Lane-Moore Lumber Co. v. Bradford
| Decision Date | 15 June 1910 |
| Citation | 126 N.W. 944,148 Iowa 578 |
| Parties | LANE-MOORE LUMBER CO. ET AL. v. BRADFORD ET AL. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Buena Vista County; D. F. Coyle, Judge.
Creditor's bill to set aside conveyance and to subject property to the lien of plaintiffs' judgments. There was a decree granting partial relief and denying other relief. Plaintiffs appeal. Defendants also have taken a cross-appeal. Affirmed on both appeals.Edson & Moulton, for appellants.
James De Land and Faville & Whitney, for appellees.
Defendants S. C. Bradford and Catherine Bradford are husband and wife. The defendants Brenton and the Bank of Dallas Center may be deemed as identical for the purpose of this case; Brenton being one of the owners of the bank. The business involved in this inquiry was transacted for the bank by Brenton. For convenience of discussion of this feature of the case, we shall use Brenton's name alone. It is urged in argument by defendants' counsel that there is not sufficient evidence of the insolvency of S. C. Bradford to sustain a creditor's bill. We dispose of this contention first as preliminary to any further statement of the case. To our minds such contention is too heroic. The insolvency of Bradford is a mountain peak in the case, and is visible from every point. Our discussion of the case will therefore be based upon the assumption of the insolvency of Bradford. Plaintiffs are judgment creditors of S. C. Bradford alone, and their claims accrued long prior to any of the transactions here considered. The record in the case covers an inquiry into a large number of transactions, and the case is exceedingly complicated in its details. The real controversy in the case arises over questions of fact, and this not so much over any conflict in the evidence as over the ultimate conclusions of fact to be drawn from the evidence. The case in all of its complications has been set forth with commendable clearness in the arguments of respective counsel, and we have therefore had little difficulty in getting a clear comprehension of the various branches of the case. It would be impossible, however, for us to enter into a satisfactory discussion of the facts in the case without extending our opinion to an undue length, and we shall do little more than to state our conclusions upon the different features of the case which have been presented for our consideration.
Some time in 1907 certain negotiations were had between the defendants, the Bradfords and Brenton. Bradford was at that time insolvent and had been so for some time prior thereto. Prior to this time, he had been the owner of a farm, known in the record as “Grass Lake Farm,” consisting of 1,200 acres. He had held a contract for its purchase for some years from Lot Thomas. The contract matured in 1905, and Bradford was unable to perform. An arrangement was entered into, however, whereby Thomas conveyed the farm to Mrs. Bradford, and mortgages for the purchase money were executed by her as the owner thereof. The interest on these mortgages was thereafter allowed to become delinquent, and a foreclosure sale thereof was had, and the time of redemption had nearly expired when an arrangement was entered into with Brenton whereby he negotiated mortgage loans on such property of $60,000. Later a $10,000 mortgage was executed on the same property as a third mortgage. The legal title to this property continued in Mrs. Bradford up to the time of the beginning of this suit, when she conveyed it back to her husband subject to the mortgages, and disclaimed any beneficiary interest therein. Some time following the negotiation of the mortgage loans above referred to, some negotiations were had between the same parties with reference to future transactions in the purchase and sale of real estate. Bradford had some knowledge and experience along that line. He desired to purchase real estate, but had neither funds nor credit. Brenton refused to loan funds to Bradford for that purpose because of his insolvency, but signified his willingness to make proper loans to Mrs. Bradford from time to time as occasion might arise. The arrangement was verbal and indefinite and informal, but it was assented to by Mrs. Bradford and her husband. Pursuant thereto, many tracts of real estate were purchased mostly by executory contract drawn in the name of Mrs. Bradford as purchaser. The money necessary for the performance of these contracts was loaned by Brenton upon notes executed by Mrs. Bradford and secured in all cases by an assignment of the contract to him or by a conveyance of the property. The actual business relating to such purchases was transacted by Bradford as purported agent for his wife, acting upon the most general authority as such agent. The judgment and experience of the husband furnished the main reliance of the wife in all of such transactions. Sales of many tracts were made largely in the form of trades for stocks of merchandise. For the purpose of handling these stocks of merchandise, a corporationwas organized with a capital of $10,000. The necessary working capital was advanced by Brenton, and $8,300 worth of the stock was issued to Mrs. Bradford, and by her pledged to Brenton as collateral for the moneys advanced. Bradford contributed no property to any of these enterprises, except that he contributed about $700 in value to the capital stock of the corporation, for which stock was issued to him and to one of his creditors; and except, further, that he transferred to his wife a certain contract or option which he held for 461 acres of land. This contract was entirely executory, and nothing had been paid thereon, nor had there been any increase in the value of the land at the time it was transferred to his wife.
At the time of the trial, Mrs. Bradford purported to be the equitable owner of several tracts of land purchased in pursuance of the arrangement above stated, all of which, however, were incumbered by her obligations to pay the purchase money under the contracts of purchase, and further incumbered by her obligations to Brenton for moneys advanced in partial performance of the contracts. At the time of the trial, Brenton held her personal notes for more than $20,000 independent of the notes which she had executed in the negotiation of loans upon the Grass Lake farm....
To continue reading
Request your trial