Levi v. Rothschild

• Decision Date: 14 June 1888
• Citation: 14 A. 535,69 Md. 348
• Parties: LEVI ET UX. v. ROTHSCHILD ET AL.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

14 A. 535

69 Md. 348

LEVI ET UX. v. ROTHSCHILD ET AL.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

June 14, 1888

Appeal from circuit court of Baltimore city.

Argued before ALVEY, C.J., and MILLER, STONE, BRYAN, MCSHERRY, and ROBINSON, JJ.

M Star Weil, for appellants.

Fielder C. Slingluff and Wm. L. Dallam, for appellees.

ROBINSON J.

This is a bill by the creditors of a husband to set aside a deed of a house to his wife, and which on its face shows she was the purchaser, on the ground that the money applied to the payment of the house was in fact the husband's money, and that the deed was made to her in fraud of his creditors. It can hardly be necessary to say that, where a conveyance is made to a married woman, the burden of proof is upon the wife to show that the property was purchased and paid for out of money belonging to her; and that, in the absence of such proof, the presumption is that the husband furnished the means of payment. Winter v. Walter, 37 Pa. St. 155; Seits v. Mitchell, 94 U.S. 580; Hinkle v. Wilson, 53 Md. 287. In addition to this, it is admitted that $1,800 of the $2,600 applied in payment of the house was received by the wife from her husband a short time before his failure in business, with full knowledge, on her part, that he was in failing circumstances. Now, what is the proof in support of the bona fides of this transaction? The husband, Levi, says he was married in 1876 in Baltimore, and shortly afterwards went to Clarksburgh Va.; and, while doing business there, his wife loaned him $2,000, which she had received as a marriage gift from her father, and which he promised to repay as soon as he could. That, after being in business about a year, he sold out his stores to Nusbaum & Taylor, taking their promissory notes for between six and seven thousand dollars in payment; and these notes, on his returning to Baltimore, he assigned to his father-in-law, Heinman, expecting at the time to go into partnership with him; but, being unable to agree upon terms with his father-in-law, he removed to Ottumwa, Iowa, taking with him merchandise of the value of $7,000 bought of his father-in-law in payment of the Nusbaum & Taylor notes. That after being in business there about four years, he was obliged to make an assignment for the benefit of his creditors; the preferred creditors being Heinman, his father-in-law, and to whom the assignee afterwards paid the entire assets, amounting to nearly $9,000. That, some months before his failure, he paid to his wife different sums of money, amounting altogether to $1,800, on account of the $2,000 loaned to him in Clarksburgh. This money she kept in her bureau till they removed to Baltimore, and she afterwards used it in the payment of the house in question. Unfortunately, however, for all this, the wife tells quite a different story, and one utterly inconsistent with her husband's testimony. ...