Jackson v. Lewis

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
Writing for the CourtMcIvrr
Citation12 S.E. 560,34 S.C. 1
Decision Date06 January 1891
PartiesJackson et al. v. Lewis.

12 S.E. 560
34 S.C. 1

Jackson et al.
v.
Lewis.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

Jan. 6, 1891.


Fraudulent Conveyances—Sufficiency of Evidence—Trusts.

1. The fact that a mother was indebted to her son, at the time of giving him a deed voluntary upon its. face, is not sufficient, in the absence of any other evidence, to show that it was given in payment of the debt.

2. A mother and her son were each entitled to half of a legacy. The executor under a power of sale contained in the will conveyed to her a lot of land for an expressed money consideration, which was about equal to her share of the legacy, and the executor testified that the actual consideration for the conveyance was her receipt for that amount of the legacy. The same day he conveyed her another lot "for herself in trust for her son." The mother afterwards made a voluntary conveyance of the first lot to her son. Held, that the facts do not raise such a presumption that she bought the first lot with trust funds due her son as to give him an equity in the land superior for the rights of his mother's creditors.

S. A voluntary deed is constructively fraudulent as to existing creditors, although made in entire good faith by the parties to it, where it is necessary to resort to the land so conveyed for the payment of their debts.

Appeal from common pleas circuit court of Richland county; W. H. Wallace, Judge.

The decree referred to in the opinion is as follows: "This case has been twice tried on circuit, and on appeal to the supreme court, taken in each instance, the circuit decisions dismissing the complaint have been reversed, and the case remanded to the circuit court for a new trial. 29 S. C. 193, 7 S.E. Rep 252, and 10 S. E. Rep. 1074,

[12 S.E. 561]

(March, 1890. At this trial, in addition to the testimony taken at the former trials, there were put in evidence by the defendant, Lewis, certain receipts showing such payments by D. B. Lewis, executor of R. N. Lewis, to Emily Bateman, afterwards Cooper, on account of the legacy bequeathed her and her son, the defendant, Lewis, by R. N. Lewis, as left a balance due thereon of $1,279.58, November 29, 1870; also a receipt by R. M. Wallace, collector of internal revenue, for $165 paid for succession tax on said legacy by Mrs. Lewis, executrix of D. B.Lewis; also an obligation signed by B. I. Boone, agent of S. B. Lewis, executrix of D. B. Lewis, August 5, 1871, agreeing, in consideration of Emily Bateman forbearing to demand the balance of the said legacy in cash, to pay said Emily the balance of said legacy on January 1, 1872, with interest at 1 per cent. per month from the date thereof. The supreme court held (29 S. C. 199, 7 S. E. Rep. 252) ' that, to sustain the conclusion reached by the circuit judge at the first trial, it was necessary for the defendant, Lewis, to show—First, that his half of the legacy under the third clause of the will of R.N. Lewis had been paid to his mother, whereby she became indebted to him in that amount; second, that, in consideration of his releasing her from such indebtedness, the deed in question was executed.' The only additional testimony on the first, and indeed on any, point, was that above mentioned, which satisfied me of the payment of the legacy to the amount stated. There was no additional testimony to that already passed on by the supreme court, as to the second point, or that the deed in question was 'made in satisfaction of any indebtedness from Emily to her son.' 29 S. C. 200.1 This being the status of the case, there has not been sufficient testimony adduced to establish the fact that the deed for the lot in question, on its face voluntary, was based on valuable consideration; and it is therefore, as to the debt of John Agnew, contracted before its execution, fraudulent and void It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed: (1) That the conveyance by Emily Cooper (formerly Emily Bateman) to Nicholas Eugene Lewis, February 16, 1876, of all that lot, piece, or parcel of laud, lying and being situate in the county of Richland, city of Columbia, state of South Carolina, bounded north by Lewis Levy's lot, east by lot of the estate of R. N. Lewis, south by Washington street, and west by G. G. Newton's lot, the said lot being in shape of a rectangular parallelogram, measuring I0S feet, more or less, north and south, and 61 feet, more or less, east and west, together with all and singular the rights, members, hereditaments, and appurtenances to the said premises belonging and appertaining, is, and is hereby declared to be, as to the judgment of John Agnew, deceased, against said Emily Cooper, entered in the court of common pleas of the said county and state, June 5, 1878, for the seven hundred dollars and twenty-one cents, with interest from April 15, 1878, with twenty-three dollars and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Rice v. City Of D.C., (No. 12369.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 4, 1928
    ...is applied, and such transfers held to be constructively fraudulent. This is conceded to be the law in South Carolina (Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 12 S. E. 560; Farr v. Sims, Rich. Eq; Cas. 122, 24 Am. Dec. 396; Betts v. Richardson, 112 S. C. 279, 99 S. E. 815), and elsewhere, but where t......
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...of creditors, even though it might be perfectly clear that the transaction was free from any trace of moral fraud.' Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S.C. 1, 12 S.E. 560, 562; Miller v. Erwin, 129 S.C. 415, 125 S.E. 36; Temple v. Montgomery, 157 S.C. 85, 153 S.E. 640, 641, 647; Izard v. Middleton, Baile......
  • Thomson v. Crane, 588.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 23, 1896
    ...without regard to whether there was any actual or moral fraud in the conveyance. Parish v. Murphree, 13 How. 99; Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S.C. 1, 12 S.E. 560; Du Rant v. Du Rant, 36 S.C. 49, 14 S.E. 929; Cook v. Johnson, 12 N.J.Eq. 51; Baker v. Hollis, 84 Iowa, 682, 51 N.W. 78; Park v. Battey, ......
  • James v. Martin, (No. 12629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 4, 1929
    ...of the grantor, is fraudulent and void as to creditors, even if based upon a valuable consideration.' And again, in Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 12 S. E. 560: 'The law will not permit one who is indebted at the time to give his property away, provided such gift proves prejudicial to the in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Rice v. City Of D.C., (No. 12369.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • February 4, 1928
    ...is applied, and such transfers held to be constructively fraudulent. This is conceded to be the law in South Carolina (Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 12 S. E. 560; Farr v. Sims, Rich. Eq; Cas. 122, 24 Am. Dec. 396; Betts v. Richardson, 112 S. C. 279, 99 S. E. 815), and elsewhere, but where t......
  • Gardner v. Kirven, No. 14486.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • May 18, 1937
    ...of creditors, even though it might be perfectly clear that the transaction was free from any trace of moral fraud.' Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S.C. 1, 12 S.E. 560, 562; Miller v. Erwin, 129 S.C. 415, 125 S.E. 36; Temple v. Montgomery, 157 S.C. 85, 153 S.E. 640, 641, 647; Izard v. Middleton, Baile......
  • Thomson v. Crane, 588.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. District of Nevada
    • March 23, 1896
    ...without regard to whether there was any actual or moral fraud in the conveyance. Parish v. Murphree, 13 How. 99; Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S.C. 1, 12 S.E. 560; Du Rant v. Du Rant, 36 S.C. 49, 14 S.E. 929; Cook v. Johnson, 12 N.J.Eq. 51; Baker v. Hollis, 84 Iowa, 682, 51 N.W. 78; Park v. Battey, ......
  • James v. Martin, (No. 12629.)
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of South Carolina
    • April 4, 1929
    ...of the grantor, is fraudulent and void as to creditors, even if based upon a valuable consideration.' And again, in Jackson v. Lewis, 34 S. C. 1, 12 S. E. 560: 'The law will not permit one who is indebted at the time to give his property away, provided such gift proves prejudicial to the in......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT