Jackman v. Robinson

• Citation: 64 Mo. 289
• Parties: MARK JACKMAN, Respondent, v. LEWIS W. ROBINSON, et al., Appellants.
• Decision Date: 31 October 1876
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Missouri

64 Mo. 289

MARK JACKMAN, Respondent,

v.LEWIS W. ROBINSON, et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court of Missouri.

October Term, 1876.

Appeal from Howard County Circuit Court.

S. C. Major, Jr., for Appellants, cited: Bump. Fraud. Con. 516, 522, 523; Coates vs. Day, 9 Mo. 300; Merry vs. Freeman, 44 Mo. 518; McDowell vs. Cochran, 11 Ill. 34; Peasley vs. Barney, 1 Chip. (Vt.), 335; Phares vs. Leachman, 20 Ala. 678; Snodgrass vs. Andrews, 30 Miss. 88; Barton vs. Bryant, 2 Ind. 189; Waddell vs. Williams, 37 Tex. 351; Bachman vs. Sepulveda, 39 Cal. 688; Shields vs. Barrow, 17 How. [U. S.] 130; Barney vs. Baltimore, 6 Wall. 280; Butler vs. Jaffray, 12 Ind. 510; Henderson vs. Dickey, et al., 50 Mo. 164; Bobb vs Woodward, 50 Mo. 101; Herrington vs. Herrington, 27 Mo. 561; Ryland vs. Callison, 54 Mo. 513: Gentry vs. Robinson, 55 Mo. 260; Street vs. Goss, 62 Mo. 226; Titerington vs. Hooker, 58 Mo. 593; Pearce vs. Calhoun, 44 Mo. 271; Sto. Eq. § 370; Bisp. Eq. p. 474, § 534; Bennett vs. McGuire, 58 Barb. 625; Gaylords vs. Kelshaw, 1 Wall. 81; Miller vs. Jamison, 24 N. J. Eq. 44; Huff vs. Price, 50 Mo. 228; Bea vs. Harrison, 38 Mo. 435; Reaume vs. Chambers, 22 Mo. 36; Merritt vs. Merritt, 62 Mo. 150.

Herndon & Herndon, for Respondent, cited: George vs. Williamson, 21 Mo. 190; Merry vs. Freeman, 44 Mo. 518, Cheeley's Adm'r vs. Wells, 33 Mo. 1061; Pattern vs. Cary, et al., 57 Mo. 118; Stivers vs. Home, 62 Mo. 473.

NORTON, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court.

This is a proceeding in equity by plaintiff as a creditor of one John F. Rucker, deceased, to subject certain lands, described in the petition, to sale for the payment of his debt. The petition alleges that said Rucker, in his lifetime, was indebted to plaintiff by two promissory notes, which after the death of Rucker were allowed against his estate, amounting to the sum of $410.47; that said debts were contracted in 1860, and that said Rucker, in 1866, purchased the lands sought to be subjected to sale, paying therefor the sum of $2,500, six hundred dollars of which was furnished by the wife of said Rucker; that John F. Rucker, at the time of said purchase, was insolvent, and for the purpose of defrauding his creditors caused said land to be conveyed, without any consideration, to one Jonathan Rucker, with a secret trust for said John F. Rucker, his wife and children; that said Jonathan had knowledge of the fraud, and in 1867, a short time previous to the death of said John F., conveyed said lands to him in trust for his wife and children; that said John F. died in 1867 and his estate was administered upon by one Wm. H. Rucker, to whom after his administration all the children and heirs at law of said John F. deceased, except the defendant, Caroline Miller, conveyed, by deed of quit-claim, all their interest in said land; that said William H., at the time he accepted said conveyance, knew that the lands had been fraudulently conveyed to the said Jonathan Rucker, for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of said John F., deceased; that defendant, Robinson, afterwards, in March, 1868, procured a conveyance of the interest of Jane Rucker, widow of said John F., in said lands, and also in September, 1868, procured a conveyance from said William H. Rucker, to whom all the heirs and children of said John F. had conveyed except defendant, Caroline Miller, to be made to defendant, Robinson, in trust for said Robinson's wife and children; that said conveyance was made without any consideration, and was accepted by defendant, Robinson, for the purpose of defrauding the creditors of said John F. Rucker, and that Robinson had knowledge of the fact that said John F. Rucker was insolvent at the time said land was purchased, and also at the time of his death. The petition fully charges the insolvency of the estate of the said John F. It alleges that nothing has been paid on his claim and that there was nothing to pay with. The defendants demurred to the petition, which demurrer was overruled by the court and a decree entered for the sale of the land.

It is insisted that the court erred in overruling the demurrer, because it appeared on the face of the petition that neither the administrator of John F. Rucker, deceased, nor the fraudulent grantees, nor all the creditors of said John F. were made parties.

We do not think that in a proceeding of this character the purpose of which is to attack and avoid the fraud of the intestate, the administrator is either a necessary or proper party.

It has been held by this court that an administrator cannot impeach the fraudulent conveyance of his intestate; that he has no interest in the matter and is not a necessary party to suit brought for that purpose; that such a controversy is one purely between the creditor and the administrator. (Merry vs. Freeman, 44 Mo. 518; George vs. Williamson, 26 Mo. 190; Brown vs. Finly, 18 Mo. 375; Cheely's Adm'r vs. Wells, 33 Mo. 106.)

It is urged as a further objection that all the creditors of John F. Rucker, deceased, were necessary parties, and that the petition was defective in not making them parties. In George vs. Williamson, supra, it was held, Judge Napton speaking for the court, that, “when a fraudulent conveyance is made, the creditors or any one of them may file a bill in equity to have the same set aside; and in such cases it seems to be the better opinion that the creditor who first files his bill obtains a priority and is entitled to be first paid from the proceeds of the sale if a sale is decreed.” The above rule seems to be founded on the principle that the creditor or creditors whose...