Krueger v. Macdougald
Decision Date | 14 September 1918 |
Docket Number | (No. 705.) |
Citation | 96 S.E. 867,148 Ga. 429 |
Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
Parties | KRUEGER et al. v. MacDOUGALD. |
(Syllabus by the Court.)
Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; J. T. Pendleton, Judge.
Action by Daniel MacDougald, trustee in bankruptcy, against Charles Krueger and others. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendants bring error. Affirmed.
Suit was brought by a trustee in bankruptcy against Charles Krueger, a bankrupt, and his wife, to cancel certain conveyances of real estate and transfers of certain corporate stocks; the plaintiff alleging the property so conveyed was the property of Charles Krueger and had been conveyed by him to his wife in fraud of his creditors, and praying, amongst other things, that the property be subjected to the payment of two debts against the bankrupt, the one in favor of Mrs. J. R. Patillo for $3,328, besides interest, and the other in favor of the Atlanta National Bank for $2,509.06, besides interest. The defendants filed answers. In that of the wife, amongst other matters, she alleged as follows:
After the filing of this answer, the plaintiff amended his petition by filing a pleading in the nature of a replication, in which it was alleged that even if the defendant Mrs. Krueger had an equitable interest in the property in question, resulting from the use by her husband of her money in its purchase, she was estopped to assert it as against the creditors upon whose behalf this suit was brought.
The plaintiff proved the debts sued upon, and showed that Chas. Krueger held the legal title to both the real estate and the corporate stocks in question at the time Que credit was extended, the former under conveyance to him duly executed and recorded in the year 1900, and the latter under stock certificates issued to him at dates ranging from 1905 to March 1, 1911; all of these dates being anterior to the extension of the credit upon which the debts sued upon were based. It was further shown that upon investigation the creditors named found the title to the property in question to be in the bankrupt, and that the credits were extended upon the faith of the apparent ownership of the property by him. Mrs. Krueger testified to the allegations as laid in her answer, that her money paid for the real estate, and that her husband took the title in his name under the circumstances stated in her answer. She further testified that she borrowed the money from her father which was invested in the corporate stocks in question, and sent the money to her husband to be so invested, and that he took the title in his name, and for the reasons stated in her answer conveyed to her, in 1912, the property in question, the real estate by deeds which were of record, the corporate stocks by transfer of the certificates. It was shown that the bankrupt and his wife jointly occupied the real estate as a home from the date of its purchase thenceforward. The corporate stocks were shown to be of the actual value of $38,500. There was no evidence that at the time the credit was extended the creditors extending the credit had any knowledge of the claim asserted by her to the property. The trial judge, taking the view that the wife having permitted the husband to take title in his own name, to treat the properly and deal with it for a number of years as his own, and to obtain credit on the faith of his apparent ownership, it would be a fraud in law to permit her to set up her secret equity as against the creditors without notice of her claim, held that she was estopped to assert her alleged equity, and directed a verdict finding the property subject, by decree canceling the conveyance to the wife of the real estate and us well the transfer toher of the corporate stocks. Error was assigned upon this judgment.
Bell, Ellis & Bell and Colquitt & Conyers, all of Atlanta, for plaintiffs in error.
Bryan, Jordan & Middlebrooks, of Atlanta, for defendant in error.
ATKINSON, J. (after stating the facts as above). [1] 1. The principle announced in the first headnote is so universally recognized that it is unnecessary either to cite...
To continue reading
Request your trial