At this he was a failure and, becoming heavily involved, he transferred his stock of goods to a clerk, who had been in his employ, assigned his books of account and other choses in action, and on the ninth day of October, 1893, conveyed the Montague land to his wife, his co-defendant in this case. At the time he made the conveyance, he was indebted to the plaintiff and various other parties, in considerable sums. The expressed consideration for the deed was, four thousand dollars; but, as a matter of fact, there was no present consideration therefor. It is claimed by the plaintiff, that the deed was wholly voluntary, and that it was made with intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the creditors of the husband, and particularly this plaintiff, and that it was and is, void. The appellee, Eldora T. Criswell, denied that the deed was without consideration, and denied the alleged fraud. She further pleaded that the conveyance to her was in execution of a trust, growing out of certain transactions between herself and husband, during the early years of their married life. She alleged, that she furnished her husband the money with which the land was purchased, intending that the title should be taken in her name, but that her husband, unmindful of his agreement, took the title in his own name; that as soon as she discovered the land was not in her name, which was some time after the deed was taken, "she persistently and incessantly demanded of her husband that he convey the real estate to her, and has at all times claimed it as her own;" that the deed was finally made in accordance with her demands, and placed the legal title where it, in fact, belonged. To these claims of the defendant, Eldora Criswell, the plaintiff pleaded an estoppel, growing out of the fact that she permitted the title to remain in her husband, and allowed him to gain and obtain credit on the strength of his apparent ownership of the land. The district court found that the conveyance was in good faith, for a valid consideration, and without fraud or fraudulent intent, and was either in payment or satisfaction of a valid obligation, owing to her by her husband, or a mere formal conveyance to her of a title which, in equity and good conscience, she absolutely owned. The appeal is from this decree.
It becomes necessary to determine, first, whether the conveyance was made in consideration of a valid obligation on the part of the husband to the appellee. It appears, from the evidence, that, when appellee was married, she had one thousand four hundred dollars, which she received from her father's estate. Of this amount, one thousand dollars was invested in a farm in Scott county, and the remainder was used for the support of the family, and in the purchase of farm implements. Afterwards, the land in Scott county was sold, and the Montague land, in Crawford county, was purchased. It is claimed by appellee that the money paid for the Crawford county land came from the sale of Scott county land; while appellant contends that the money which paid for the land in dispute, came from lands in Scott county, owned by the husband. We pass this dispute now, to consider the question whether the relation of debtor and creditor existed between the appellee and her husband. We have read and re-read the record, to discover any promise on the part of A. S. Criswell, to repay the money, and find that there is no evidence of any such agreement. No notes were at any time given, and the claim of appellee rests solely upon the proposition that she furnished the money with which the land was purchased. The appellee said, when on the witness stand: She further said: "I thought I ought to have the title to the land because I had the money, and my money bought it." "I wanted it because I paid for it, and I thought I ought to have it that way, and I told my husband I wanted it in my name." "I wanted this land when we first came to this county, and wanted him to give me a deed to it, and I could not make him do it." "I insisted upon the land being deeded to me, because it by rights belonged to me." This is all the evidence showing, or tending to show, the relation of debtor and creditor between the appellee and her husband, and it is manifest that it is not sufficient to sustain the conveyance of the land. We have frequently held that while a husband may discharge a bona fide indebtedness to his wife, by a conveyance of property to her, still such transactions cannot be sustained as against creditors of the husband, without satisfactory evidence of actual contractual relations existing between them with reference to her separate property. Romans v. Maddux, 77 Iowa 203 (41 N.W. 763); Moore v. Orman, 56 Iowa 39 (8 N.W. 689); Hanson v. Manley, 72 Iowa 48 (33 N.W. 357); Wasson v. Millsap, 77 Iowa 762 (42 N.W. 528).
We now are brought to a consideration of the other question in the case, to-wit: Was the wife the...
To continue reading
Request your trial