Lewis v. Stanley

• Decision Date: 05 January 1897
• Docket Number: 17,701
• Citation: 45 N.E. 693,148 Ind. 351
• Parties: Lewis et al. v. Stanley et al
• Court: Indiana Supreme Court

45 N.E. 693

148 Ind. 351

Lewis et al. v. Stanley et al

No. 17,701

Supreme Court of Indiana

January 5, 1897

Rehearing Denied Sept. 23, 1897, Reported at: 148 Ind. 351 at 359.

From the Noble Circuit Court.

Reversed.

L. W Welker and W. L. Taylor, for appellants.

H. G Zimmerman, H. C. Peterson, R. W. McBride and C. S. Denny, for appellees.

OPINION

Howard, J.

The appellee, Comfort E. Stanley, is the widow and also the administratrix of the estate of Henry L. Stanley, deceased. This action was brought by the appellants, as claimants against the estate of said decedent, to set aside as fraudulent two deeds, one given by Henry L. Stanley and wife to the appellee, Abe Ackerman, and one from said Ackerman to Henry L. Stanley and Comfort E. Stanley, as husband and wife, and to subject the land so conveyed to the payment of said claims. Comfort E. Stanley answered the complaint by general denial, and also by a special plea to which a demurrer was sustained. She also filed a cross-complaint asserting her ownership of said land in fee simple, and asking to have her title quieted. The facts were found specially by the court, with conclusions of law; (1) that the deeds in question should be set aside as fraudulent against creditors; (2) that Comfort E. Stanley was the equitable owner of the undivided one-half of said land, and (3) that the remaining undivided one-half of the land should be sold in payment of the debts of said estate, subject to the right of the widow to the one-third thereof. The appellants contend that the court erred in its second and third conclusions of law, and also in overruling the motion for a new trial. The appellees assign cross-error as to the first conclusion of law, and also as to the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the special answer. The cross-errors, however, cannot be considered. Appellees took no exception to the first conclusion of law, and they have not discussed in their brief the alleged error of the court in sustaining the demurrer to the special paragraph of answer. Moreover, we do not think there was any error in the rulings complained of. See, as to the affirmative answer, Crow v. Carver, 133 Ind. 260, 32 N.E. 569.

The facts as found by the court show: (1) That on August 26 1884, the land in question was conveyed to Henry L. Stanley by his father for $ 4,000.00, of which sum $ 2,000.00 was treated as an advancement by the father of said Henry L., and the remaining $ 2,000.00 paid by the father of Comfort E., as an advancement to her husband and herself. She and her husband soon after joined in a receipt showing that her father had advanced her said sum of $ 2,000.00; (2) that the deed for the land was written, signed, and acknowledged in the absence of Henry L. and his wife, and afterwards, on the same day, Henry L. Stanley, together with his father and his wife's father, went to the office of the justice who had written the deed, and where the same was ready for delivery, at which time and place the deed was delivered to Henry L. by his father, his wife's father also then and there paying to Henry L.'s father said $ 2,000.00, the one-half of the purchase price of said land, for and on behalf of his said daughter; (3) that the conveyance so made was executed to and in the name of Henry L. Stanley alone, without the knowledge or consent of his said wife; (4) that the deed so made was accepted by said Henry L. Stanley, and duly recorded; (5) that on December 12, 1887, Henry L. Stanley purchased two lots in the town of Albion for $ 1,100.00, and placed the title thereto in the name of his wife, for the purpose of paying her the amount her father had put in the real estate in question, and thereafter he made improvements on said lots until he considered that he had made good to her the amount her father had advanced to them; that he owed no debts at the time when the title to said lots was so vested in his wife; but there is no evidence that she accepted or agreed to accept, and she did not accept the title to said lots in lieu of or in satisfaction of any right, title, or interest she had in the lands in question; (6) that on April 16, 1889, Henry L. Stanley purchased a second tract of land, paying part cash and assuming a mortgage debt for the remainder. This mortgage being foreclosed, he and his wife executed another mortgage on the same land to obtain money to pay off the first mortgage debt; (7) that on October 12, 1893, Henry L. Stanley and his wife conveyed the land in controversy to the appellant Ackerman, and on the same day, and as a part of the same transaction, Ackerman reconveyed the land to Stanley and wife, to be held by them by entireties; (8) that there was no consideration for either of the said conveyances, but they were both made for the purpose of placing the title to said real estate in the joint names of Henry L. Stanley and his wife, with the full knowledge on their part that the land would thus be placed beyond reach of the creditors of Henry L. Stanley, and the further purpose of cheating, hindering, delaying, and defrauding such creditors; (9) that until several days after her husband's death, Comfort E. Stanley had no knowledge at any time that her husband was indebted to anyone except as to the mortgage debt mentioned in finding six, and also a debt due to the appellant, Walker, which latter debt is likewise secured upon the property for which the indebtedness was incurred; (10) that the land in controversy, on October 12, 1893, when it was conveyed to Henry L. Stanley and wife to be held by entireties, was worth $ 3,200.00; (11) that Henry L. Stanley was then insolvent, and so remained until his death, November 6, 1893; (12) that on November 21, 1893, Comfort E. Stanley was appointed administratrix of her husband's estate, and is claiming to be the owner of the real estate in controversy by reason of the conveyance mentioned in...